The new Ultra Mega Bad Ass Mother 3000 Political Thread o Rama! [Archive] - Page 9

the4thpip

08-25-2005, 07:50 AM

New York Times: "It took President Bush a long time to break his summer vacation and acknowledge the pain that the families of fallen soldiers are feeling as the death toll in Iraq continues to climb. When he did, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Utah this week, he said exactly the wrong thing. In an address that repeatedly invoked Sept. 11 -- the day that terrorists who had no discernable connection whatsoever to Iraq attacked targets on American soil -- Mr. Bush offered a new reason for staying the course: to keep faith with the men and women who have already died in the war. . . . It was, as the mother of one fallen National Guardsman said, an argument that 'makes no sense.' No one wants young men and women to die just because others have already made the ultimate sacrifice. The families of the dead do not want that, any more than they want to see more soldiers die because politicians cannot bear to admit that they sent American forces to war by mistake."

Los Angeles Times: "President Bush's sunny declaration on Monday that Baghdad's leaders were 'defying the terrorists and pessimists by completing work on a democratic constitution' was unfortunate not only for its timing but for its willfulness. Just hours after Bush's speech, Iraqi leaders announced (again) that they were unable to agree on a draft constitution. Just as disturbing, however, is the continuing disconnect between the president's perspective and Iraq's reality. . . . . In his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Bush again conflated Al Qaeda and Iraq, neglecting to note that Al Qaeda put down roots in Iraq only after the invasion or that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 or Osama bin Laden. His description of Iraq's constitutional negotiations -- 'a difficult process that involves debate and compromise' -- understates the depth of animosity in Iraq. . . . As more Americans and Iraqis die, Washington and Baghdad need a plan to stem the chaos the U.S. unleashed with its invasion -- a chaos that has given terrorists a new recruiting tool. Wishful thinking and stubborn optimism do not constitute a policy. The sooner realism prevails, complete with metrics for progress and consequences for those who fail to meet them, the better."

Denver Post: "The president believes an effective constitution will fortify Iraq's founding democracy and allow the withdrawal of American troops to begin next year. It appears, however, that the constitution will include elements that 130,000 Americans might not think they're fighting for -- a limitation of women's rights, for example, and a strong role for strict Islamic law."

Salt Lake Tribune: "Imposing democracy at gunpoint in Iraq is looking more and more like a fool's errand. Nevertheless, President Bush continues to try, mostly because, at this point, that's about all the United States can do. See the constitutional process through, then get out. If you want a U.S. exit strategy in a nutshell, that's it. . . . The best the United States can hope to do at this point is give cover to the stop-and-go process of writing an Iraqi constitution and holding elections for a new government. After that, the United States should withdraw its troops. Because every day that the United States remains in Iraq only increases resentment of the occupation and strengthens the forces of terrorism. That is the opposite of what the United States is trying to accomplish. When a leader and a nation reach that kind of a realization, it is time to change strategy."

Adam Crocker

08-25-2005, 08:07 AM

ADL - if that argument holds then I have to call Mr. "assassinate" Robinson's Christian Coalition for you. Personally I don't know what the ADL is so Bri's statement doesn't mean a whole lot on truthfulness...

The Anti-Defamation League, an organization set up to combat anti-semitism. Mind you, the ADL also seems to believe that most criticism of the state Israel is anti-semitic in itself so I wouldn't put stock in someone being an anti-semite just on their say-so. They've also spied on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League#Collaboration_with_South_Africa. 27s_Apartheid_Regime) the African National Congress (ANC - South Africa's main anti-apartied organization) back in the 80s.

That said, if that's evidence of the Democratic party being a racist (and McGruder isn't even a member and how is that example racism when McGruder is also black?)*, anti-semitic organization I suppose the same could count for Republicans given Lott's praise of Thurmond, Michelle Malkin's praise for internment of Japanese in WWII including Japanese Americans (which btw, was a hypocritical (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm000524.shtml) position considering that earlier she said it was awful), Coulter's remarks Arabs, Chief Charles W. Williams - appointed by Bush as chairman of the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement - who said in a discrimination suit that "black bastards" and "porch monkeys" were not slurs, Ashcroft opposing the appointment of Ronnie White - first black judge on the Missouri Supreme Court (claimed he was anti-death penalty even though he voted for it in 41 out of 59 cases), and Reagan trying to circumvent the long standing policy of denying tax exemption to schools that practice racial discrimination by granting one to Bob Jones University.

And then there's Cheney voting in 1986 against recognition of the ANC, freeing Mandela, and imposing sanctions on the Apartheid regime.

Christ, I don't like the Dems myself. And some of the examples you posted makes it clear they have their own share of dodgy people, but Bri if you are going to continue to be a Republican partisan, your own party doesn't hold up well either to the standards you presented. Perhaps even less if you take a look at the origins of the Southern Strategy that was used by Nixon to establish a voting base in the South in the 1970s.

* Overblown, unsupported accusation I guess, though I don't even know what he's going after Powell over.

Magneto_X

08-25-2005, 09:56 AM

WaPo: U.S. Wants Changes To U.N. Agreement

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1725989

Jeff Brady

08-25-2005, 11:15 AM

Jeff, these things are mostly verifiable facts... instead of calling someone a liar, why don't you do some research yourself? I almost never see the lefties around here backing up their claims with links... in fact, when I ask for links, they say I'm "changing the subject" instead of admitting they're BSing... LOL.

Look, I'll even do the 1st one for you...
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4496_12.htm

There, that took all of 5 seconds... you can do the rest.

No, I'm not doing the rest. See, in my post, I provided a bunch of links to counter Bri's claims. He DID NOT provide any links at all. He just said a bunch of crap. Pip puts a link in almost all of his posts, as does MagnetoX.

The link YOU provided for the Anti-Defamation League, an organization dedicated to stopping anti-Semitism...umm. How are they anti-Semitic? I'm so very confused by that. It seems to me that thay're PRO-Semitism. Apparently, someone missed the logic train.

Also, it's not your job to prove Bri's points. It's his. Let him take up some responsibility.

EdContradictory

08-25-2005, 11:35 AM

Also, it's not your job to prove Bri's points. It's his. Let him take up some responsibility.
Maybe Bri and Sam are the same person.

God I hope so. It's hard thinking there are two like that out running around and procreating.

Adam Crocker

08-25-2005, 11:48 AM

Also, it's not your job to prove Bri's points. It's his. Let him take up some responsibility.

No, but if Samurai wants to chime in on the matter he's free to do so.

Samurai

08-25-2005, 11:50 AM

Even if all of them are true (and they aren't), NONE of them prove that any Democratic organization is in anyway racist.

Briar's main "point" that he thinks he's proving is ridiculous and well-deserving of ridicule.

Or does Senator Lott praising a pro-segregationist political ticket automatically make all Republicans racists, too?
I didn't say they prove anything... but instead of saying what amounts to "I've never heard of any of this stuff! You're making it all up/lying!", why doesn't he educate himself and dispute the points? For instance, the left contended they blocked Miguel Estrada because he was a "right-wing nut" (defined as "more right-wing than Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi"...) It wasn't true, of course (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003141), but you could use it. Most on the right feel the real reason he was blocked was because Bush was promoting and appointing "too many" minorities, especially hispanics, to positions of authority and that it might attract hispanic/minority voters in the 2004 elections. Bush's record on this is the best in history.

Adam Crocker

08-25-2005, 11:56 AM

For instance, the left contended they blocked Miguel Estrada because he was a "right-wing nut" (defined as "more right-wing than Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi"...) It wasn't true, of course (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003141), but you could use it. Most on the right feel the real reason he was blocked was because Bush was promoting and appointing "too many" minorities, especially hispanics, to positions of authority and that it might attract hispanic/minority voters in the 2004 elections.

However, if he was blocked for that reason it strikes me as having less to do with racism on the part of the Democrats than pure political opportunism to keep the Republicans from horning in on the Hispanic vote. So it's dodgy, but not in a racist fashion.

By the way, for some reason the link your provided is for an article on Iraq's constitution rather than the judge issue.

Samurai

08-25-2005, 12:11 PM

However, if he was blocked for that reason it strikes me as having less to do with racism on the part of the Democrats than pure political opportunism to keep the Republicans from horning in on the Hispanic vote. So it's dodgy, but not in a racist fashion.

By the way, for some reason the link your provided is for an article on Iraq's constitution rather than the judge issue.
weird... let me try to correct that.

Hmmm, I still have that window open, and it shows the exact same address as the Iraqi article! Ok, here's the text:

Democrats for Estrada
Bush's nominee wins praise from the Clinton Justice Department.

Sunday, March 2, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

Is Miguel Estrada a right-wing nut? That's the essence of the charge made by Democratic Senators filibustering his appeals-court nomination.

To answer that cosmic question, the Senators insist they need access to memos Mr. Estrada wrote while working in the Clinton Justice Department--knowing full well that no President is going to hand over such confidential internal documents.

As White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales has noted, 67 other former Justice officials have been appointed to federal courts and somehow no Senator felt the need to ask for internal memos on them. All living former Solicitors General--including the three Democrats Mr. Estrada served under--support Justice's refusal to release the memos.

As this suggests, it's also false to say that no Democrats have seen Mr. Estrada's handiwork. His three former bosses certainly have. Why don't Senate Democrats simply call them up and ask them if they think he's a wacko who'll ignore the law when it suits his purposes? If anyone is qualified to comment on whether his views are "out of the mainstream," wouldn't it be the professionals who supervised his legal work?

Here's what some former colleagues--all Democrats--have already had to say about Mr. Estrada.

• Seth Waxman, former Solicitor General: "During the time Mr. Estrada and I worked together, he was a model of professionalism and competence." And, "In no way did I ever discern that the recommendations Mr. Estrada made or the analyses he propounded were colored in any way by his personal views."

• Drew Days III, another former SG: "I think he's a superb lawyer." Mr. Days's signature appears on performance reviews giving Mr. Estrada the highest possible rating--"outstanding"--in every category.

• Robert Litt, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General: "I have never felt that the arguments he made were in any way outside the scope of legitimate legal analysis."

• Randolph Moss, former Assistant Attorney General: "He has a near-encyclopedic knowledge of the law, a powerful intellect, and an ability to bring coherence to even the most complicated legal doctrine."

Mr. Days, by the way, thought so much of Mr. Estrada that he put him in charge of a highly visible abortion-rights case, National Organization of Women v. Scheidler. This "far-right stealth nominee," as Senator Chuck Schumer likes to call him, represented the far-left NOW, making the case that anti-abortion protestors could be prosecuted under the federal racketeering laws. In 1994 unanimous Supreme Court accepted his arguments. (Last week the Court ruled against NOW on a different point of law.) It's hard to think of a better demonstration that Mr. Estrada will apply the law fairly at the appellate level.

Of course, that's not what this Democratic filibuster of Mr. Estrada is really about. Rather, it's about derailing the nomination of a conservative precisely because he is young, talented and Hispanic. They know that if he makes it to the appellate bench he'd gain a valuable credential toward a potential nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Ergo, Estrada delenda est.

Mr. Schumer said the other day that "If Mr. Estrada were a mainstream conservative, I would vote for him." If that bore even a casual relationship to the truth, the Senator wouldn't be so clearly avoiding the testimony of fellow Democrats who will tell him that is precisely what Mr. Estrada is.
As for your reasoning, it's correct, but some might say voting against someone because of their race is racist, whether you are doing it for political motives or because you hate that race. I'm certain that motives other than personal hatred were often the real reason for much of the racism in the past. How many blacks were discriminated against not because that person really hated blacks, but because it was "the thing to do" to fit in to the society of the day? Does that mean their behaviour wasn't racism? IMO, discrimination based on race is racism... and yes, that includes Affirmative Action.

Adam Crocker

08-25-2005, 12:52 PM

Hmmm, I still have that window open, and it shows the exact same address as the Iraqi article!

Damn. Very weird.

As for your reasoning, it's correct, but some might say voting against someone because of their race is racist, whether you are doing it for political motives or because you hate that race. I'm certain that motives other than personal hatred were often the real reason for much of the racism in the past. How many blacks were discriminated against not because that person really hated blacks, but because it was "the thing to do" to fit in to the society of the day? Does that mean their behaviour wasn't racism? IMO, discrimination based on race is racism... and yes, that includes Affirmative Action.

I disagree. From all I've read about it 'racism' is the belief that race defines the character and abilities of people. None of the reasons given for why the Democrats supposedly voted the way they did actually touch upon either racial beliefs on the part of the Democrats or them going along with racist societal standards that believe its unacceptable to have minority in high office. The argument made is that they are voted so in order to keep the Republicans from placing Hispanic judge on the bench in order to keep a lock on the Hispanic vote. That's definitely counts for playing dodgy and very unethical racial politics, but is not an exercise of racism since it has nothing to do with ideas about superiority, inferiority, or innate character being defined by race.

And yes if you take a closer look at the examples I responded to Bri's post with, a few may not hold up under similar scrutiny as this (a cookie to anyone who can name one), but of course my point was that by the standards Bri was using I could judge the Republican Party as racist as well. And while I haven't looked in depth at all of them I think a few of his examples fall apart under further scrutiny such as McGruder and this one.

As for the article itself, it makes an interesting point by contrasting what the Democratic SGs and AGs said about Estrada, but I find it odd that nowhere does the author actually mention that they wanted to keep Estrada out in order to keep Hispanic Republicans off the benches to undercut them wooing away the Hispanic vote.

Samurai

08-25-2005, 01:24 PM

There are many other sites that allude to that reasoning... trust me, among Republican circles, that is the belief.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_2_28_03sm.html
But Schumer and the Democrats may be unwittingly turning the gun they’ve aimed at Estrada back onto themselves. Even before the Estrada imbroglio, Republicans had been making inroads with Hispanic voters. President Bush captured 35 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2000, and his approval ratings among Hispanics have been growing during his presidency. Now, with many Latino groups reacting with outrage to the tactics employed against Estrada, more Hispanic voters may start questioning their traditional allegiance to the Democrats.

New York could be fertile ground to test this theory. Several New York Republicans have already exploited Democratic weaknesses among Hispanic voters. Gov. George Pataki captured 40 percent of the Hispanic vote last November, which is credited with helping him win his landslide reelection victory. Rudy Giuliani won 43 percent of their vote in 1997. Michael Bloomberg did even better in 2001, when nearly half of New York City’s Hispanics voted for him, providing him with his slim margin of victory.

It's hard to find any reputable sites that out and out say it, and many MSM sites try to turn it around, claiming Bush only nominated a Hispanic in a cheap attempt to win votes close to the election. (Not true... he has nominated many hispanics for years, such as Gaddi Vasquez, President Bush's Director of the Peace Corps, Rosario Marin for Treasurer of the United States, and Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General.)

As for thoughts determining racism, I totally disagree. It is the actions that matter, not the reasoning behind it. Telling someone "I won't hire you because of your race" is racism and discrimination, whether you are doing it because you personally hate that race or because of a govt quota. Forcing blacks to sit at the back of the bus is racism whether the bus driver himself hates blacks or is just following the bus company policy. Requiring that the person doing the discrimination must personally hate that race excuses a TON of racism, both past and present.

kingdom2000

08-25-2005, 05:41 PM

The Anti-Defamation League, an organization set up to combat anti-semitism. Mind you, the ADL also seems to believe that most criticism of the state Israel is anti-semitic in itself so I wouldn't put stock in someone being an anti-semite just on their say-so. They've also spied on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League#Collaboration_with_South_Africa. 27s_Apartheid_Regime) the African National Congress (ANC - South Africa's main anti-apartied organization) back in the 80s.

That said, if that's evidence of the Democratic party being a racist (and McGruder isn't even a member and how is that example racism when McGruder is also black?)*, anti-semitic organization I suppose the same could count for Republicans given Lott's praise of Thurmond, Michelle Malkin's praise for internment of Japanese in WWII including Japanese Americans (which btw, was a hypocritical (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm000524.shtml) position considering that earlier she said it was awful), Coulter's remarks Arabs, Chief Charles W. Williams - appointed by Bush as chairman of the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement - who said in a discrimination suit that "black bastards" and "porch monkeys" were not slurs, Ashcroft opposing the appointment of Ronnie White - first black judge on the Missouri Supreme Court (claimed he was anti-death penalty even though he voted for it in 41 out of 59 cases), and Reagan trying to circumvent the long standing policy of denying tax exemption to schools that practice racial discrimination by granting one to Bob Jones University.

And then there's Cheney voting in 1986 against recognition of the ANC, freeing Mandela, and imposing sanctions on the Apartheid regime.

Christ, I don't like the Dems myself. And some of the examples you posted makes it clear they have their own share of dodgy people, but Bri if you are going to continue to be a Republican partisan, your own party doesn't hold up well either to the standards you presented. Perhaps even less if you take a look at the origins of the Southern Strategy that was used by Nixon to establish a voting base in the South in the 1970s.

* Overblown, unsupported accusation I guess, though I don't even know what he's going after Powell over.

Sheesh, nice list. Truly impressive. Hate to think what would come up with if gave it a lot of thought. Even now I doubt Bri can truly appreciate how ironic and hypocritical his statement was.

the4thpip

08-26-2005, 12:19 AM

Allannis Morisette might not think so, but I sure find it ironic when Samurai tries to prove facts by posting a link called opinionjournal. :D

Samurai

08-26-2005, 01:31 AM

Allannis Morisette might not think so, but I sure find it ironic when Samurai tries to prove facts by posting a link called opinionjournal. :D
Obviously you have not read or understood what I wrote then... I was talking about the opinion that the Dems filibustered Estrada because he is Latino, and they didn't want to let Bush appoint yet another minority (especially a latino, a group they are losing their hold on) to a high ranking office. The Dems say they filibustered him because he was such a radical right-winger, but even their fellow Dems outside of Congress called BS on that one. Trying to discern the motivations of people is a matter of opinion, not fact...

the4thpip

08-26-2005, 10:17 AM

How long will the United States detain innocent men?

We reported earlier this month on some Muslim men from China who have been held in U.S. custody at Guantánamo Bay for three years. They're being held there still, despite the fact that a U.S. Combatant Status Review Tribunal has concluded that they're not enemy combatants and were seized by Pakistani forces -- and then turned over to the United States -- in error.

At a hearing in Washington yesterday, government lawyers said that the United States has moved the men to a less restrictive part of Guantánamo, but that it still isn't setting them free. The U.S. won't send them back to China for fear that they'd face religious persecution there, and it says it hasn't been able to find anyone else to take them in. As the Washington Post reports, attorneys for the men argued that the United States must set them free now, and that putting them into a less restrictive area at Guantánamo simply amounts to "fluffing the pillows" when they're still locked up behind a fence. The men could be released into the United States population as seekers of political asylum, attorneys said.

The government isn't interested. Although U.S. District Judge James Robertson expressed some discomfort with the "big picture" -- that is, that innocent men are being held for no reason -- he said he wants to think further before making any decision. The government? Having exposed the men to more dangerous elements within Guantánamo, it wants to keep them locked up there until it can find some other country to take them. "We can continue to hold them ... for as long as it takes," the Justice Department's Terry Henry told the court Thursday.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2005/08/26/detainees/index.html

the4thpip

08-26-2005, 10:34 AM

Obviously you have not read or understood what I wrote then... I was talking about the opinion that the Dems filibustered Estrada because he is Latino, and they didn't want to let Bush appoint yet another minority (especially a latino, a group they are losing their hold on) to a high ranking office. The Dems say they filibustered him because he was such a radical right-winger, but even their fellow Dems outside of Congress called BS on that one. Trying to discern the motivations of people is a matter of opinion, not fact...
Bullshit, girlfriend.
You weren't talking about opinions, you made a statement of (supposed) fact. Your exact words were:
It wasn't true, of course (http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...l?id=110003141), but you could use it
Worst. Debater. Ever.

Briareos

08-26-2005, 02:05 PM

And you guys think there's no liberal media...

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0805/jkelly.php3

Briareos

08-26-2005, 02:12 PM

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050825-090528-8396r.htm

'Wonderful time to be a soldier'
TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By Joe Roche
August 26, 2005

I'm very proud to be a soldier of the U.S. Army because of the war on terror and our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not alone either. I'm surrounded by soldiers who are re-enlisting and volunteering to go to units that are deploying. In fact, despite all the negative news and protests, I see everyday that our military is actually doing very well.
This is quite obvious, except for the fact that most of the media seems asphyxiated with defeatism. The message from most journalists would lead you to believe that we soldiers are getting out, that no one is joining anew and that we want to stop fighting. This simply isn't true.
Yes, recruitment is lower, but the caliber of those who are signing up and the rates of re-enlistment are both extremely high. All 10 of our major combat divisions are ahead of expectations for retention of soldiers. In my unit, there are soldiers who specifically went active duty from the reserves because they want to go to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Before September 11, a lot of soldiers were happy to just enjoy the benefits. Since that day, those soldiers have left. That is fine and not the disaster that defeatist reports are making it seem. Such soldiers were never the types to want to go on long deployments and face combat. Yes, they were heroes for signing up and being in a job that could go that direction, but they had other priorities that made their service contingent on enjoying the benefits rather than serving in war.
That changed on September 11. Now, just as we are told to expect when joining, we are going to combat and many soldiers are getting injured and killed. This is our job, and it is what we know can happen. I don't know why the media insists on trumpeting the idea that all of us are tired and worn out and just want to stop fighting. I don't, and I am not alone.
The fact is that we are not experiencing casualty rates anywhere near past conflicts, nor for that matter as bad as during peacetime. There were weeks in Vietnam when 350-400 Americans died, and in other wars thousands would die in single battles. Nothing like that is happening now.
From 1983 to 1996, more than 18,000 soldiers died. That averages to more than 1,300 a year, far more than have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan each year. Yes, that was mostly from accidents, drunk driving and other mishaps. Yet, while protesters in Crawford, Texas and elsewhere would have you think that our military can't survive with the low casualty rates of this war, I wonder why they were willing to accept the much higher peacetime casualty rates of the past? We lost around 3,000 innocent people on September 11, and with four years of war and the toppling of two regimes, we haven't lost that many in combat.
Injuries are high, but they are nothing compared to past conflicts. And most striking is how many are recovering well. I have been to both of the major military hospitals involved in this war, Landstuhl in Germany and Walter Reed in Washington, and I can tell you that there are many soldiers who have lost limbs in Iraq and Afghanistan and who want to return to their units and get redeployed.
Like I said earlier, though, the striking fact I see every day is that the soldiers who are joining now are of much higher caliber than those who joined before September 11. The senior commandant of the Marines recently testified before Congress that the same is happening with them. There maybe fewer than before, but those that do show up are willing and dedicated to being deployed and going to combat. These are also the types who are re-enlisting more than ever before. In fact, re-enlistment is up to 130 percent of expectations in some divisions.
My wife is in the National Guard. Theirs is an interesting experience right now in that there have been more casualties by accidents and reckless behavior off-duty than in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why are protesters not upset about that? Sadly it appears that much of the media are obsessed with defeatism. Even the message of the protesters — contradictory, false and confused as ever — is made front-page headline news every day. The few people they can exploit to push this defeatist agenda are made to appear to speak for all of us. That just isn't true.
Contrary to all the bad news, I see everyday that our soldiers are motivated and eager to contribute and participate in our nation's military missions. This is a very proud and important time to be serving. Considering that out of a population of 285 million, less than one-tenth of one percent are going to war right now, and considering the huge impact we are having on the world, this is a wonderful time to be a soldier in the U.S. Army.

Sgt. Joe Roche is with the 12th Aviation Battalion and stationed at Fort Belvoir.

kingdom2000

08-26-2005, 05:19 PM

^ so?

I am sure there are many soldiers happy and proud of what they are doing just like there are many soldiers who are not. Same for families, mothers, etc (which is why sheehan is non-news but republicans did legitmize her). Not sure what the point of the article is.

Jeff Brady

08-26-2005, 06:41 PM

And you guys think there's no liberal media...

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0805/jkelly.php3

I'm gonna say it:

MUMBLER!

Yes, there are liberal media outlets. But as posted a page or so back, the whole of mainstream media is not liberal. The majority of it is conservative.

Try again.

Briareos

08-26-2005, 11:10 PM

I'm gonna say it:

MUMBLER!

Yes, there are liberal media outlets. But as posted a page or so back, the whole of mainstream media is not liberal. The majority of it is conservative.

Try again.

and a vast majority (i forget exact numbers it was over 75%) voted Democrat in the last election.

Also you list a bunch of radio stations that cover at best one city and there are how many radio stations per city?

And for every Fox News there is PBS,NBC,CBS,CNN,ABC, and MSNBC.

And every newspapers stories besides their local ones are written by the new york times or AP or Reuters.

Noah Johnson

08-27-2005, 01:06 AM

and a vast majority (i forget exact numbers it was over 75%) voted Democrat in the last election.

Also you list a bunch of radio stations that cover at best one city and there are how many radio stations per city?

And for every Fox News there is PBS,NBC,CBS,CNN,ABC, and MSNBC.

And every newspapers stories besides their local ones are written by the new york times or AP or Reuters.

Except that how people vote, and how they behave when charged with professional objectivity, have nothing to do with each other.

Except that talk radio is almost universally right-wing, across the country.

Except that you offer no evidence that mainstream media outlets have a liberal bias, aside from your statement of wide-eyed childlike faith that it is so.

Except that every time such evidence is offered, it consists almost entirely of accusing the media of asking questions, failing to report talking points verbatim, or failure to report assertion as fact.

You haven't got a single solid point, I notice.

kingdom2000

08-27-2005, 01:42 AM

We had this arguement with Sam before. For him, if anything other then glowing praise is said for repubs, by default its a liberal media source. In his worldview, literally 99.9% of all media is liberal (nevermind that the owners are not). I am sure the occasional brainfart from Fox must really blow his mind every now and then.

Jeff Brady

08-27-2005, 02:07 AM

And, here's the shocker, you STILL haven't provided any links to back up your previous claims.

Pixies Chick

08-27-2005, 06:48 AM

And you guys think there's no liberal media...

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0805/jkelly.php3

I'm curious about what the readership for something like this is. Seems small. By linking to it, how much do you think it's increased?

It's not a source I've ever heard anyone refer to.

Briareos

08-27-2005, 09:51 AM

Jared_Humpherys

08-27-2005, 10:16 AM

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulgreenberg/pg20041022.shtml

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005312

http://www.fairpress.org/identify.htm

http://www.mediaresearch.org/

http://www.timeswatch.org/

So what? Do any of these control the national news media?

Bingo! THEY DON'T.

And guess what? I can post just as many links to Conservative News sources as well. One of them says that the Earth is 10,000 years old and God planted dinosaur bones to test our faith.

That post proves NOTHING.

Noah Johnson

08-27-2005, 10:26 AM

Link 1: "Failure to report our talking points as unalloyed fact is evil!"

Link 2: "Insisting on factually-based analysis is biased against us!"

Link 3: "The media is liberal 'cause I say it is!"

Link 4: The blueprint for the absurd claims made on the other links.

Link 5: "Saying things we disagree with is bias even if they're true!"

Link 6: "Fairness means only reporting what we want to hear! Nothing else!"

Thank you. You've demonstrated my point about the utter worthlessness of "liberal media" claims better than I could have. Excellent links.

Jeff Brady

08-27-2005, 11:17 AM

I have a question for anyone who belongs to the Democratic party today. How can you stand to belong in such a blatently racist and anti-semitic organization?

When Democrats fall over themselves to kiss Al Sharpton's ring (he was directly responseable for the deaths of 8 jewish workers at a laundry in New York)

They blocked the nomination of a judge because he was Latino.

The guy who writes Boondocks said that Colin Powel commited genocide.

Cynthia Mckiney blamed her loss in a primary on jews

House member Maxine Waters routinely shows up at rallys featuring Anti-semitic speakers

You still haven't backed up any of these claims with actual proof.

Pixies Chick

08-27-2005, 11:51 AM

Did Bri really say that Democrats blocked the nomination of a judge because he's latino?

Really?

Damn.

Bri - if you're still in there, grab the keys, and go for a drive. Get out, see the world. Stop in a Democratic neighborhood and unroll the window a bit. Maybe, if you can talk some buddies to going with you, you can get out of the car and walk up the street a bit. Not too far!!! Don't scare yourself. Your comfort zone must be about the size of the couch you jumped.

Then think for one flippin minute about what you think about America. It's got to still be in there somewhere, some concept of the U.S. of A. as a country with different political parties that disagree on the major issues of the day.

What's your relationship with all that? You got a desire to be part of it?

Briareos

08-27-2005, 11:53 AM

You still haven't backed up any of these claims with actual proof.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20050520.shtml

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001999939_alexander09.html

the4thpip

08-27-2005, 11:54 AM

Did Bri really say that Democrats blocked the nomination of a judge because he's latino?

He also said that one black man accusing another black man of genocide is racism.

the4thpip

08-27-2005, 11:59 AM

Let me get this straight:
Al Sharpton called for a boycott of a racist business man (who happened to be Jewish), and the boycott led to violent protests where people died, and you somehow think that makes Al an anti-semite?

Wow.

Briareos

08-27-2005, 12:03 PM

What we have to look forward to if Hilary becomes president:

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/Cartoons/08-13-2005.gif

the4thpip

08-27-2005, 12:18 PM

Now it's just getting silly:
The guys who put Bush in the White House are calling Mrs. Clinton incompetent?

Briareos

08-27-2005, 12:19 PM

Noah Johnson

08-27-2005, 12:32 PM

What we have to look forward to if Hilary becomes president:

You know, you can keep repeating that Gorelick bit, or even the "Clinton did nothing about terrorism" bit, all you want. Which is fine, that's your thing and I'd hate to take it away from you.

But they are still both lies, and I'd hate for anyone, especially you, to be confused on that point.

Samurai

08-27-2005, 12:42 PM

Except that how people vote, and how they behave when charged with professional objectivity, have nothing to do with each other.

Change that to "Except that how people personally believe about abortion/prayer/conservative values/etc, and how they behave when charged with professional objectivity, have nothing to do with each other." Now tell me why it's necessary to filibuster nominees for their personal beliefs when they've proven for years on the bench that they can do their job in a professional manner. After all, how you vote is a big reflection on your personal beliefs... it says a lot about you... do personal beliefs matter or not when it comes to a job?

Samurai

08-27-2005, 12:45 PM

You know, you can keep repeating that Gorelick bit, or even the "Clinton did nothing about terrorism" bit, all you want. Which is fine, that's your thing and I'd hate to take it away from you.

But they are still both lies, and I'd hate for anyone, especially you, to be confused on that point.
What's a lie? Gorelick set up the wall between the agencies sharing info. That's a fact. Then she was on the 9/11 Commission, which seems like a huge conflict of interest to me, especially when the Commission didn't seem to consider the barriers she created to have played a part in not preventing 9/11...

Jeff Brady

08-27-2005, 12:50 PM

What's a lie? Gorelick set up the wall between the agencies sharing info. That's a fact. Then she was on the 9/11 Commission, which seems like a huge conflict of interest to me, especially when the Commission didn't seem to consider the barriers she created to have played a part in not preventing 9/11...

Yeah, it's an awful shame that none of the Republicans on the 9/11 Commisison never brought it up.

Jeff Brady

08-27-2005, 12:52 PM

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20050520.shtml

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001999939_alexander09.html

[url]http://www.hscca.org/articles/alsharpton.html[/url

THANK YOU! Now, if you had done that three pages ago, we'd have slightly less to argue about!

the4thpip

08-27-2005, 01:20 PM

THANK YOU! Now, if you had done that three pages ago, we'd have slightly less to argue about!
It's still all opinion pieces... No actual news items there.

Noah Johnson

08-27-2005, 01:58 PM

Change that to "Except that how people personally believe about abortion/prayer/conservative values/etc, and how they behave when charged with professional objectivity, have nothing to do with each other." Now tell me why it's necessary to filibuster nominees for their personal beliefs when they've proven for years on the bench that they can do their job in a professional manner. After all, how you vote is a big reflection on your personal beliefs... it says a lot about you... do personal beliefs matter or not when it comes to a job?

Most jobs, no, they don't. The job of a JUDGE, whose jobs is to make JUDGEMENTS, hence the frigging name, yes. Could you be a little more disingenuous if you got massive doses of scientifically-formulated Dingenuity Juice? Hank Pym's got to have some around the lab.

Samurai

08-27-2005, 02:19 PM

Most jobs, no, they don't. The job of a JUDGE, whose jobs is to make JUDGEMENTS, hence the frigging name, yes. Could you be a little more disingenuous if you got massive doses of scientifically-formulated Dingenuity Juice? Hank Pym's got to have some around the lab.
So deciding what is newsworthy and what isn't, and how to report the events (what spin to put on it) involves no personal judgement at all? Ummmmm, right.

kingdom2000

08-27-2005, 03:58 PM

It's still all opinion pieces... No actual news items there.

We rarely see Bri and Sam quote anything but opinion pieces. I find it especially amusing when they quote blogs. Blogs are intersting but if using them as support that is a true sign of desperation. It also says alot about the blind faith those two have.

Samurai

08-27-2005, 07:50 PM

And here's another opinion piece for you guys to ponder...

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=C37DEAD6-08F2-41EF-85CF-3AD35C2BE0CF

COMMENTARY: The Racism of the Anti War Movement
LAST UPDATE: 8/27/2005 5:47:25 PM
Posted By: Jim Forsyth

By Jim Forsyth, News Radio 1200 WOAI

Like most Texas reporters, I have made the pilgrimage to interview Cindy Sheehan and her anti war comrades parked in front of Crawford. One of the made-for-television signs held up behind Cindy during the news event I attended was particularly disturbing. "Iraq," read the sign held aloft by two prosperous looking white women,"is Arabic for Vietnam."

By holding this sign, I presume they would favor that the Iraq war end the same way the war in Vietnam ended. I also presume that this means they would not oppose the same fate for the people of Iraq that befell the people of Vietnam and Cambodia after the end of US involvement there, which was one of the more horrible in the sorry annals of twentieth century tyranny. But in 1975, we were told by the anti war crowd that, after all, they were only Asians, they probably couldn't understand democracy anyway, and knew it wouldn't work 'for them.' Its sad to see the same attitude repeated today, that its not worth the blood of white Americans like Casey Sheehan to win freedom and democracy for 'those people,' in this case, brown skinned Arab Muslims.

Even if you drink every last drop of the anti war Kool Aid, even if you are convinced that President Bush was ordered by the Chairman of Halliburton to start the Iraq war and that he intentionally lied to the American people about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, the simple fact is that today, there is demonstrably more freedom for the people of Iraq and for the people of Afghanistan, some 50 million brown skinned Muslims. Yes, there is dawdling over the drafting of an Iraqi constitution, but before April of 2003, metal shredders and rape rooms awaited any Iraqi who breathed the word 'constitution.' Yes, a brutal insurgency continues to threaten the Iraqi people, an insurgency which has killed some 25,000 Iraqi civilians since April of 2003. But Saddam Hussein, even by conservative estimates, butchered 1.5 million Iraqis during his 25 years in power (not counting the one million who died in the war he started with Iran). So Saddam and his goons killed an average of 60,000 people a year, while the insurgency has killed 25,000 in two and a half years. Despite the hand-wringing over the insurgency, the devil's arithmetic would indicate that life for the average Iraq is actually safer today than it was under Saddam. But they're brown skimmed Muslims, so not worthy of America's notice, let alone America's sacrifice.

President Bush is actually the greatest liberator of Muslims in history, considering that there weren't 50 million people in the entire MIddle East when Saladin beat back the Crusader hordes. But to the anti war activists, providing freedom from slavery, democratic and economic opportunity to brown skinned people isn't worth the sacrifice of white Americans. Good thing they weren't around when Lincoln was drafting the Emancipation Proclamation.

I recently watched the magnificent Don Cheadle film "Hotel Rwanda" with a group of friends, certified Bush Bashing Democrats all. After it was over, the general murmur in the room was 'why didn't America do something!' to stop the carnage in Rwanda. If Cindy Sheehan were to get her way, and President Bush would be 'impeached and tried for war crimes' over his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as she has demanded, the real losers will be the future citizens of Rwanda, and the other places where brutal dictators will have free reign to massacre people in large numbers, knowing that American leaders will pay too high a political price for them to get involved and 'do something.' And I don't think many of those places will be populated by white Europeans.

Pixies Chick

08-27-2005, 08:18 PM

And here's another opinion piece for you guys to ponder...

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=C37DEAD6-08F2-41EF-85CF-3AD35C2BE0CF

Pondering done.

It's absurd, insulting, simplistic crap.

So when the U.S. supported Saddam, it was cool because he wasn't butchering that many people? Somewhere in 2003, he hit the 2.5 mil mark and it was time to act? And the rate of bloodflow has flowed, so it's cool to install a theocracy now?

Genocide is the peace movement's fault. Uh-huh.

When will the Right decide that throwing poo at liberals is not an explanation for their militarism and poor decision-making? Collaborating with a murderer like Saddam was a bad idea. It didn't make working with Chalabi a good one.

the4thpip

08-28-2005, 12:44 AM

This weekend, the British Army, Air Force and Navy will be marching in Manchester's Gay Pride Parade in a bid to encourage gays and lesbians to enlist. A recruitment booth will be set up in the city's gay neighborhood where the Army will tell prospective recruits about partner benefits and couple's housing.

"I think it's great the army is coming,'' said festival director Claire Turner. "They're showing that they welcome gay people and the army is something gay people can be interested in.''

Lt.-Col. Leanda Pitt, who commands recruiting efforts for the army in and around Manchester, said the parade was an opportunity to try and find new personnel.

"As far as the army is concerned, sexual orientation is a private matter and we are intending to promote the benefits a career in the army can bring,'' Pitt said. "Over the three days we will be able to reach a large audience and also enjoy the atmosphere that the festival brings to the city.''

The festival, which runs from Friday through Sunday, is expected to draw 45,000 people.

The British government lifted a ban on gays serving in the armed forces in 2000 after the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the restriction was a violation of human rights.

In the United States, out gays are not permitted in the military. A decade ago President Bill Clinton signed 'don't ask, don't tell' a law which while maintaining the gay ban forbade the military from probing into the private lives of soldiers suspected of being gay. But, if a servicemember's sexuality became known in other ways - including that person outing themself - he or she could be drummed out of the service.

Under 'don't ask, don't tell' more than 10,000 service members have been discharged over the last 10 years under the policy according to statistics from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

A February report by the Government Accounting Office shows that don’t ask, don’t tell' has cost taxpayers more than $200 million.

Legislation to repeal 'don’t ask, don’t tell' was introduced in Congress in March.
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/08/082605military.htm

kingdom2000

08-28-2005, 01:22 AM

Heh again with the opinion pieces. Personally I have never understood why its up to the US to save the world. Especially when the world doesn't want us to. People talk about "bringing freedom". No one asked us to. Its not our job. Its not our problem. Its theirs. If they want freedom they have to do what ever democracy had to do...fight for it. Themselves. They can asked for an assist but at the end of the day they should carry the burdon. Instead we are. We not only carry the death burdon, the destruction burdon, and the financial burdon but then we somehow figure out a way to have the moral burdon forced on ourselves. Guess what, not our problem. If the other country doesn't want to fight for their own freedom, then that is their choice. A choice that we seem to ignore if don't agree with it.

Noah Johnson

08-28-2005, 04:08 AM

I like the bit "So, I assume they want us to lose this war, and based on that assumption I'm going to pull about a million more things out of my ass."

Samurai, you think there's two sides to war: winning and losing, and these are the only things anybody can think.

The truth is, if there can be said to be two sides to war, they'd be losing and not having one.

I can't wait to see what you imagine that means.

anthony!

08-28-2005, 08:33 AM

Here is a pretty good article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/magazine/28ROBERTS.html) from the New York Times about issues the court will potentially face and how the Roberts Nomination plugs in.

Its really really long, but well worth your time if you looking for some decent reading. Some of the genetic advancements of the future definately could create some strange bedfellows in politics and law...

Jared_Humpherys

08-28-2005, 09:10 AM

anthony!

08-28-2005, 11:28 AM

Gotta be registered to read that, anthony!.

Whoops sorry!

Yeah, you do have to be registered with the New York Times...but it is worth it!

the4thpip

08-28-2005, 12:11 PM

Whoops sorry!

Yeah, you do have to be registered with the New York Times...but it is worth it!
And it's free, and they don't spam you too badly. Also, you can lie on the form.

Noah Johnson

08-28-2005, 12:30 PM

There's an easier way than that, too. Go to bugmenot.com and get a username and password that's got nothing to do with you.

Briareos

08-28-2005, 01:17 PM

We rarely see Bri and Sam quote anything but opinion pieces. I find it especially amusing when they quote blogs. Blogs are intersting but if using them as support that is a true sign of desperation. It also says alot about the blind faith those two have.

Yeah your right its not like CBS use obviously fake memos to push a story hostile to bush before the election. Or CNN faked a gun demostration to push a gun control bill. I shouldn't be reading those lying blogs! :rolleyes:

Noah Johnson

08-28-2005, 01:51 PM

Yeah your right its not like CBS use obviously fake memos to push a story hostile to bush before the election. Or CNN faked a gun demostration to push a gun control bill. I shouldn't be reading those lying blogs! :rolleyes:

Ah, the :rolleyes: , first refuge of the incompetent...

You do recall that those memos appeared to be correct because they were corroborated by ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE, right?

No, of course you don't.

the4thpip

08-28-2005, 01:53 PM

Yeah your right its
His right what?
Its what?
By the way, even though there were doubts in the memos, they have never been proven to be forgeries. And there is tons of evidence that Bush got special treatment and did not serve his time that has no such doubt attached.

Samurai

08-28-2005, 02:07 PM

Ah, the :rolleyes: , first refuge of the incompetent...

You do recall that those memos appeared to be correct because they were corroborated by ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE, right?

No, of course you don't.
Actually, the fake memos completely contradicted personal testimony and other evidence, which was a big clue to them being fake. Bush's CO and the entire family of the officer whose name was forged on the fake memos stated that they were complete lies.

kingdom2000

08-28-2005, 02:49 PM

Yeah your right its not like CBS use obviously fake memos to push a story hostile to bush before the election. Or CNN faked a gun demostration to push a gun control bill. I shouldn't be reading those lying blogs! :rolleyes:

Sniff, sniff I smell a whiff of desperation. Its like the usual invoking of Clinton that you do when backed in a corner. Fox has had more then a few misfires I shall not bother to mention. I didn't say blogs where lying, I just said you have to be desperate to use them as a source of "fact". At least when others do use them they say something along the lines of "here is an interesting opinion piece I read". You toss them out as actual factual support of your opinion. Those are two different things and the fact you can't tell the difference makes me wonder about your english education in high school.

Noah Johnson

08-28-2005, 06:59 PM

Actually, the fake memos completely contradicted personal testimony and other evidence, which was a big clue to them being fake. Bush's CO and the entire family of the officer whose name was forged on the fake memos stated that they were complete lies.
And the reams of other paperwork showing a 18-month gap in Bush's record, constituting desertion? The total lack of evidence that he was there? The unclaimed prizes for anyone who could establish him as having not deserted during that period?

REALLY nice attempt to change the subject away from the evidence I was talking about, Samurai. I mean that sincerely. But not good enough. Your favorite little munchkin's still a deserter according to the record.

Samurai

08-28-2005, 07:16 PM

And the reams of other paperwork showing a 18-month gap in Bush's record, constituting desertion? The total lack of evidence that he was there? The unclaimed prizes for anyone who could establish him as having not deserted during that period?

REALLY nice attempt to change the subject away from the evidence I was talking about, Samurai. I mean that sincerely. But not good enough. Your favorite little munchkin's still a deserter according to the record.
Wrong... he more than met his required hours every year he was in the service. That's a fact. His participation did dwindle towqrd the end... he went from hundreds of hours per year in the beginning to just meeting the 50 or so requirement at the end, but he did complete his service.

Why do you feel such a need to make up BS about events from so long ago anyway? I thought what happened in the past didn't matter?

kingdom2000

08-28-2005, 11:16 PM

Personally I don't doubt that Bush did the requirements of service. I just find it appalling that they equate doing the requirements of service in the US with doing an actual tour in Vietnam. I find it even sad that people bought that. For Bush to say he knows about war is for me to say cause I took a CPR class I am ready to perform surgury.

I use to think that it didn't even matter but I think that if Bush had actually experienced Vietnam rather then just play soldier here in the states the events of the last 4 years would be totally different.

the4thpip

08-29-2005, 12:00 AM

The total lack of evidence that he was there?
Hey... He did get a free dental exam at some point. :p

Pixies Chick

08-29-2005, 07:49 PM

Wrong... he more than met his required hours every year he was in the service. That's a fact. His participation did dwindle towqrd the end... he went from hundreds of hours per year in the beginning to just meeting the 50 or so requirement at the end, but he did complete his service.

Why do you feel such a need to make up BS about events from so long ago anyway? I thought what happened in the past didn't matter?

Yeah. Let's talk about now.

The potential for like the fifth worst storm in U.S. history, and this guy can't get off his bike long enough to call Louisiana? Vindictive SOB IMPOTUS can't be bothered with a Dem state, I suppose. Gotta whip a frenzy in the hearts of the faithful. Meanwhile LA gets to clean up without the benefit of their National Guard, oh, and BTW, did you hear that W cut the funding for flood protection to LA? By tens of millions. Touch of Evil in that man, I swear.

But seriously, other than to chat one braindead vegetable to another with Terry Shiavo, what would it take for this W to shorten a vacation?

If you want evidence that he skipped on his duties, well, AWOL then, AWOL now. He's a repeat offender when it comes to protecting the nation.

the4thpip

08-30-2005, 12:04 AM

http://www.pollingreport.com/images/Gpres.GIF

kingdom2000

08-30-2005, 02:59 AM

Not enought disparity in that poll to mean anything. Most presidents have less then 50% approval.

the4thpip

08-30-2005, 03:03 AM

Not enought disparity in that poll to mean anything. Most presidents have less then 50% approval.
Approve 40%, Disapprove 56%.

A new low for him in that poll.

kingdom2000

08-30-2005, 05:05 PM

Katrina ruined Bush's vacation. Those damn liberals.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/30/bush.hurricane.ap/index.html

Noah Johnson

08-30-2005, 07:32 PM

Katrina ruined Bush's vacation. Those damn liberals.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/30/bush.hurricane.ap/index.html
Personally oversee the federal relief effort... where do they get this crap?

I know, this really is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't for George Jr. here. If he stays on vacation, he looks even more like a callous SOB than usual, and that's saying something. If he returns to Washington, what's he doing there? Telling emergency relief services how to do their job? Calling the governor of Louisiana and asking how he's doing? Activating his Secret Presidential Anti-Hurricane Ray?

Let's be frank, this is a symbolic gesture. It's a needed, and perhaps a belated one, but he's already done the damage he's going to do, and at this point is probably back in the White House playing with a piece of string going "You know, I could have done this in Texas."

the4thpip

08-31-2005, 02:37 AM

He'll have spent 28 full days away from the White House, two short of the 30 he had planned.

the4thpip

08-31-2005, 06:07 AM

(Berlin) German conservatives are blasting Berlin mayor Klaus Wowereit for supporting the city's annual S&M fetish fair.

The Folsom-Europe Street Festival - named for a similar event in San Francisco - will begin Saturday. Wowereit wrote an official greeting in its official program.

"The first weekend in September stands for the pure zest for life," Wowereit wrote. "A warm welcome to Berlin!"

The thought of thousands of gay leathermen, slaves, master, and other fetish enthusiasts has whipped up a storm of anger among the conservative opposition Christian Democrats, and even some members Wowereit's own Social Democrat party.

But, the frenzy is being dismissed by Wowereit who called it "narrow-minded".

The openly gay mayor said Tuesday that Berlin was a tolerant city and open to the world.

"No question about it, it is a glitzy scene but that is also part of Berlin," Wowereit told Bild newspaper. "And as long as they do not do anything illegal, I expect people to be tolerant.''

Wowereit was the first elected gay mayor of a major city in the world. He came out in 2001just before winning a landslide victory.

Freedom rocks.

Corrina

08-31-2005, 09:16 AM

TCJohnson

08-31-2005, 09:46 AM

Nobody ever forced America to recognize women rights. That is something we had to learn by ourselves. A lot of things we had to learn by ourselves.

If we tried to force Iraq to accept women rights then the Iraqi would become even more resentful of America. They would never recognize the consitution since it was not one their representatives created, it was one forced upon them. They would take out all these frustrations on women.

Do we consider it acceptable? No. But trying to do something about it would cause more harm than good.

TCJohnson

08-31-2005, 09:47 AM

Not enought disparity in that poll to mean anything. Most presidents have less then 50% approval.

This is the lowest his approval rating has ever been, and they said on the news this morning it is the lowest it has ever been for a second term president.

Samurai

08-31-2005, 10:02 AM

I still can't get past the fact that I doubt if the Islamic religion given precedence in Iraq dictated that the *male* population would now be second-class citizens that we'd consider this solution acceptable and a needed compromise to keep the peace.
Corrina, look at a copy of the Iraqi constitution... it doesn't dictate that women will be 2nd class citizens. It says all laws in Iraq must respect 3 things: The Constitiution (which clearly states there may be no discrimination based on gender, religion, etc, etc); the basic principles of Democracy; and "undisputed" Islamic teachings (so if some sects believe 1 thing and some another, it wouldn't count... only the undisputed parts apply, and how many is that?). So, a law against women driving, for instance, breaks the 1st requirement, and shouldn't be allowed.

The problem isn't with the Iraqi constitution, it's with Islam and its more repressive laws.

Nick Soapdish

08-31-2005, 10:20 AM

The problem isn't with the Iraqi constitution, it's with Islam and its more repressive laws.

And that the Iraqi constitution is based off of those laws and what looks like their equivalent of the Supreme Court is going to be interpreting their constitution based on the sharia.

It's not an either/or. Both are problematic.

EdContradictory

08-31-2005, 10:57 AM

The problem isn't with the Iraqi constitution, it's with Islam and its more repressive laws.
Any guarantees of freedom in that constitution are subordinate to Islam.

kingdom2000

08-31-2005, 11:28 AM

Any guarantees of freedom in that constitution are subordinate to Islam.

That's the theory...and then there is the reality. Look at the US where there are daily fights by the religious to have their "laws" and ideals supercede the constitution. And these are people who say they respect it. And thats here with the large mixture of religions, cultures, etc. Over in Iraq, they don't have anything like that to muddy the waters. Nope, constitution or not, it will be a decades long battle to get the people to even accept the constitutional law over the Islamic law and even then they will always have to deal with people who will disagree with that thinking using violence. The problems for that country have just begun.

Corrina

08-31-2005, 01:11 PM

Any guarantees of freedom in that constitution are subordinate to Islam.

Exactly. I guess I think if we're going to bring 'freedom' to a nation, that means insisting citizens have some basic rights not subject to any religious interpretation.

Those who practice the Islamic religion here in the United States do not seem to have major problem (some problems, yes,) with that, making me assume that basic civil rights for women do not necessarily *have* to conflict with Islamic law.

EdContradictory

08-31-2005, 01:15 PM

The problems for that country have just begun.
Well... after they have to do a whole new constitution after this one isn't ratified anyway...

Pixies Chick

08-31-2005, 02:25 PM

Corrina, look at a copy of the Iraqi constitution... it doesn't dictate that women will be 2nd class citizens. It says all laws in Iraq must respect 3 things: The Constitiution (which clearly states there may be no discrimination based on gender, religion, etc, etc); the basic principles of Democracy; and "undisputed" Islamic teachings (so if some sects believe 1 thing and some another, it wouldn't count... only the undisputed parts apply, and how many is that?). So, a law against women driving, for instance, breaks the 1st requirement, and shouldn't be allowed.

The problem isn't with the Iraqi constitution, it's with Islam and its more repressive laws.

The NY Times posted the entire document, and you're selective quoting.

You get a commission if this thing passes?

Pixies Chick

08-31-2005, 02:32 PM

Exactly. I guess I think if we're going to bring 'freedom' to a nation, that means insisting citizens have some basic rights not subject to any religious interpretation.

Those who practice the Islamic religion here in the United States do not seem to have major problem (some problems, yes,) with that, making me assume that basic civil rights for women do not necessarily *have* to conflict with Islamic law.

That's where I'm coming from. I'm concerned about the U.S. endorsing and supporting a document that will oppress women and minorities. Since when is that the movement that America spreads around the world?

I think part of the debate about the Iraqi process stems from this Colin Powell quote, "the pottery barn rule: You break it, you own it."

Well, with all necessary disrespect to Mr. Powell (the big aluminum liar), the Iraqis are clearly letting us know that we don't "own" it. They own it, and they'll battle each other to death over "it" and there's not a whole lot we can do about it. Our goal ought to be to get a cease fire brokered by neutral parties so that the representatives of all factions in the country can sit down together to hash out an Iraqi solution that Iraqis can live with.

We can't make 'em adopt an American-style democracy, but we do a disservice to the people there and our own ideals if we advocate for a repressive system.

Samurai

08-31-2005, 06:49 PM

The NY Times posted the entire document, and you're selective quoting.

You get a commission if this thing passes?
No, I don't. But until a workable Constitution is ratifiued, we'll be there, so getting us out of there requires that some Constitution passes... if not this one, then another. And it was US insistance (plus Kurdish pressure) that reduced the role of Islam from "the basis of law" to "one of 3 basis for law". If this fails to pass, I'd bet that a revision might well increase the role of Islam, not decrease it.

And I'm not selectively quoting. If I were, I'd just say that it enshrines the principles of democracy and equality. (Which is true, but it also has a 3rd component, "undisputed Islamic laws", which is where the problem lies.)

the4thpip

09-01-2005, 05:25 AM

Waiting for a Leader

George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, especially given the level of national distress and the need for words of consolation and wisdom. In what seems to be a ritual in this administration, the president appeared a day later than he was needed. He then read an address of a quality more appropriate for an Arbor Day celebration: a long laundry list of pounds of ice, generators and blankets delivered to the stricken Gulf Coast. He advised the public that anybody who wanted to help should send cash, grinned, and promised that everything would work out in the end.

We will, of course, endure, and the city of New Orleans must come back. But looking at the pictures on television yesterday of a place abandoned to the forces of flood, fire and looting, it was hard not to wonder exactly how that is going to come to pass. Right now, hundreds of thousands of American refugees need our national concern and care. Thousands of people still need to be rescued from imminent peril. Public health threats must be controlled in New Orleans and throughout southern Mississippi. Drivers must be given confidence that gasoline will be available, and profiteering must be brought under control at a moment when television has been showing long lines at some pumps and spot prices approaching $4 a gallon have been reported.

Sacrifices may be necessary to make sure that all these things happen in an orderly, efficient way. But this administration has never been one to counsel sacrifice. And nothing about the president's demeanor yesterday - which seemed casual to the point of carelessness - suggested that he understood the depth of the current crisis.

While our attention must now be on the Gulf Coast's most immediate needs, the nation will soon ask why New Orleans's levees remained so inadequate. Publications from the local newspaper to National Geographic have fulminated about the bad state of flood protection in this beloved city, which is below sea level. Why were developers permitted to destroy wetlands and barrier islands that could have held back the hurricane's surge? Why was Congress, before it wandered off to vacation, engaged in slashing the budget for correcting some of the gaping holes in the area's flood protection?

It would be some comfort to think that, as Mr. Bush cheerily announced, America "will be a stronger place" for enduring this crisis. Complacency will no longer suffice, especially if experts are right in warning that global warming may increase the intensity of future hurricanes. But since this administration won't acknowledge that global warming exists, the chances of leadership seem minimal.

http://www.joequesada.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?;act=Post;CODE=02;f=18;t=29367

Pixies Chick

09-01-2005, 06:13 AM

No, I don't. But until a workable Constitution is ratifiued, we'll be there, so getting us out of there requires that some Constitution passes... if not this one, then another. And it was US insistance (plus Kurdish pressure) that reduced the role of Islam from "the basis of law" to "one of 3 basis for law". If this fails to pass, I'd bet that a revision might well increase the role of Islam, not decrease it.

And I'm not selectively quoting. If I were, I'd just say that it enshrines the principles of democracy and equality. (Which is true, but it also has a 3rd component, "undisputed Islamic laws", which is where the problem lies.)

You claim that a disagreement between Islamic factions means the law is thrown out. Tell me how you know this.

This is from the constitution:
Article (2):

1st -- Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:

(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.

(c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution.

Other religious scholars might disagree with your interpretation.

I am also concerned about the following:

1st -- Each person has the right to personal privacy as long as it does not violate the rights of others or general morality.
Article (29):

1st-- (a) The family is the foundation of society and the state should preserve its (Editors Note: the family's) existence and ethical and religious value.

(b) The state shall guarantee the protection of motherhood, childhood and old age and shall take care of juveniles and youths and provide them with agreeable conditions to develop their capabilities.

2nd -- Children have the right to upbringing, education and care from their parents; parents have the right to respect and care from their children, especially in times of want, disability or old age.

3rd -- Economic exploitation of children in any form is banned and the state shall take measures to guarantee their protection.

4th -- Violence and abuse in the family, school and society shall be forbidden.

Article (30):

1st -- The state guarantees social and health insurance, the basics for a free and honorable life for the individual and the family -- especially children and women -- and works to protect them from illiteracy, fear and poverty and provides them with housing and the means to rehabilitate and take care of them. This shall be regulated by law.

Okay (29)/4 doesn't concern me.

Put aside your insight for a moment, and perhaps see if there's isn't a little part of you that can recognize a reason to be concerned.

the4thpip

09-01-2005, 06:20 AM

1st -- Each person has the right to personal privacy as long as it does not violate the rights of others or general morality.

There go gay rights. Not that I was really expecting them.

kingdom2000

09-01-2005, 11:44 AM

"general morality" basically makes any "rights" in the constitution void.

Magneto_X

09-01-2005, 03:07 PM

Shameful that Vladimir Putin reacted to Hurricane Katrina *before* our own President did.

And he wasn't even in America when he said it, either!

Edit:

Didn't help that all through the speech Georgie boy was smiling like it was his Birthday. :(

kingdom2000

09-01-2005, 05:25 PM

A good example of person that has that "Presidential" way of handeling things...and the Bushs' that do not.

http://whatshappeningatcnn.blogspot.com/

EdContradictory

09-01-2005, 05:34 PM

TCJohnson

09-02-2005, 08:40 AM

Just to point out there was a former republican senator named Mike Parker who was working with Fema. He was fired by the white house this year. Why was he fired? Because he kept opposing budget cuts for flood relief efforts. The White House called it pork.

source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9156612/ (click on A political firestorm over federal response? to the right).

Pixies Chick

09-03-2005, 06:07 AM

It's looking more and more like repurposing FEMA was a big mistake.

I think this is the important point for citizens to debate. It was absolutely the administrations position and goal that states be responsible for natural disasters and FEMA will go away. In that way, the early federal response was not contrary to their goal - it was their plan, and they didn't hide that.

Well, how's that working out? Is there a role for the federal government in emergency management? Amidst the backslapping, somebody oughta be asked that question, and the answer should be clear.

I know that I will demand to know from anybody who intends to get my vote whether they will advocate for disaster preparedness on the federal level.

IMO, the best thing that could come out of this disaster is for us to study their theory that disasters are a local problem best addressed locally to see if this is in fact how we as a country want to respond in the future.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/

matterconsumer

09-03-2005, 07:43 AM

It's a non-trivial thing to move hundreds of thousands or millions of people in a day especially if roads are not available.

Additionally a non-voluntary evacuation does not help.

What would be ideal would be the ability to truly evacuate everyone (that could be physically located). That's a far easier thing to be said than done.

The Administration is in a no-win situation because if people are being honest they know that they aren't going to be able to evacuate everyone in time.

Especially if drivers refuse to drive or fly to locations for fear of being shot.

And it burns me of course that the press are all over the place and essentially allowing people to die. Their helicopters ought to be used for rescuing/aiding more people...

kingdom2000

09-03-2005, 01:19 PM

As usual to protect his people, Matter misses the point. The entire problem is due to Bush's manufactured war, the people trained to help and the money wasn't available. The national guard that could have been on site that night but oops they where over in Iraq. Any tactician will tell you that one worse case scenario is to have your forces out of position. Thanks to Bush, they where out of position. And now, thanks to the disaster that is Iraq its not as simple as moving them back over.

Anyone else find it convient that Bush chose to visit sites on the day that they finally got some supplies and man power in position? Only he and his team would turn something like that into a political moment. I will give all the other republicans some credit, as far as I can tell, they are not particularily concerned about the politics right now, just helping people. Can't say that about a clearly overwhelmed Bush. Bush doesn't realize it yet, but the last four years of trying to create his legacy with Iraq and post 9/11 was blown away with everything else in that hurricane.

Jeff Brady

09-03-2005, 03:07 PM

Anyone else find it convient that Bush chose to visit sites on the day that they finally got some supplies and man power in position?

I don't find it convenient. He HAS to be there, and since he's the President, he needs to be relatively safe. There's no way it CAN'T be a political "kodak moment." I may hate the man, but I don't want to see him injured or dead. Just out of power.

Adam Crocker

09-03-2005, 03:09 PM

The Administration is in a no-win situation because if people are being honest they know that they aren't going to be able to evacuate everyone in time.

The Hurricane hit Sunday on August 29 yet they didn't actually get federal resources rolling until the 31st even though there was advanced warning that this was hitting for a few days prior to it doing so. (And while I doubt they could've evacuated the entire city in that time, why weren't they getting ready to prep resources for a disaster response?)

Prior to this, in the face of warnings from the city and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers the Bush administration decided to cut the disaster funding (http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313) for the highly unnecessarily and increasingly dubious Iraq War. This included cutting funds for a corp project on holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent, Pontchartain being were a good number of the floodwaters came from. He also cancelled a wetlands reclamation project in 2003 designed to reduce surges from flood waters. Granted previous administrations bear responsibility for ignoring the levee issue. particularly Clinton after Hurricanes increased in frequency in the Southeast after 1995. However, Bush continued his cuts even AFTER the 2004 hurricane season that saw Hurricance Jeanne, Ivan, and Francis rip through Florida proving to be the costliest Hurricane season yet.

I heard that it will cost some $26b for cleanup and who knows how much more to rebuild. Apparently improving the levees would have only cost $2.5b.

Meanwhile, FEMA head Mark Brown came on Paula Zhan (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/09/paula-zahn-is-about-to-kill-head-of.html) to state that only on September 01, the time of the broadcast, did they hear about the convention centre, even though I and everyone else knew that it was being used as a major shelter area before the damn thing hit. Meanwhile, Tep Koppel ripped into Brown as well (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/09/ted-koppel-rips-rips-rips-michael.html) for this and for his evading responsbility for not actually preparing for the disaster. I have also heard that not only did it take four days for the Senators to get off their vacation, but only half of the yahoos bothered to show up. And the Mayor of New Orleans isn't impressed with the Feds either. (http://www.atypical.net/mm/nagin.mp3)

The Administration is in a no-win situation because those incompetent idiots dropped the ball, again. Only this time people are more inclined to call them out on it since it involves the destruction of a major American city and is impossible to ignore, moreso than fucking up in Iraq. And so I will repeat the words of Mike Smash (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=1840834&postcount=3) on this fiasco.

It saddens me that it takes something like this for people to see how truly fake Bush's tough guy "get things done" act is or how worthless every Senator we've elected really is.

They couldn't control the weather, but they sure as hell could have minimalized it.

Fire them. Fire them all. Fire Bush. Fire the head of FEMA. Fire First. Fire Reid. Fire all of them.

And the real heroes in this... the mayor of New Orleans, the local governments of neighboring states like Texas and Missouri, the average people who are driving down there to help, the National Guard.

I say to you all, come next year, vote each and every one of these clowns out of office.

Magneto_X

09-03-2005, 03:41 PM

I don't find it convenient. He HAS to be there, and since he's the President, he needs to be relatively safe. There's no way it CAN'T be a political "kodak moment." I may hate the man, but I don't want to see him injured or dead. Just out of power.

Presidents are always safe. They are protected 24/7 by the Secret Service for God sakes! He can go anywhere in New Orleans and other places damaged by the hurricane without having to worry about the citizens "attacking him". worse case scenario: he has them outgunned. Not to mention Bush Jr.'s security is 10 times heavier the other political officials or Presidents.

Adam Crocker

09-03-2005, 04:42 PM

Presidents are always safe. They are protected 24/7 by the Secret Service for God sakes!

It still requires an enormous amount of man power and logistics planning to make sure that the Secret Service can adequately protect him when he leaves Washington. Frankly I don't really care if he goes and visits the area or not. All the better that he doesn't since his security woud interfere with aid efforts and he would draw attention away from this. Whether or not he visits soon enough, considering the situation on the ground, is hardly something worth getting worked up over.

Samurai

09-03-2005, 05:19 PM

Presidents are always safe. They are protected 24/7 by the Secret Service for God sakes! He can go anywhere in New Orleans and other places damaged by the hurricane without having to worry about the citizens "attacking him". worse case scenario: he has them outgunned. Not to mention Bush Jr.'s security is 10 times heavier the other political officials or Presidents.
That's silly... "He has them outgunned"??? In other words, let's purposely send him into a place where people are tired, angry, and haven't eaten for days, just for a photo op "closer to the action", and if the people there get squirrely, just have Bush's Secret Service gun them down in the streets? How many lives would you like to sacrifice this way in order to provide you with a great talking point/footage to use in the next election and your online debates? Disgusting...

Magneto_X

09-03-2005, 05:42 PM

That's silly... "He has them outgunned"??? In other words, let's purposely send him into a place where people are tired, angry, and haven't eaten for days, just for a photo op "closer to the action", and if the people there get squirrely, just have Bush's Secret Service gun them down in the streets? How many lives would you like to sacrifice this way in order to provide you with a great talking point/footage to use in the next election and your online debates? Disgusting...

He's.The.President.

If he didn't want the job he shouldn't have been in the elections in the first place.

matterconsumer

09-03-2005, 06:02 PM

As usual to protect his people, Matter misses the point. The entire problem is due to Bush's manufactured war, the people trained to help and the money wasn't available.

I'm not protecting anyone.

The US has 50 states and those states have a responsibility to take care of business. Sometimes a situation will arise that will require more than a single state to resolve. And sometimes the federal government will have to get involved as well.

There's a reason I don't live on a faultline or in a coastal area. Clearly folk believed that the levies would hold just as some will continue to hold onto the notion that they can be rebuilt in such a manner that this will never happen again.

It's not Bush's fault that no plan was in place to "resolve the issue". Even if there were no Iraq war and everyone were in place it would not have made the issue go away. The issue being the near impossibility of moving people out and having insufficient areas to actually put people once they're moved out.

The states have to work together to design plans to deal with these sorts of situations.

Samurai

09-03-2005, 06:17 PM

He's.The.President.

If he didn't want the job he shouldn't have been in the elections in the first place.
It's NOT the President's job to put himself and others into unecessary danger just for the sake of a photo-op. If he did that, and his secret service were forced to start shooting people in the streets of NO, I am positive you'll be near the head of the line blaming him for pulling such a stupid stunt.

Adam Crocker

09-03-2005, 06:23 PM

He's.The.President.

If he didn't want the job he shouldn't have been in the elections in the first place.

However, it's not his job to go right into the middle of disaster areas where things are in chaos for the sake of an unnecessary photo-op. Really, this is as pointless an objection as the whole bit about Condi buying shoes while the disaster hit.

Adam Crocker

09-03-2005, 06:28 PM

It's not Bush's fault that no plan was in place to "resolve the issue". Even if there were no Iraq war and everyone were in place it would not have made the issue go away. The issue being the near impossibility of moving people out and having insufficient areas to actually put people once they're moved out.

The states have to work together to design plans to deal with these sorts of situations.

However, he did ignore the matter and cut funding for the disaster emergency for Iraq. Moreover, it is FEMA's responsibility to handle these sorts of emergency situations and they weren't even bothering to mobilize their forces for responding to the aftermath of the hurricane. Maybe the states should take more responsibility on this matter, but the Federal government took the responsibility for handling such situations and until it decides to delegate that responsibility to the states and see to it that they have sufficient funds to do so the states really cannot do much.

Clearly folk believed that the levies would hold just as some will continue to hold onto the notion that they can be rebuilt in such a manner that this will never happen again.

Which folk? Warnings for this were going on for years (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,372455,00.html) and the Feds chose to ignore it.

EdContradictory

09-03-2005, 06:43 PM

There should NEVER have been a time (post-hurricane) when it was unsafe for the President to be in New Orleans.

There's plenty of blame to go around for this collosal screw up and anyone and everyone on the receiving end of that blame mother-fucking DESERVES it.

This isn't an anti-Bush thing. This isn't an anti-Democrat thing. This isn't an anti-Republican thing.

THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT from the local, to state, to federal level failed these people. Failed them miserably. It is unforgivable.

matterconsumer

09-04-2005, 12:36 AM

However, he did ignore the matter and cut funding for the disaster emergency for Iraq. Moreover, it is FEMA's responsibility to handle these sorts of emergency situations and they weren't even bothering to mobilize their forces for responding to the aftermath of the hurricane. Maybe the states should take more responsibility on this matter, but the Federal government took the responsibility for handling such situations and until it decides to delegate that responsibility to the states and see to it that they have sufficient funds to do so the states really cannot do much.

Which folk? Warnings for this were going on for years (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,372455,00.html) and the Feds chose to ignore it.

Given the fact that people are living in New Orleans rather than relocating to higher ground indicates that it wasn't such an issue. In other words if they considered their lives in dire danger presumably those who were able to would have moved out.

We can agree that not everyone is economically able to relocate but the Federal government didn't instruct people to amass in the area.

If the infrastructure was inadequate then the state and local government should have raised taxes/revenues to resolve the issue. But I suspect that the local, state, and federal agencies didn't believe that something like this was really going to happen...

kingdom2000

09-04-2005, 12:37 AM

The states have to work together to design plans to deal with these sorts of situations.

Sounds like FEMA was created to do. Oh and homeland security. And yes, I am one of those that does think that those people that chose to stay do deserve a lot of the blame. They had sufficient warning. They could have taken action. Hell, most would have gone off on foot, noone has really explained why they didn't. All I hear is the "poor" excuse. And it is an excuse, its not a reason. Most would not have waited till a form of preferred transportation was made available. Also as far as I am concerned, those that let their entire family stay just to "protect" their home deserve to get beat to bloody pulps. The priortize crap over children or love ones has no excuses.

EdContradictory

09-04-2005, 06:46 AM

All I hear is the "poor" excuse. And it is an excuse, its not a reason.
If you can't afford a hotel room, if you don't own a car, if you can't buy a bus ticket, what the fuck were you supposed to do?

If the mayor says mandatory evacuation and then doesn't actually MANDATORILY evacuate anyone what might you think the severity of the situation was?

How incredibly callous.

Blaming people for being poor to let government off the hook. That's the only "excuse" here.

Tom

09-04-2005, 07:20 AM

And yes, I am one of those that does think that those people that chose to stay do deserve a lot of the blame. They had sufficient warning. They could have taken action. Hell, most would have gone off on foot, noone has really explained why they didn't. That answer is so obvious that I'm distressed that it even needs to be pointed out: you can't outrun a hurricane.

matterconsumer

09-04-2005, 07:41 AM

Sounds like FEMA was created to do. Oh and homeland security.

I'm not suggesting that FEMA and Homeland Security have no role to play whatsoever.

I'm suggesting that it begins with the individual. Individuals need to make plans for their own relocation. The more individuals who are able to relocate themselves then the easier it is to relocate the remaining individuals who are not able to do so.

Then it goes to the city. What plan does the city have to relocate people? If the city does not have the resources to evacuate then the city has to either:

a. obtain those resources
b. inform the population that they do not have the resources in advance

The city will talk with nearby cities to decide upon where people can be relocated.

The state gets involved when it's necessary to relocate people to other states or to aquire the resources of other states such as people and equipment.

And of course the state has it's own resources (people and equipment) which can be used to relocate people within the state.

The most obvious missing equipment is an aircraft capable of moving hundreds of people at once. A bus is great but it assumes a usable road. What's needed is an aircraft that can get close enough to the ground but doesn't necessarily have to land which can carry hundreds.

When we think of a fleet of such aircraft we think of federal agencies...

I'll stop now to keep the post from going on forever but federal agencies do have a role but localities and states shouldn't simply throw up their hands and hope that the federal government will save the day...

Pixies Chick

09-04-2005, 08:39 AM

Sounds like FEMA was created to do. Oh and homeland security. And yes, I am one of those that does think that those people that chose to stay do deserve a lot of the blame. They had sufficient warning. They could have taken action. Hell, most would have gone off on foot, noone has really explained why they didn't. All I hear is the "poor" excuse. And it is an excuse, its not a reason. Most would not have waited till a form of preferred transportation was made available. Also as far as I am concerned, those that let their entire family stay just to "protect" their home deserve to get beat to bloody pulps. The priortize crap over children or love ones has no excuses.

What Tom said. How far can you walk with a baby in each arm? Through swamp? You sleeping outside next to the gators and cottonmouths with your mom?

Maybe if Greyhound and Amtrack hadn't cancelled service out of town on Saturday, hours after the evacuation order and well before the hurricane, there'd be a way to get a family out of immediate danger. But this is just my thinking from the Northland. You got a better scenario for how you get out?

I don't know about the folks we haven't seen yet who are stilled holed up in their homes, but the folks around the Superdome and Convention Center did they appear to be an overly acquisitive crowd to you? They seemed old/young, poor, and sick, and the famly members who attend to them. Sure, a bunch of those folks could have lit out, and left their diabetic grandma on the sidewalk all alone.

But it's the frontier, isn't it? Those who can't handle life on the trail, die and are eaten by carrion.

TCJohnson

09-04-2005, 09:56 AM

It was only 2 days before the hurricane hit that Bush declared Louisiana a state of emergency. At the time Katrina was only a catagory 3 hurricane. It wasn't upgraded to a catagory 4 hurricane until the day before it hit landfall. And the mandatory evacuation did not go into placue until the day before it hit.

New Orleans has a population of half a million people. Do you know how hard it is to evacuate that many people in that short amount of time? Most roads are not able to handle that much traffic even if you do have a car.

But if you don't have a car...You have your grandmother and your three year old with you. How far can you make it in a day? Let's say it is just you, and you don't work out that much. How far can you make it then? I know I could probably walk 30, maybe 40 miles in one day. The area of devistation was more than 40 miles. So, which would make more sense: to risk being out in the open, walking, when the hurrican caught up to you or in a large concrete structure?

Adam Crocker

09-04-2005, 12:16 PM

Given the fact that people are living in New Orleans rather than relocating to higher ground indicates that it wasn't such an issue. In other words if they considered their lives in dire danger presumably those who were able to would have moved out.

I'm afraid that continually ignoring a problem that everyone has been pointing out to you isn't necessarily indicative of whether it merits response. We've ignored the problem of limited oil stocks for years and now we are starting to feel it bite us on the ass financially. Lord knows how much more it will before people actually get serious about developing energy alternatives for transportation and such.

In regards to moving out New Orleans has been standing for nearly 300 years (originally built on high grounds and alongside a major trade route by the French, only reaching low-lying areas through expansion) and is a major seaport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans#Economy) with close proximity to several oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Located below sea level or not there were substantive reasons for people living there besides the elevation of the land because it is a major port. (Which guarantees expansion in any case.) And as it stands the warnings in question were all that the city could have handled a category five hurricane if proper measures were taken ahead of time, something that remains on the heads of several previous administrations besides Bush, including Clinton (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46132).

I've also found out that apparently forty years ago Holland replaced their dykes and levees with a much more sophisticated system, yet the U.S. has clearly failed to do the same. Frankly part of disaster preparedness is that you fix things before the disasters occur, not when it actually becomes an issue. As I said before estimated clean up is $26b. I've also heard $50b for rebuilding. It would only have cost $2.6b to upgrade the levee and pump system.

(Now, beyond failure to plan ahead for disasters in general, if we want to get into the specific attitude of the administration, believe me I see a few parallels with how it has handled this and Iraq's occupation as well as the crystal meth issue in rural parts of the U.S.)

the4thpip

09-04-2005, 12:25 PM

There was a striking dicrepancy between the CNN International report on the Bush visit to the New Orleans disaster zone, yesterday, and reports of the same event by German TV.

ZDF News reported that the president's visit was a completely staged event. Their crew witnessed how the open air food distribution point Bush visited in front of the cameras was torn down immediately after the president and the herd of 'news people' had left and that others which were allegedly being set up were abandoned at the same time.

The people in the area were once again left to fend for themselves, said ZDF.

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002485.html

Beyond cynical, and way into the realm of evil.

Noah Johnson

09-04-2005, 01:38 PM

It's another Bush signature. He's been doing that kind of thing since the 2000 election, at least. My favorite from that time period was when, posing for cameras as he was moving out of his office, he lifted up one end of a desk, smiled, and set it back down in the same place. Clueless, as usual, that a video camera had also been running the entire time.

Behavior that's a harmless, stupid peccadillo when things are okay becomes actively evil when people need you to not be a fuckup.

Briareos

09-04-2005, 01:57 PM

Its amazing how inept the local government of New Orleans was. They left their entire public transportation system to float away when it could have been used to evacuate.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2005_08_28.PHP#004361

matterconsumer

09-04-2005, 03:21 PM

New Orleans has a population of half a million people. Do you know how hard it is to evacuate that many people in that short amount of time? Most roads are not able to handle that much traffic even if you do have a car.

That's exactly why effectively planning in advance is important.

EdContradictory

09-04-2005, 03:28 PM

Its amazing how inept the local government of New Orleans was.
Oh no you don't. The state and federal government were also completely inept. You guys have no right to try to deflect blame from Bush. Which, given your history here, is definitely what you were trying to do.

jhauge

09-04-2005, 04:17 PM

http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/o/nov04/nov04c.html

What if Ivan Had Hit New Orleans?

New Orleans was spared, this time, but had it not been, Hurricane Ivan would have:

* Pushed a 17-foot storm surge into Lake Pontchartrain;

* Caused the levees between the lake and the city to overtop and fill the city “bowl” with water from lake levee to river levee, in some places as deep as 20 feet;

* Flooded the north shore suburbs of Lake Pontchartrain with waters pushing as much as seven miles inland; and

* Inundated inhabited areas south of the Mississippi River.

Up to 80 percent of the structures in these flooded areas would have been severely damaged from wind and water. The potential for such extensive flooding and the resulting damage is the result of a levee system that is unable to keep up with the increasing flood threats from a rapidly eroding coastline and thus unable to protect the ever-subsiding landscape.
Evacuation Challenges

Researchers have estimated that prior to a “big one,” approximately 700,000 residents of the greater New Orleans area (out of 1.2 million) would evacuate. In the case of Hurricane Ivan, officials estimate that up to 600,000 evacuated from metropolitan New Orleans between daybreak on Monday, September 13 and noon on Wednesday, September 15, when the storm turned and major roads finally started to clear.

To aid in the evacuation, transportation officials instituted contraflow evacuation for the first time in the area’s history whereby both lanes of a 12-mile stretch of Interstate 10 were used to facilitate the significantly increased outbound flow of traffic toward the northwest and Baton Rouge. The distance of the contraflow was limited due to state police concerns about the need for staff to close the exits. And, although officials were initially pleased with the results, evacuees felt the short distance merely shifted the location of the major jams.

These feelings were justified by the amount of time it took residents to evacuate—up to 11 hours to go the distance usually traveled in less than 1.5. For many who evacuated into Texas, total evacuation time frequently exceeded 20 hours. Since the storm, a consensus has developed that to alleviate this congestion much more secondary highway coordination is necessary throughout the state, contraflow needs to be considered for much greater distances, residents who are able and willing to evacuate early must be doubly encouraged to do so, families with multiple cars need to be discouraged from taking more than one unless they are needed to accommodate evacuees, and all modes of transportation in their various configurations must be fully considered for the contributions they can make to a safe and effective evacuation.

The major challenge to evacuation is the extremely limited number of evacuation routes, which is the result of the same topography and hydrology responsible for the area’s high level of hurricane risk. The presence of the Mississippi River, several lakes and bays, and associated marshes and swamps necessitates very expensive roadway construction techniques that are generally destructive to the environment, making the addition of more arteries increasingly challenging. This problem of limited evacuation routes also plagues the rest of the delta plain of southeast and south central Louisiana.
New Orleans Hurricane