What the hell!

[thedungeondelver]

NO Mayor Ray Nagin should be put in jail as being culpable for 700+ negligent homicides for his inept handling of the Katrina aftermath in his city. Frankly his red-faced huffing and puffing about how this has gone wrong and that has gone wrong only cements that notion. The man refused to forciably evacuate his city in the face of the storm that the whole NWS, NOAA and the rest of the US Gov't knew was going to come, someday. Well, now he has a destroyed city and he's crying and shitting himself because the Feds didn't just suddenly decide to suspend posse comitus and put 500,000 troops in his town the minute the air conditioners broke down in the Superdome. Furthermore given the squealing pinkos that I've seen ooze up out of the muck after this whole issue started if the government had done that I'm quite sure the reaction would've been along the lines of OMG BUSHITLER FASICST STATE NOW.

Worse was his behavior vis a vis allowing residents back in. NO is fucking broken. It will be a long, long time before New Orleans is fixed, and what did it take to stop that fool from allowing people back in to town? The approach of another category five hurricane.

The whole of the behavior of the "other side" in this situation can be summed up in Sean Penn's attempt to media-whore his way into the spotlight: "LOOKIT ME, I CAN DO WHAT PRESIDENT CHIMPYMCWARMONGERHITLER WON'T!!!" - a photo-whore with a boatload of cameramen sinking in to the swamps of Louisiana.

/rant

[John Stark]

Blame also has to be assigned to the Army Core of Engineers who built a crappy levy system

Actually, in the late 60's under the LBJ administration, the Army Core of Engineers had a great plan to build a canal system in New Orleans similar to what is used in one of the Scandanavian countries (I forget which country) that keeps the North Sea from flooding into the mainland. The project was in the works when environmentalists sued, saying that the Army Core's plan wasn't environmentally "sensitive" enough and would endanger animal species. So, the plan that would have prevented the flooding in New Orleans was never followed through with due to the machinations of environmentalists. The Army Core of Engineers aren't to blame at all, as they do not decide policy.

Edited to add: If I can find the news story where I read this, I'll post the link. I forget where I read this though, so I may not be able to find this again.

[John Stark]

Oh, and for an interesting read about how the media hyped the problems in New Orleans, check out:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... yth26.html

When it comes to the main stream media (the big news networks and papers) I don't believe a damn thing they say or print anymore, without verifying it via other sources.

There's so much more to the "Katrina story" that the main stream media spun simply to dump on Bush as much as possible, that I'm sure there will be books written on it. IMO its worse than the fake National Guard memos that CBS used last fall in their attempt to tilt the election.

[Ska]

The liberal media is an arm of the Democratic Party. All of its news is packaged and prepared to influence people to follow their agenda: the destruction of the Bush Administration and the acceptance of their socailist agenda.

I only trust (to a certain extent) Fox News coverage.

ABC. NBC, CBS---the only goal is to degrade Bush and get leftist voted in.

Do not fall for it. You may not like the Republican party but it is the best choice compared to the out-right socialist/leftist Democratic party.

Want less government intrusion in your life---vote Republican.

Want the right to keep a firearm---vote Republican.

Want to stop terrorist attacks on US---vote Republican.

Want to fight against higher taxes---vote Republican.


Always remember--the media is pushing an agenda and is not concerned with the facts.

[John Stark]

Another very good article about the media hype surrounding Katrina:

http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tporleans/ ... tml#082732

Edited to add: here's another from the LA Times, certainly not a bastion of conservatism:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... -headlines

[Mythmere]

Want less government intrusion in your life---vote Republican.

If you told any of the founding fathers (with the possible exception of Hamilton) that you had a great idea. Let's let the nation's central law enforcement agency issue its own subpoenas with no judicial oversight to see what people are reading in a library, and prevent the library from even being allowed to consult a lawyer becuse the inquiry is so secret... they'd puke. Add to that that the president can unilaterally, without consultation with congress or a court, declare a person an enemy combatant, and that this person can then, even if a US citizen, even if arrested on US soil, be held until he dies without charges even being filed and with no right to habeas corpus...they'd puke. The republicans are hardly the party of less government intrusion into peoples lives. The republicans ARE the party of intrusion into peoples' lives. If I believed that the republicans had the slightest interest in letting citizens live lives free of government intrusion, I'd consider voting republican. I don't see it. I see tons and tons of evidence to the contrary.

Want the right to keep a firearm---vote Republican.

Or Democrat. Want the right to own lots of assault weapons, yes, vote Republican. But don't whitewash the issue by fudging the facts. Eliminating gun ownership isn't on the table for either party.

Want to stop terrorist attacks on US---vote Republican.

For me, the jury's still out on this one. Nation-building works to stabilize regions. I think we handled the war badly, but it was a pretty canny move in a geopolitical sense, and not just for fighting terrorism. I think the administration hid facts and stretched intelligence reports to get us there, which ticks me off, but isn't germane to whether the war was a good idea. I think it was good idea - bad execution. We should have prepped better in the propaganda on the ground and diplomatically with our allies. As to national security, I don't think we're spending the money wisely and I think we're trading off way too much in the way of civil liberties. My democrats didn't exhibit the political balls to stand up for my priorities the way they should have during the flurry of legislation that was passed after 9/11. I think if the true conservatives (ie, Nixon pragmatists rather than neocons and religious fanatics) the Republican plan would be better than the Democrat plan.

Want to fight against higher taxes---vote Republican.

That would be, higher taxes on THIS generation. The costs are going to be paid by my kids, grandkids, ad infinitum. The republicans in power right now are spending like drunken sailors. Again, if the true conservatives get back into power in the republican party, this could be reversed. But so far the pay-as-you-go approach of the moderate democrats and the fiscal conservatives in the republican party is the only approach that has led to reduced deficits. And fiscal conservatives are way more powerful in the democratic party than they are in the republican party as it stands at the moment. But if the goal is lower taxes and a huge deficit to be passed on to future generations, then yes - vote republican.

My particular favorite is the Republican-sponsored and approved bridge in Alaska - longer than the Golden Gate, higher than the Brooklyn Bridge, connecting a city of 9,000 people to an island with a population of 50. That's not fiscal conservatism, that's theft from the taxpayer. Not this generation's taxpayer, of course - we're borrowing it from Japan and Saudi Arabia for our children to repay.

[AxeMental]

M: But don't whitewash the issue by fudging the facts. Eliminating gun ownership isn't on the table for either party.

I wish! Check out NJ gun restriction tactics. Were all one highschool mass shooting away from gun control, and don't forget it.

[Mythmere]

M: But don't whitewash the issue by fudging the facts. Eliminating gun ownership isn't on the table for either party.

I wish! Check out NJ gun restriction tactics. Were all one highschool mass shooting away from gun control, and don't forget it.

Have you got a link? I admit, on gun control the Dem party here in TX is probably further to the right than the Republicans in Massachussetts. It's not one of my hot button issues, but one of my goals as a Democrat is to keep the party reminded that not all Democrats are bleeding heart liberals. Most of us are middle of the road folks (especially here in TX outside Austin) who don't want gun control to go any further than the Assault Weapons legislation that recently didn't get renewed. I forget the name of the law.

[AxeMental]

Nationally there are very few conservative democrats left (of which I suppose you are one). Most have fled their parties leadership (Fienstine, Clinton, Shumer, Gore, Kerry, etc.) all of whom are bleeding heart extremist fanatic socialist liberals (pretending to be moderates), who will never stop until complete irradication of private gun ownership has been accomplished. They make their living on being able to cover up who they really are. They pretend not to care about gun control anymore, but will pounce on it as soon as they get the chance.

As for supporting the Assault Weapons ban, which just sunset; well I'm shocked that a Texan would have supported it (even one so close to Austin (the hippie pocket of Texas) after all gun ownership is in your blood.

Seriously, the ban you speak of prevented ordinary law abiding citizens from purchasing guns with more then 10 rounds. This is a HUGE deal to armed citizens trying to defend their businesses and homes. Most gun fights (even involving highly trained military and police) result in many of the first rounds missing, even at close range. Of course, the criminals don't purchase guns legally, they pick them up on any sleezy street in good ol' USA. So, the ban had no effect on them.

The assualt weapon portion was an attempt to stop the sale of many popular rifles. None of these rifles were more dangerous or effective in killing then a hunting rifle, but their plan was to go after the gun industry piece by piece. So they got the willing liberal press (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN etc.) to continously show examples of assualt weapons in fully automatic mode (something that has been illegal since the 30s).

Infact, my CAR15, what I considered the ultimate home defense gun during a riot/catastrophy was one that was banned. Once again, that ban only effected people like you (law abiding, normal) and not criminals who don't purchase firearms legally (but rather off the streets).

The difference between us isn't that great Myth. We both want the same thing for our people...prosperity and happyness. The problem is your in a party that left you behind in the 70s and you don't even know it. Hillary CLinton might be our next president, and she is a bleeding heart anti-gun, liberal. She would love to turn the US into France or worse. Most conservative Democrats now call yourselves "Independents" or moderate Republicans. Take a look at the blue states and the red states. The old Conservative Democrat turf is solidly republican now. And thats because we are the party that support what most Americans value (small government that doesn't try to control you, allows maximum freedoms to its citizens, treats criminals severly and believes in a strong military). I'm sure you agree with those things. Sure, I don't like the republicans stand on some things, but when I study it, the Democrats are worse on many of those issues. For instance, the Environment. Now, thats off topic, but suffice it to say, the Dems in general use the environment as a way to build support, they don't really give a crap. THey also use union members who are forced to support the Dems, even though they might not want to (via dues).

Ahh, the whole topic makes me sick. I can't believe ANYONE would actually vote for someone like Hillary. One look at her and you know her story....its chisled on her face.

[Ska]

Mythmere---the Rpeublicans are the LESSER of two evils at this point in time.
I am also agaisnt allowing any US citizen being denied basic Constitutional rights (ie held as a declared enemy combatant) I have no problem though with doing this to non-US citizens, but that is another matter.

As to gun control---you need to brush up my friend. Your Democratic leadership is ALL ABOUT the end of private citizens owning firearms or regulating them out of existence. From Diane Feinstein openly stating she wants to take all handguns from all Amerians (per CBS 60 Minutes interview) to California trying to pass legislation requiring bullets to somehow be individuallly marked on each case in an attempt to make ammunition so expensive as to end the use of private firearm use.
Again...are you kidding here? The Assault Weapons Ban also limited the amount of ammo a handgun could use. By the way, this bill was a sham. It banned semi-auto weapons which libs found too scary looking.
The elimination of individual firearm ownership is one of the goals of the Democratic Party.

Historically the Republican Party was and continues to be the anti-tax party. Just look at the Bush attempts to make his tax cuts permanent and to end the death tax (estate tax). And this is not anti-tax? While the Democrats want to tax us into socialism.

As to stopping terrorism? The Dems look at it as a law enforcement issue for god's sake! Instead of attacking the Taliban subpeonas for their arrest should have been issued. No, the Dems are absolute weaklings on this issue. Hell, after 911 one of Gore's aids was quoted in Newsweek that he was glad Bush had one due to the response he thought Gore would have.

Look at the Clinton years---AL Queda blows up two US embassys (US soil bythe way) and a navy destroyer. The Clinton response? Fire a few cruise missiles at abandoned camps n Afghanistan and blow up a janitor in a factory in Sudan.

[John Stark]

Want less government intrusion in your life---vote Republican.

If you told any of the founding fathers (with the possible exception of Hamilton) that you had a great idea. Let's let the nation's central law enforcement agency issue its own subpoenas with no judicial oversight to see what people are reading in a library, and prevent the library from even being allowed to consult a lawyer becuse the inquiry is so secret... they'd puke. Add to that that the president can unilaterally, without consultation with congress or a court, declare a person an enemy combatant, and that this person can then, even if a US citizen, even if arrested on US soil, be held until he dies without charges even being filed and with no right to habeas corpus...they'd puke. The republicans are hardly the party of less government intrusion into peoples lives. The republicans ARE the party of intrusion into peoples' lives. If I believed that the republicans had the slightest interest in letting citizens live lives free of government intrusion, I'd consider voting republican. I don't see it. I see tons and tons of evidence to the contrary.

Hear hear! I agree almost completely with you Mythmere, as I find the the parts of the Patriot Act you've sited disturbing as well.

Now, the Constitution does allow the government some leeway on this stuff during times of emergency, say during war (which we're in) or whatnot. However, any suspension of civil rights should never be more than temporary as far as I'm concerned. So, the Patriot Act should, at some point, go the way of the dodo. Its bugs me that there are republicans who want it to be made permanent.

One thing to keep in mind though, it wasn't just the Repubs who voted for the Patriot Act. Lots of Dems agreed to it as well, and support for it was very strong on both sides of the aisle. The Dems now seem more inclined to want to get rid of it though at this point, with Repubs wanting to keep it, which bugs me to no end.

As Ben Franklin said, those who are willing to give up their freedoms for a sense of security deserve neither (paraphrased).

[AxeMental]

Yeah, Myth, as far as the Patriot Act goes I think we all agree with you. Picture President Hillary using it to go after 2nd Amendment supporters, who attempt to fight back against gun laws she might inact.

The reality is though, that we have a few 1000 terrorist willing to do what ever it takes to sneak into the country and kill 1000s if not 100,000s of Americans. They are patient and intelligent. And they seem perfectly normal (not foaming at the mouth), hell they even lived among us before 911. Got to know what were really like, and still went through with it.

So, the Patriot Act is something going beyond what the normal legal system has in place. What do you do with a guy you strongly suspect is a terrorist in an active cell yet you can't prove it; let him go? Is it worth one or two individuals being submitted to this detention if it means 1000s might live. Not to mention the economy, the world economy and the billions effected by it. The Patriot Act needed to define the target better and needs to sunset every 6 months period.

When I say the republicans are for less intrusion, what I mean is their platform compared to that of the Dems.
That said, I do have serious problems with bible thumping evangelical religious fanatics trying to usurp control of the party. I am pro-choice, and am against any form of sensorship (unless it is damaging to minors or way outside the norm stuff being shoved in your face).

Republicans: low taxes, small government, strong on crime, strong military. Believe people are smart enough to make good choices for themselves.

Democrats: High taxes, pro-union, big govt, weak on crime and military.
Believe people need them to make proper choices for them, because their elightest.

[JRMapes]

Inside the beltway....

republicans - Believe people are smart enough to make good choices for themselves unless of course you disagree with them then they believe people need them to make proper choices for them.

democrats: For the most part just believe people need them to make proper choices for them


republicans & democrats = elitist assholes

[AxeMental]

Q: "republicans - Believe people are smart enough to make good choices for themselves unless of course you disagree with them then they believe people need them to make proper choices for them."

Well, if Republicans shove stuff down peoples throats, at least its stuff thats good for them like: welfare reform, lower taxes, and policy that increases peoples ability to be self reliant (something the Dems are entirely against...after all, if you can take care of yourself, you don't need big govt. telling you what to do and how to get your next hand out).

The more I think about it, the more I can't believe a Democratic Party even exists in its present ultra liberal state. "Minority A, vote for me and we'll give you free money (taken from "the man"), Union B vote for me and we'll create laws that force business to pay you 2x what you really should be making, and guess what, they have to hire only union workers...so if you want to work you better join up. Its corruption out in the open! And it makes me sick.

And thats not even addressing the massive corruption and waste of local, state and fed. government, the real fleecing of America. I mean what percentage of every dollar do you think gets spent were its intended. How much of it is pork, and management trying to max out thier annual alloted funds on unneeded tools and projects so they can ask for the same amount of funding the following year. ITS RAMPANT CORRUPTION!


ANYHOW,
Sure, we Republicans care about starving and homeless. But isn't it better to create policies that create jobs (at every salarylevel) and make it easier to start your own business (through corporation reform etc.), rather then just keep taking money out of your pocket and giving it to someone else, to essentially buy their vote? It's amazing that every Dem. I talk to (and I am friends with them) never disagree with these same arguements, but still illogically hold to party loyalty. It's as if its an emotional thing, feelings without thought. Republicans do feel. They just realize self respect and self reliance is the way, and most are willing to bend over backwards to help people get on thier feet. But not at the point of a bayonette.

That said Jerry, your 100% correct. But those are RBNOs, individuals who are in it for the power, not because they believe in the party philosophy.

BTW do the Dems have a party philosophy?

[JRMapes]

Heh, last i knew they were still on the Womb to Tomb platform.