NationStates Jolt Archive

The police I've seen interviewed on TV say their radio batteries are dead and the stations washed away anyway. They are just as on their own as everyone else.It's still they're job to patrol and protect the city and protect their constituents. Which they haven't been doing.
What? Did the people in the superdome have some kind of super disease that these so called cops were avoiding by not going in there?

LMAO, check out some of the threads in general, and the 3 page Comment section on the BBC News website! :eek: Apparently the world is silent. In fact, it's just being ignored as usual. :rolleyes:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/52478.htm

Try again.

The Constitution does not give him the authority to do that. He can only do it in the event of a war or a civil insurrection.

Or in the event of a national emergency. He can very well do it.

LMAO, check out some of the threads in general, and the 3 page Comment section on the BBC News website! :eek: Apparently the world is silent. In fact, it's just being ignored as usual. :rolleyes:

I am going to try and be the voice of reason here as a US resident:

I am extremely grateful for the outpouring of sympathy and offers of aid that have come from overseas. And I am so glad to see that nationality, once again, is subordinated in the face of crises.

Saying that, I don't think it is fair for the US to take aid. It's like a rich man taking money from his poorer neighbours because his roof leaked.

If, indeed, more manpower and reasources are needed than the US can provide, I would delighted to see that Europe, Russia, or Australiasia help provide them, and I think they could play a vital role. But the US should also pay for the use of those services. Anything else would be stealing.

My only caveat here is in respect of private charity. If wealthy europeans et al decide to donate, then that is probably a fair use of their money.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/52478.htm

Try again.
No, YOU try again (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9571741&postcount=107).

No, YOU try again (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9571741&postcount=107).

Once again you proved me right that it hasn't been rejected. I never said it was accepted just that it wasn't rejected.

Saying that, I don't think it is fair for the US to take aid. It's like a rich man taking money from his poorer neighbours because his roof leaked.
Hey, that's a reasonable attitude. My problem is all these other people nurturing a persecution complex.

What? Did the people in the superdome have some kind of super disease that these so called cops were avoiding by not going in there?
Yeah, it's called being surrounded by an expanse of water several feet deep. :p

Seems to me there is plenty of blame to go around here. Lots of people fucked up, not just Bush - in fact Bush probably has the smallest amount of responsibility of anyone here IMHO.

Yes Bush cared enough to end his vacation a day early, after Katrina had hit.

the fact that anyone is using this as a political rally is very Sheehanesque (a very negative term). This is not a time, nor a valid case, for political grandstanding/finger-pointing.

Bush didn't cause the flood

Bush could not prevent the damage

Bush is not God


But he does talk to him and apparently gets talked back to as well.
After all it was you know who that told him to be president


Bush does not control the economy


nothing needs to be said to this.


If we were in Iraq for oil, we'd HAVE their oil and our gas prices would not be half as high as they are now.


You do have their oil (as in you control where it goes to and when)
and your oil companies have no problems with the
current prices, does them no harm at all and they have the whitehouse.
So it seems the benefits are going to the people who set the whole thing
in motion.
What did you expect you live in a corporate run capitalist state.


The only thing positive thing to be said about the whole mess in NO
is that it could at least be used to demonstrate to the Iraqis that
the conditions they are in under american occupation are not deliberate
and that the US administration cannot manage much better for their own
people.

However the Iraqis will notice that it causes an uproar in the US when
those conditions exist for even one day in an American state and
not much fuss at all if they exist for years in Iraq.

In other words it may be the teensiest faintest bit of positive but it surely
ain't much.

However Bush whackers should be ashamed of themselves
it isn't as if the disaster in NO has had no negative effect on his own life,
he had to finish his 5 week holiday 2 days early because of this and
don't you forget it.

But he does talk to him and apparently gets talked back to as well.
After all it was you know who that told him to be president



nothing needs to be said to this.



You do have their oil (as in you control where it goes to and when)
and your oil companies have no problems with the
current prices, does them no harm at all and they have the whitehouse.
So it seems the benefits are going to the people who set the whole thing
in motion.
What did you expect you live in a corporate run capitalist state.


The only thing positive thing to be said about the whole mess in NO
is that it could at least be used to demonstrate to the Iraqis that
the conditions they are in under american occupation are not deliberate
and that the US administration cannot manage much better for their own
people.

However the Iraqis will notice that it causes an uproar in the US when
those conditions exist for even one day in an American state and
not much fuss at all if they exist for years in Iraq.

In other words it may be the teensiest faintest bit of positive but it surely
ain't much.

However Bush whackers should be ashamed of themselves
it isn't as if the disaster in NO has had no negative effect on his own life,
he had to finish his 5 week holiday 2 days early because of this and
don't you forget it.

This conspiracy theory of a post does not even warrant a response.

I think you should go back and reread my posts. Apparently you are saying that people should not have to responsible for their actions.

Gay people that aren't harming anybody should not be held responsible for natural phenomena. But since it's in your best interests as a right-wing idiot that likes to worship a god that hates everyone that isn't yourself (what a coincidence that it's only you that He should love), you decide to assume there is. I've read your posts, and re-read them. I'm a linguist. I know plenty discourse analysis to tell the meaning you're conveying. You're blaming either nature or human mistake on what YOUR little excuse for a mind sees as sinful. You're politicizing and mixing religion into a fricking disaster to push your neocon mediaeval agenda of burning witches, "fags" and other PEOPLE. Yes, that's right, they're PEOPLE. You, I'm not so sure. You actually say a city filled with people (and let's assume for a moment that EVERYONE in a given city is gay) that are harming NOBODY deserves to be struck by a natural disaster because of where they put what? I don't even have a word to tell you what you have for a brain, but it's NOT pretty. Your ethics system is flawed, you believe and love an image of God that would gladly let a disaster happen to an area "because there are many gays and pagans there". Geeze, here was I thinking God loved people. But no, you worship Bane. You worship a god of hatred, intollerance... In short, you worship Satan. You like Satan, because, indeed, Satan fits perfectly well with your point of view: "Kill them all, they don't look like me, if there's innocents still there, it's their fault for being there". You're a servant of the Devil. The only reason you're not the Devil himself is because it takes some intelligence to occupy a high post even in the most evil places. But you're a happy servant of the Devil, that looks at deaths, blames whoever you see fit for a NATURAL DISASTER, raises a glass and says "here's to many more". I am my own master. God is the master of several good people. The Devil is your master, though.

Gay people that aren't harming anybody should not be held responsible for natural phenomena. But since it's in your best interests as a right-wing idiot that likes to worship a god that hates everyone that isn't yourself (what a coincidence that it's only you that He should love), you decide to assume there is. I've read your posts, and re-read them. I'm a linguist. I know plenty discourse analysis to tell the meaning you're conveying. You're blaming either nature or human mistake on what YOUR little excuse for a mind sees as sinful. You're politicizing and mixing religion into a fricking disaster to push your neocon mediaeval agenda of burning witches, "fags" and other PEOPLE. Yes, that's right, they're PEOPLE. You, I'm not so sure. You actually say a city filled with people (and let's assume for a moment that EVERYONE in a given city is gay) that are harming NOBODY deserves to be struck by a natural disaster because of where they put what? I don't even have a word to tell you what you have for a brain, but it's NOT pretty. Your ethics system is flawed, you believe and love an image of God that would gladly let a disaster happen to an area "because there are many gays and pagans there". Geeze, here was I thinking God loved people. But no, you worship Bane. You worship a god of hatred, intollerance... In short, you worship Satan. You like Satan, because, indeed, Satan fits perfectly well with your point of view: "Kill them all, they don't look like me, if there's innocents still there, it's their fault for being there". You're a servant of the Devil. The only reason you're not the Devil himself is because it takes some intelligence to occupy a high post even in the most evil places. But you're a happy servant of the Devil, that looks at deaths, blames whoever you see fit for a NATURAL DISASTER, raises a glass and says "here's to many more". I am my own master. God is the master of several good people. The Devil is your master, though.

Dude, I'll respond when you get off your self righteous high horse.

Dude, I'll respond when you get off your self righteous high horse.

A lumb of coal should not call a pot black!

I find it very disturbing that the media does at least one news story a month on the so-called "pork" money spent renourishing beaches and dunes when those beaches and dunes protect the people in the path of a hurricane. The levees are no different. None of the politicians wanted to vote for money to be spent on these things that are so easily labelled as "pork." Then, when the very thing happens that the so called "pork" money would have prevented, everyone stands around pointing fingers. Disgusting.

Republicans need to stop blaming Clinton for everything. Clinton got head. Clinton was a terrorist. Clinton gave you cancer. It is just getting old and childish.

From http://www.helloneworleans.com/Census.Cfm

(US 2000 census figures for New Orleans)

Race alone or in combination with one or more other races:
White 140,168 28.9%
Black or African American 329,171 67.9%
American Indian and Alaska Native 2,625 0.5%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 309 0.1%
Some other race 7,240 1.5%

Pretty much explains why most of folks in the city are Afro-American as most of the white population escaped in their cars.

Now would the Bush's response been faster if the city was mainly white people?

I am greatly disturbed.
Superdome evacuation halted (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9175611/)

The worst about this whole incident is the rising oil price.

It wasn't just Bush. Clinton did it too! Nice job of ignoring that fact. And no, enough time hasn't changed. Why don't you take your political opportunities and shove it where the sun don't shine.

I'm disappointed in you Stephistan.


He certainly did but not to the same extent. I was watching Sky News last night, they were interviewing a police officer and someone from the coast gaurd I think who said that the machinery and resources that are badly needed are elsewhere..ie in Iraq. Enough time has past. Time in politics-which dips into so many other areas I'd be here for the day listing them-moves twice if not 3 times as fast then 'normfail' time. So why don't you follow your own advise and quite acting like a disgruntled Republican who's embarassed by the idiot he voted for. (end of rant)

He certainly did but not to the same extent. I was watching Sky News last night, they were interviewing a police officer and someone from the coast gaurd I think who said that the machinery and resources that are badly needed are elsewhere..ie in Iraq. Enough time has past. Time in politics-which dips into so many other areas I'd be here for the day listing them-moves twice if not 3 times as fast then 'normfail' time. So why don't you follow your own advise and quite acting like a disgruntled Republican who's embarassed by the idiot he voted for. (end of rant)

I just said that it wasn't all of his fault. I didn't say he was innocent in all of this Mekonia now did I? No I didn't.

People who are responsible:

Bush
Clinton
House of Representatives
Senate
State of Louisiana
Louisiana Legislature
Governor of Louisiana
Mayor of New Orleans

Everyone is to blame for this disaster.

The latest Republican mantra has been towards the creation of an "ownership society". Near as I can tell, in practice it means that if you don't own shit, you aren't deemed a worthwhile member of society. That ownership = membership. That survival in this ownership society is to be reduced to the ability to own your own way to save yourself.


I believe that was the way the Constitution was written. If you didn't own land, you didn't vote - among other things...

I am greatly disturbed.
Superdome evacuation halted (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9175611/)
Me too.

"At one point Friday, the evacuation was interrupted briefly when school buses rolled up so some 700 guests and employees from the Hyatt Hotel could move to the head of the evacuation line — much to the amazement of those who had been crammed in the stinking Superdome since last Sunday.

“How does this work? They (are) clean, they are dry, they get out ahead of us?” exclaimed Howard Blue, 22, who tried to get in their line. The National Guard blocked him as other guardsmen helped the well-dressed guests with their luggage."

Who else sees something wrong with this picture?

Either:
1. All 700 were sick, injured or elderly (possible but doubtful; yes, they'd been there just as long but apparently in better conditions).

2. The media is deliberately trying to enflame anger (they do it every day, but right now? Maybe, in which case, see below).

3. The people evacuating that city have a serious attitude problem.

I'm a Northener, so inclined to be a little biased, but I noticed the race/class divide from day one -- how almost all those left behind in NO were black and/or poor. And "left behind" is the right term, I think. Yeah, sure, everyone was *told* to evacuate, but the city made no provision for those who couldn't move themselves. I remind all here that they also abandoned the HOSPITALS. They didn't try to help anyone who needed it until it was too late. And now this. Somebody is definitely guilty of being a bastard.

Hawkintom']I believe that was the way the Constitution was written. If you didn't own land, you didn't vote - among other things...
Um, that's why the guys who wrote the Constitution, and others after them, added all those amendments. Remember those? They're part of the document now. It's a legal thing -- this [name of document] as amended from time to time -- that's lawyer-speak indicating that the amendments count. Nowadays, all adult citizens can vote whether they own land or not. Nobody cares what they did in the 18th century.

Is there a Constitutional law thread for the Americans?

Breaking News:

Fox News is showing the evacution of the New Orleans Convention Center. The United States Army and Navy choppers are taking people out of there.

I just said that it wasn't all of his fault. I didn't say he was innocent in all of this Mekonia now did I? No I didn't.

People who are responsible:

Bush
Clinton
House of Representatives
Senate
State of Louisiana
Louisiana Legislature
Governor of Louisiana
Mayor of New Orleans

Everyone is to blame for this disaster.


In far less words, we might refer to this as a "clusterfuck"

Um, that's why the guys who wrote the Constitution, and others after them, added all those amendments. Remember those? They're part of the document now. It's a legal thing -- this [name of document] as amended from time to time -- that's lawyer-speak indicating that the amendments count. Nowadays, all adult citizens can vote whether they own land or not. Nobody cares what they did in the 18th century.


Um, actually we do. You see, while I wholeheartedly abide by and defend the amendments, we still use a WHOLE LOT of the original Constitution. Personally I'd sure like to see the second amendment followed instead of ignored, but that doesn't seem likely.

And I wasn't suggesting that we take away anyone's Constitutional right to vote. You see, I don't have to. The vast majority of the people you see who STAYED BEHIND (Left Behind is another thing altogether, it is a series of badly written pseudo-Christian apocalypse books ;) ) already chose not to excercise their right to vote, I strongly suspect.

Regardless, America always has been, and hopefully always will be a Capitalist society, where earning more (and as such, likely contributing more to society) equals better treatment from society.

Now I'm sure that upset you, so let me also point out that our nation has responded with huge generousity and compassion to this situation and is trying like crazy to help the people who are in this dire situation regardless or race or income. I include myself in that.

What I take exception to is the absurd suggestions that this was somehow malicious.

I remind people that in most cases, you should always assume incompetence before maliciousness. I believe that is the case here.

Is there a Constitutional law thread for the Americans?

Why, would you like me to hand your butt to you in that thread?

:p

Christian fundamentalists have blamed the Hurricane on a gay party held annualy in New Orelans.

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2005/08/31/2

lol. I'm a Christian myself, and even I think that's absolutely ridiculous.

The worst about this whole incident is the rising oil price.
SOB. People are dead and dying and all you can think of is the price gas?

Gay people that aren't harming anybody should not be held responsible for natural phenomena. But since it's in your best interests as a right-wing idiot that likes to worship a god that hates everyone that isn't yourself (what a coincidence that it's only you that He should love), you decide to assume there is. I've read your posts, and re-read them. I'm a linguist. I know plenty discourse analysis to tell the meaning you're conveying. You're blaming either nature or human mistake on what YOUR little excuse for a mind sees as sinful. You're politicizing and mixing religion into a fricking disaster to push your neocon mediaeval agenda of burning witches, "fags" and other PEOPLE. Yes, that's right, they're PEOPLE. You, I'm not so sure. You actually say a city filled with people (and let's assume for a moment that EVERYONE in a given city is gay) that are harming NOBODY deserves to be struck by a natural disaster because of where they put what? I don't even have a word to tell you what you have for a brain, but it's NOT pretty. Your ethics system is flawed, you believe and love an image of God that would gladly let a disaster happen to an area "because there are many gays and pagans there". Geeze, here was I thinking God loved people. But no, you worship Bane. You worship a god of hatred, intollerance... In short, you worship Satan. You like Satan, because, indeed, Satan fits perfectly well with your point of view: "Kill them all, they don't look like me, if there's innocents still there, it's their fault for being there". You're a servant of the Devil. The only reason you're not the Devil himself is because it takes some intelligence to occupy a high post even in the most evil places. But you're a happy servant of the Devil, that looks at deaths, blames whoever you see fit for a NATURAL DISASTER, raises a glass and says "here's to many more". I am my own master. God is the master of several good people. The Devil is your master, though.

None of what you say is true. I've seen poeople like you before. Your the kind of person who a persecution complex.

Hawkintom']I believe that was the way the Constitution was written. If you didn't own land, you didn't vote - among other things...
Actually that's very true.

Me too.

"At one point Friday, the evacuation was interrupted briefly when school buses rolled up so some 700 guests and employees from the Hyatt Hotel could move to the head of the evacuation line — much to the amazement of those who had been crammed in the stinking Superdome since last Sunday.

“How does this work? They (are) clean, they are dry, they get out ahead of us?” exclaimed Howard Blue, 22, who tried to get in their line. The National Guard blocked him as other guardsmen helped the well-dressed guests with their luggage."

Who else sees something wrong with this picture?

Either:
1. All 700 were sick, injured or elderly (possible but doubtful; yes, they'd been there just as long but apparently in better conditions).

2. The media is deliberately trying to enflame anger (they do it every day, but right now? Maybe, in which case, see below).

3. The people evacuating that city have a serious attitude problem.

I'm a Northener, so inclined to be a little biased, but I noticed the race/class divide from day one -- how almost all those left behind in NO were black and/or poor. And "left behind" is the right term, I think. Yeah, sure, everyone was *told* to evacuate, but the city made no provision for those who couldn't move themselves. I remind all here that they also abandoned the HOSPITALS. They didn't try to help anyone who needed it until it was too late. And now this. Somebody is definitely guilty of being a bastard.

"Mayor Ray Nagin has used the hotel as a base since it sits across the street from city hall, and there were reports the hotel was cleared with priority to make room for police, firefighters and other officials."

That would explain it. The son of a bitch corrupt mayor putting himself before his constituents.

This conspiracy theory of a post does not even warrant a response.


and yet despite not even being a conspiracy theory it still gets one?

When I started this thread, all I wanted was an intelligent discussion on the cuts to the funding for protecting New Orleans from a natural disaster. I guess that was simply too much to ask for. By all means, hijack my thread with god and all unrelated topics.. Thanks! :rolleyes: :headbang:This is Nationstates General Forum... what did you really expect?

1718 New Orleans was first built by the french.
1763 New Orleans was ceded to Spain by the treaty of Paris. to prevent the Anglo Saxons from getting it. (Would say brits, but some people might get confused and forget the US was part of Britain at the time).
1769 French residents rebel against spanish crown. Rebel leaders are executed and placed on display.
1800 Louisiana is returned to France in return for Napoleon not invading Spain.
1803 Napoleon sells Louisiana to the United States.
1814 General Andrew Jackson kicks British ass at New Orleans, winning the final battle of the War of 1812.
1827 The first Mardi Gras is held.
1861 Louisiana secedes from the Union.
1862 Union forces capture New Orleans.
1884 New Orleans World's Fair
1892 The first labor strike in US history took place in New Orleans
1893 City is hit by a hurricane
1915 New Orleans becomes the birthplace of Jazz
1967 The beginning of the New Orleans Saints franchise
1975 The Superdome is completed.
1977 First black mayor elected
1984 The New Orleans World Fair
1990's New Orleans declared the United State's most strategically important port city.
2005 Hurricane Katrina devastates the entire city.

This is Nationstates General Forum... what did you really expect?
The mods merged most of the Katrina threads. They don't want people starting new ones so we have a choice between this one or the other one.

That would explain it. The son of a bitch corrupt mayor putting himself before his constituents.

Watch for him to start playing a deck worth of "Race Cards" when he goes for re-election. "I was the hero, whitey didn't wanna save you!"

Watch for him to start playing a deck worth of "Race Cards" when he goes for re-election. "I was the hero, whitey didn't wanna save you!"

Actually the race card has already been played by the Congressional Black Caucus. This is not a time to start throwing around accusations nor fingerpointing.

This is the time of prayer, mourning, and doing all we can to assist those that are refugees.

Actually the race card has already been played by the Congressional Black Caucus. This is not a time to start throwing around accusations nor fingerpointing.

This is the time of prayer, mourning, and doing all we can to assist those that are refugees.
True. But there are still certain people I would love to see rot in hell over this.

re Constitutional law thread:
Hawkintom']Why, would you like me to hand your butt to you in that thread?

:p

No, but thanks for the offer. :D

I was hoping the debate could be segregated because it really is a freaking quagmire that's only fun for persnickety legal geeks (like us?), and only American ones at that.

True. But there are still certain people I would love to see rot in hell over this.There is no one I would like to SEE rot in hell for anything...

for if I can see them, then I too am rotting in Hell and thus spending Eternaty with them... :D

I've been watching MSNB's coverage all afternoon, and it seems that the emergency response people who really can get things done in the field are finally making it there and good (still painfully slow, but good) progress is being made in helping stranded people. But I have to say, I have not yet heard anything that says there was not a failure of the command structure at the highest levels. The clearer the picture gets, the more responsibility seems to lie squarely with the city and state for lack of planning (a former NO mayor specifically blamed the current admin for having no plan to evacuate the poor), but the federal level should also be accountable for a strangulated and unwieldy command structure that failed to mobilize forces that had already been mustered. It's as if they all got ready and then stood around saying, "Should we go now? Should we go now?" And nobody answered them for several days. It's not okay. I'm sick of hearing the top eschelon, whose job it is to foresee worst case scenarios, claim no one could have foreseen such a bad scenario. You want a worst case scenario to plan for? I got two -- Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No imagination needed. Go plan for the aftermath of that, and you should have a model for just about anything else.

"Clusterfuck"? Times two. Or as one British emergency management specialist put it, "an appalling shambles from start to finish." (I love the British.)

Now that real work is finally getting done, everyone should concentrate on that, but once the crisis is past, I hope these hard questions will not be forgotten. I hope the American people will be willing to take a hard look and demand real answers and accountability from our leaders, and not let them plaster this over the way they've done with all their other scandals and failures.

That's my rant for the day. I yield the floor. ;)

To Stephistan and CanuckHeaven:

I have just seen on the bottom scroll that Canada is sending down 3 warships loaded with supplies as well as 1000 troops to help with Hurricane Katrina Relief.

None of what you say is true. I've seen poeople like you before. Your the kind of person who a persecution complex.

Oh, right, and me seeing an obvious pattern of blaming a disaster on gays and pagans and saying San Francisco and other cities should "heed this warning" because they're too liberal is persecution complex now. About "my high horse", you simply blamed a disaster on people that don't confine to YOUR idea of what God is like. Talk about high horse there. But by all means, don't believe me. Go to New Orleans and spout the kind of crap you did to the victims. Better yet, to the media. You're a delusional man that enjoys the sight of different people dying. You actually believe that God is as psychotic as you. You're enough of a megalomaniac to believe that YOU know what GOD wants. Talk about crazies, shall we? I'm not on a high horse, it's you that are riding an ant.

True. But there are still certain people I would love to see rot in hell over this.

Yep. The gays, the pagans, the atheists, the evolutionists, in short, anyone that isn't white, straight, christian and conservative.

I have just seen on the bottom scroll that Canada is sending down 3 warships loaded with supplies as well as 1000 troops to help with Hurricane Katrina Relief.

I think that's the size of their entire military....

....Oh my god....

IT'S NOT AID, IT'S AN INVASION!

Yep. The gays, the pagans, the atheists, the evolutionists, in short, anyone that isn't white, straight, christian and conservative.
Got news for you buddy. I believe in evolution.
I don't give a shit about race.
I believe in freedom of religion.
And your flamebaiting is getting really really old.

I think that's the size of their entire military....

....Oh my god....

IT'S NOT AID, IT'S AN INVASION!
You have to watch out for those sneaky Canadians. They move quickly. :rolleyes:

More troops headed to NO.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9186823/

Also, they are pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghan. to send them to Louisiana to restore order.

At the moment, even without the troops from Iraq and Afghan, the troop deployment to NO will soon reach 50,000 and may go as high as 100,000.

That is the largest US military mobilization on US soil in modern history. Apparently the Canadians are getting in on it too.

I think that's the size of their entire military....

....Oh my god....

IT'S NOT AID, IT'S AN INVASION!
Lets see, 1,000 trying to invade an area where there are 50,000. Even if the Canadians wanted to, they wouldn't be able to.

There is no one I would like to SEE rot in hell for anything...

for if I can see them, then I too am rotting in Hell and thus spending Eternaty with them... :D
Now that would be HELL, wouldn't it? :D

I guess some people should choose their words a little more carefully?

Got news for you buddy. I believe in evolution.
I don't give a shit about race.
I believe in freedom of religion.
And your flamebaiting is getting really really old.

You blamed the disaster on "debauchery" - your word, not mine - meaning that the New Orleaners brought this on themselves and you say I'm flamebaiting? You mentioned "pagans" as another of the causes and you believe in freedom of religion? You think God sent a hurricane and you believe in evolution? You're against traditional African religions and you don't give a shit about race? Whittier, if you keep saying stuff this easy to prove contradictory, humiliating you won't be as fun anymore. Going to bed now. See ya, and tell me frankly: Do you suck this much at arguing or you're taking a dive for liberals to build a straw man on?

stupid bureacrats

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9175204/

You blamed the disaster on "debauchery" - your word, not mine - meaning that the New Orleaners brought this on themselves and you say I'm flamebaiting? You mentioned "pagans" as another of the causes and you believe in freedom of religion? You think God sent a hurricane and you believe in evolution? You're against traditional African religions and you don't give a shit about race? Whittier, if you keep saying stuff this easy to prove contradictory, humiliating you won't be as fun anymore. Going to bed now. See ya, and tell me frankly: Do you suck this much at arguing or you're taking a dive for liberals to build a straw man on?
No where did I say that God sent the hurricane. He allowed it to happen. God and evolution are not exclusive.
No where did I say nonchristian religions should be banned.
Religion and race are seperate things.
Just keep trying to twist the facts.

Watch for him to start playing a deck worth of "Race Cards" when he goes for re-election. "I was the hero, whitey didn't wanna save you!"
Yet YOU are playing the "race card" with your comment. :eek:

stupid bureacrats

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9175204/

OH SHIT! CHIEF JUSTICE RENQUIST DIED? (Looks at the top of the banner) :'( :'( :'(

First Katrina than that!

Sorry for the small thread hijacking but that was what was on the top of his link.

Yet YOU are playing the "race card" with your comment. :eek:

Actually, the Congressional Black Congress has already trotted out the Race card. Which is a shame. That isn't going to do them any favors.

OH SHIT! CHIEF JUSTICE RENQUIST DIED? (Looks at the top of the banner) :'( :'( :'(

First Katrina than that!

Sorry for the small thread hijacking but that was what was on the top of his link.
Holy crap I didn't even see that.

Actually, the Congressional Black Congress has already trotted out the Race card. Which is a shame. That isn't going to do them any favors.
This disaster isn't going to do any related politicians any good. Barring any impeachment process, the only safe politician is Bush, although it does not absolve him from any blame.

The spotlight has been on New Orleans around the world and the picture is not pretty:

New Orleans crisis shames Americans (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4210674.stm)

The famous levees that were breached could have been strengthened and raised at what now seems like a trifling cost of a few billion dollars.

The Bush administration, together with Congress, cut the budgets for flood protection and army engineers, while local politicians failed to generate any enthusiasm for local tax increases.

The finger pointing and foot shuffling will be hard to keep up with. :(

This disaster isn't going to do any related politicians any good. Barring any impeachment process, the only safe politician is Bush, although it does not absolve him from any blame.

The spotlight has been on New Orleans around the world and the picture is not pretty:

New Orleans crisis shames Americans (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4210674.stm)

The famous levees that were breached could have been strengthened and raised at what now seems like a trifling cost of a few billion dollars.

The Bush administration, together with Congress, cut the budgets for flood protection and army engineers, while local politicians failed to generate any enthusiasm for local tax increases.

The finger pointing and foot shuffling will be hard to keep up with. :(

CH? It is rare that I agree with you but here, I do agree with you. It has shamed us because of what a few looters have been doing.

Everyone is to blame for the levees breaking and I won't argue that either.

Is it me, or was Bush attempting to conceal his emotions on the tragedy, during his radio address.
If you watch his radio address, he makes facial gestures as if he is attempting to hide his feelings.

This and at least ten other threads at any one time are just made to insult and/or ridicule Bush/Republicans/Christians/And any one who isn't left-wing.

There, I have said it. Of course now I am going to get forum-banned because the mods don't agree with me, and neither does half of nationstates.

Please show me proof if I am wrong, but when I read them it seems like it. And I know that I am going to be known as " A crazy right-wing, fundamentalist-chirstian who wants to tear down our beautiful Left-wing, athiest, anti-american society".

Oh, and as a side note, I am centerist, but of course now I am going to be insulted by both sides of the political spectrum, and the right-wingers will call me communist, and the left wingers will call me capitalist scum, which isn't really that bad cause I am capitalist.

And now on to be ridiculed for my thoughts.

I'm sure that there is someone to blame, mainly Bush, but I am sure that if you really tried you all might get off your fat butts and do something about it, instead of sitting here doing nothing.

I am 11 s you really can't blame me for doing something about it.

This and at least ten other threads at any one time are just made to insult and/or ridicule Bush/Republicans/Christians/And any one who isn't left-wing.

There, I have said it. Of course now I am going to get forum-banned because the mods don't agree with me, and neither does half of nationstates.

Please show me proof if I am wrong, but when I read them it seems like it. And I know that I am going to be known as " A crazy right-wing, fundamentalist-chirstian who wants to tear down our beautiful Left-wing, athiest, anti-american society".

Oh, and as a side note, I am centerist, but of course now I am going to be insulted by both sides of the political spectrum, and the right-wingers will call me communist, and the left wingers will call me capitalist scum, which isn't really that bad cause I am capitalist.

And now on to be ridiculed for my thoughts.

I'm sure that there is someone to blame, mainly Bush, but I am sure that if you really tried you all might get off your fat butts and do something about it, instead of sitting here doing nothing.

I am 11 s you really can't blame me for doing something about it.

11 heh? Kid, I've been forumbanned for being right wing more often than you've been on this forum. Don't tell me anything about left wing bias on the forum. 11? I seriously doubt that's old enough to have a mature political opinion. But hey, feel free to express your views. Just remember to heed to what others post or say also. You're young. Your views will change in due time. Everyone's views change over time.

Edit: one more peice of advise. Read at least 5 news sources. That way you will have a more informed opinion that can be supported.

Is it me, or was Bush attempting to conceal his emotions on the tragedy, during his radio address.
If you watch his radio address, he makes facial gestures as if he is attempting to hide his feelings.

And if you listened to the Democratic Response, the same thing was happening with the LA member of Congress.

CH? It is rare that I agree with you but here, I do agree with you. It has shamed us because of what a few looters have been doing.

Everyone is to blame for the levees breaking and I won't argue that either.
I don't think you get it? I am sickened by all this and it has little to do with the looters. It has everything to do with inadequate preparation, ignoring the possibilities (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9175204/), and slow response time of emergency responders.

BTW, when I talk about being sickened by all of this, I am not alone. This topic has been discussed quite a bit amongst my friends and they too are upset by this. As much as several posters on here like to think Canadians are anti-American, they are sadly mistaken. We do care, and we are upset that much of this disaster could have been avoided. We were concerned even BEFORE the hurricane hit because we knew from the news what could happen if the levees failed, and sure enough our worse fears were confirmed, and the rest they say is history. :(

And if you listened to the Democratic Response, the same thing was happening with the LA member of Congress.
I just watched the radio address on MSNBC. If you have a link to the Dem response. But I am already thinking they would do the same. This has affected the whole nation. Not just New Orleans.
There is a female soldier attending school on this post who said she wanted to go home cause her house was in New Orleans and was swept away by the floods.

I don't think you get it? I am sickened by all this and it has little to do with the looters. It has everything to do with inadequate preparation, ignoring the possibilities (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9175204/), and slow response time of emergency responders.

BTW, when I talk about being sickened by all of this, I am not alone. This topic has been discussed quite a bit amongst my friends and they too are upset by this. As much as several posters on here like to think Canadians are anti-American, they are sadly mistaken. We do care, and we are upset that much of this disaster could have been avoided. We were concerned even BEFORE the hurricane hit because we knew from the news what could happen if the levees failed, and sure enough our worse fears were confirmed, and the rest they say is history. :(
Since when did any of this have anything to do with America haters? Bush didn't cause the hurricane or the flooding. And neither did the Bush bashers/supporters. Neither did the anti Americans. Not the Canadians, not the French, not the Russians, not Saddam Hussein, not liberals, not the conservatives, not even Bin Laden's Al Qaeda Organization caused the destruction of Hurricane Katrina.
You want to know what caused it? Bureacracy. Systemic failures caused by inefficient bureacrats who didn't give a shit.
And if you want to blame people, why don't you look at the entire human race. Cause it is the entire human race that is responsible for global warming.
Instead of placing blame, people ought to focus on aid and reconstruction.
Americans have always rebuilt after major disasters. Though this one will take a little more time, it too will be rebuilt.

I don't think you get it? I am sickened by all this and it has little to do with the looters. It has everything to do with inadequate preparation, ignoring the possibilities (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9175204/), and slow response time of emergency responders.

Agreed!

BTW, when I talk about being sickened by all of this, I am not alone. This topic has been discussed quite a bit amongst my friends and they too are upset by this. As much as several posters on here like to think Canadians are anti-American, they are sadly mistaken. We do care, and we are upset that much of this disaster could have been avoided. We were concerned even BEFORE the hurricane hit because we knew from the news what could happen if the levees failed, and sure enough our worse fears were confirmed, and the rest they say is history. :(

Unfortunately true.

No where did I say that God sent the hurricane. He allowed it to happen. God and evolution are not exclusive.
No where did I say nonchristian religions should be banned.
Religion and race are seperate things.
Just keep trying to twist the facts.

Actually you wrote:

"It was not just gay parties. Remember that New Orleans was also the capital of Girls Gone Wild. It was also the US capital of debauchery, alcoholism, paganism, witchcraft, voodoo, and other forms of sin and debauchery.
San Francisco is the gay capital of America. But its sins have not yet reached the level of those in New Orleans. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and their ilk should learn what from the deeds of New Orleans and what befell the people there."

The bolded area pretty much suggests God is going to punish people.....

Actually you wrote:

"It was not just gay parties. Remember that New Orleans was also the capital of Girls Gone Wild. It was also the US capital of debauchery, alcoholism, paganism, witchcraft, voodoo, and other forms of sin and debauchery.
San Francisco is the gay capital of America. But its sins have not yet reached the level of those in New Orleans. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and their ilk should learn what from the deeds of New Orleans and what befell the people there."

The bolded area pretty much suggests God is going to punish people.....

Awwww, I wanted that kill! :( Ah well, you did the kill, you get the cookie. *Hands The Black Forrest a choc chip cookie and eyes it longingly*

;)

It must be human nature to assign blame to everything. Even natural disasters. I think it is a coping mechanism that allows us to think, "it won't happen again because we'll fix the problem," or "it wouldn't have happened if those idiots hadn't done this or that." It helps us psychologically to pretend that we can control any threat to our well-being, even huge natural disasters. If we can assign blame to something smaller, then it was "preventable" and we can go on living in denial, without fear.

Consider the Tsunami. America was blamed for not giving enough money immediately afterwards. America and the scientific community was blamed for not warning the affected countries that the Tsunami was coming. Blame was placed on people who didn't spend the money to make a better warning system in the Pacific... All so that ordinary people would feel like that they could control these situations.

So, blame who you like for a while. Rant and rave. You'll forget about it soon enough - just like my paragraph on the Tsunami, which many of you had forgotten already, and none of you had actually done anything about - and go back to your lives. But right now, assigning blame is therapy.

There's always a fall guy, it's the human way of coping.

There's always a fall guy, it's the human way of coping.
Humans are prone to err. Hopefully by identifying our mistakes, we will be less prone to commit the same error?

If you thumb through a safety book, you will see a set of rules that are mostly based on human experience. In many of those human experiences people have suffered injury or death.

In the case of New Oeleans, there was a "rule book" in place. The rules were ignored and people died. Of course there is blame and rightly so.

*blinks* And once again the famed Zeppi bias comes along, helped largely by the media. Firstly, the only reason an evacuation order was even put in place was because Bush pushed for it. The governer would not have done it on her own. Secondly The stupid bastard of a mayor that New Orleans had didn't even friggin commandeer the 205 city-owned buses which were parked pretty fucking close to the Superdome itself. That doesn't even include the buses used for public schools. And now that silly bint of a governer is blocking federal relief efforts and forcing all decisions to go through her. She's not letting the Feds streamline the chain of command, which anyone with a modicum of management experience knows makes things much easier. Instead different parts of the relief efforts are reporting to different authorities with predictable results. Blaming this on Bush is pathetic.

Blaming this on Bush is pathetic.
Blaming it on everybody but Bush is illogical.

Blaming it on everybody but Bush is illogical.

Blaming it all on Bush is illogical.

Blaming it on everybody but Bush is illogical.
http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/007188.html

Why are scores of school buses sitting in the flood waters of New Orleans today? Blame New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, who is one reason things have gotten worse, not better, in his stricken city since it was hit by Hurricane Katrina. His laissez faire approach to looting allowed the looters to become increasingly armed and violent, interrupting rescue and recovery operations.

But even before Katrina hit, he failed his poorest citizens horribly. He told them to evacuate the city - and then gave his city's poorest residence no way to do so.

Nagin lashed out at federal officials yesterday for the government's relief efforts, pleading for the government to round up "500 buses" to send to New Orleans to evacuate survivors.

But Nagin, who ordered a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans before Katrina hit, ought to be made to answer this question: Where are the buses of the New Orleans Regional Transit Authority? Under water? Destroyed? Why?

Before Katrina hit, the New Orleans Regional Transportation Authority operated at least 364 buses, probably more. (The latest stats I found are these from 2002. NORTA's website likely has more accurate stats but the site is, understandably, down.)

A more important question for Mayor Nagin is this one:

Why weren't NORTA's 364 buses used to ferry poor people out of New Orleans before Katrina hit?

It's a legitimate question. After all, Nagin knew he had tens of thousands of poor people in his city who had neither money nor vehicles to self-evacuate before the storm arrived. So, why didn't he order NORTA to send its buses into the poor neighborhoods to provide transportation to anyone wishing to leave?

If each bus could hold just 60 people, NORTA's 364 buses had the capacity to take almost 22,000 peope out of harm's way per trip. Given that Nagin ordered the compulsory evacuation of the city two days before the storm hit, there was sufficient time for more than one trip - sufficient time to move tens of thousands of the city's poorest residents out of New Orleans by bus before Katrina arrived.

Even if the buses only made one trip, one in five people now trapped in New Orleans wouldn't be.

But Nagin never sent NORTA's buses and drivers into the city's Ninth Ward, its poorest section, to offer the people there a realistic way out.

Critics will ask where, exactly, the NORTA buses would have taken tens of thousands of people. My answer: the first town they came to 100 miles or so west of New Orleans. Would that be ideal? No, but leaving 100,000 poor people trapped in a below-sea-level city about to be hit by a hurricane stronger than the city's levees were build to withstand wasn't exactly ideal, either.

Nagin is screaming for buses now, but when he had them he failed to use them. People aren't dying in New Orleans today because of what the federal relief effort is or isn't doing. People are dying in New Orleans today because Mayor Ray Nagin failed to get them out before Katrina hit.

People are dying - perhaps by the thousands - because of his failure.

UPDATE: A commenter notes that the New Orleans Public School system also had buses - hundreds of them. Why weren't they pressed into service to evacuate the thousands of residents who had no way out? (After posting this update, I found the flooded buses photo via a link posted by a commenter over at BloggingForBryant.)

In the days before the hurricane struck, the possibility of commandeering the city's two big bus fleets - the transit buses and the school buses - was much discussed on this Metafilter thread.

One person, "Amberglow," wrote at at 11:15 AM New Orleans time on August 28: "They ought to get every bus in the city comandeered and just get people out of there. even boats and barges up the Mississippi would work."

But ... they didn't.

Instead, the transit buses were used to shuttle people to the Superdome. And the school buses were left parked to drown in the floodwaters, each flooded seat representing a person that could have been moved out of harm's way.

UPDATE: Hey, I'm not the only one who thinks Nagin blew it. Brendan Loy checks in, as does B. Preston at JunkyardBlog, and Glenn Reynolds. Interesting, though, that they're focusing on the school buses, but I was talking about Nagin's failure to use the city's transit system buses to evacuate poor people before the photo of the drowned school buses surfaced.

Preston writes:

Here's a tight satellite view of the bus lot. It looks to me like there are more than 205 buses there. That's a freeway next to the lot, in the upper part of the frame. It leads to the Superdome in one direction and out of the city in the other. ...The Superdome is in the lower left and the bus lot is in the upper right. They're not that far apart - a mile or two maybe. I will say this - if the city's emergency planners couldn't figure out that the bus lot, the freeway and the dome make a pretty tight emergency staging and evacuation system all by themselves, those planners are beyond incompetent.

He's right. And their incompetence cost lives - perhaps thousands of lives.

Also wanting answers from Nagin about the unused buses: David Frey of TigerSmack, an LSU sports blog.

And the Cracker Barrel Philosopher calls the drowned school buses the "Ray Nagin Memorial Motor Pool." Ouch.

UPDATE: Sept. 3: Lots of good stuff overnight in the comments, including the fact that Louisiana Gov. Blanco didn't call an evacuation until after President Bush begged her to do so, and the fact that the official hurricane evacuation plan for southeastern Louisiana says this:

The primary means of hurricane evacuation will be personal vehicles. School and municipal buses, government-owned vehicles and vehicles provided by volunteer agencies may be used to provide transportation for individuals who lack transportation and require assistance in evacuating.

So, Nagin is doubly incompetement, the flooded unused school buses being a testament to his failure of vision and his failure to either know or follow the written plan.

UPDATE: David Wissing has some thoughts about buses, as does Tim at Four Right Wing Wackos.

UPDATE: ChronWatch has a nice summary of Nagin's Failure:

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin declared a state of emergency, and ordered a mandatory evacuation of the city. Some of those who remained behind were too poor to escape via normal public or private transportation. The poorest residents had no way out of town. Photos have shown fleets of school buses still parked in their flooded lots. Why those buses were not pressed into service, no one knows. The City of New Orleans Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan clearly states, "The City of New Orleans will utilize all available resources to quickly and safely evacuate threatened areas," and "Transportation will be provided to those persons requiring public transportation from the area." Part II, Section B, paragraph 5 of the Louisiana Emergency Operations Plan (supplement 1A) states, "School and municipal buses, government-owned vehicles, and vehicles provided by volunteer agencies may be used to provide transportation for individuals who lack transportation and require assistance in evacuating."

Public buses only took people to the Superdome, which was clearly not outside the threatened area. The school buses were never used at all. Emergency plans are created for a reason, and need to be followed in order to ensure the safety of the citizens.

And Tim Saler at RedState.org writes:

Perhaps Mayor Nagin, if he was so concerned about evacuating the city of New Orleans and save all the poor black residents who people like Randall Robinson, Jesse Jackson, and Kanye West believe were slighted by the President and the Republican government, he would have used the over two-hundred school buses at a depot in New Orleans. It is estimated that each bus could have carried around sixty-six people. At a round number, if there were two-hundred buses that could carry sixty-six people at a time, that's 13,200 people evacuated to safety - on just one trip. Now those buses are under water and are mostly useless. But instead of doing what he could have done at a local level to save his residents, Mayor Nagin sat on his hands and waited for the federal response, then proceeded to bite the hand that is trying to save his city.

Days later, Nagin complains to CNN, "Right now we are out of resources at the convention center and don't anticipate enough buses. We need buses." You had them, Mayor. You chose not to use them, and now you blame the President and the federal government for your mistakes.

I don't know if Nagin broke city ordinance or state law in ignoring the emergency plans, but his failure certainly makes him morally culpable in the deaths of the people he failed to provide a way out. And his failure likely cost hundreds, maybe thousands of lives.


A satellite photo of the area, with plenty of freeway connecting the discussed about bus lot and the Superdome.
http://www.junkyardblog.net/images/NO-buses-satellite-wide.jpg



Bush's fault my ass.

Actually you wrote:

"It was not just gay parties. Remember that New Orleans was also the capital of Girls Gone Wild. It was also the US capital of debauchery, alcoholism, paganism, witchcraft, voodoo, and other forms of sin and debauchery.
San Francisco is the gay capital of America. But its sins have not yet reached the level of those in New Orleans. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and their ilk should learn what from the deeds of New Orleans and what befell the people there."

The bolded area pretty much suggests God is going to punish people.....
That does not support his point.
He said I am bashing gays. I am not.
He said I am against religious freedom. The fact is I am a strong proponent of religious freedom.
Also, he stated that if you believe in God, you cannot believe in evolution.
He further claims that religion and race are one and the same.
Me thinks he either doesn't know what he is talking (and is therefore rambling like a madman) or he is attempting to stifle free speech. (or he could simply be a crackpot with mental problems). Then again, he could just be someone with a severe persecution complex.
Ah, that is probably the difference. He thinks he has a right to be not offended when the fact is that he has no such right. No one has a right to not be offended.
Gays are not sacred cows anymore than the Virgin Mary is. See if this guy had his, America would not be a free country, it would a dictatorship where people would be killed for anything they said that someone else found offensive.
Even if someone were to pray publicly for God to smite gays, pagans, or debauchers, it has no negative impact on anyone.

Hawkintom']It must be human nature to assign blame to everything. Even natural disasters. I think it is a coping mechanism that allows us to think, "it won't happen again because we'll fix the problem," or "it wouldn't have happened if those idiots hadn't done this or that." It helps us psychologically to pretend that we can control any threat to our well-being, even huge natural disasters. If we can assign blame to something smaller, then it was "preventable" and we can go on living in denial, without fear.

Consider the Tsunami. America was blamed for not giving enough money immediately afterwards. America and the scientific community was blamed for not warning the affected countries that the Tsunami was coming. Blame was placed on people who didn't spend the money to make a better warning system in the Pacific... All so that ordinary people would feel like that they could control these situations.

So, blame who you like for a while. Rant and rave. You'll forget about it soon enough - just like my paragraph on the Tsunami, which many of you had forgotten already, and none of you had actually done anything about - and go back to your lives. But right now, assigning blame is therapy.

There's always a fall guy, it's the human way of coping.

There's a difference between scapegoating and correcting a mistake. To blame the disaster on gays, pagans, blacks, the poor, or even god himself is scapegoating, and it's a low, cowardly, lazy, irresponsible thing to do.

But when you've got a group of supposed professionals whose job is to plan for disasters and it turns out that, despite all the plans, models, resources and other tools available, they just plain didn't do it, that is blameworthy. The only reason any of this is happening is because every single level of authority, from the mayor to congress and the president, fucked up every way they could. I think it's becoming ever more obvious that it's not just one overwhelming event, the way the government spokesmodels are saying; it's a systematic failure to do what they say they are doing that's been going on for years. Ignoring that would be a deadly mistake.

This disaster should be a wake-up call to Americans, all right. We can't keep coasting along with this slacker attitude that saying you're doing a thing is the same as doing it. We've got to wake up and grow up, and I think it would be appropriate to start by firing the incompetent sons of bitches who have been bullshitting us about how prepared for disaster they are ever since 9/11.

http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/007188.html




A satellite photo of the area, with plenty of freeway connecting the discussed about bus lot and the Superdome.
http://www.junkyardblog.net/images/NO-buses-satellite-wide.jpg



Bush's fault my ass.
Does not look like the race card will help him. Soon Nagin is going to be out of a job and possibly behind bars.

Blaming it on everybody but Bush is illogical.
That's not the point. No one is blaming everybody BUT Bush... They are blaming everybody.

Why must you single one entity out?

Bush's fault my ass.
Until we hear the story behind the non use of buses, one can only speculate what the reasons might be for that happening.

Do you get all your info from weblogs?

Computer models predicted disaster (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9175204/page/2/)

Levee failure predicted

In comments on Thursday, President George W. Bush said, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

But Louisiana State University engineer Joseph Suhayda and others have warned for years that defenses could fail. In 2002, the New Orleans Times Picayune published a five-part series on "The Big One" examining what might happen if they did.

It predicted that 200,000 people or more would be unwilling or unable to heed evacuation orders and thousands would die, that people would be housed in the Superdome, that aid workers would find it difficult to gain access to the city as roads became impassable, as well as many other of the consequences that actually unfolded after Katrina hit this week........

Several experts also believe the decision to make FEMA a part of the Department of Homeland Security, created after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, was a major mistake. Rubin said FEMA functioned well in the 1990s as a small, independent agency.

"Under DHS, it was downgraded, buried in a couple of layers of bureaucracy, and terrorism prevention got all the attention and most of the funds," she said.

Former FEMA director James Lee Witt testified to Congress in March 2004: "I am extremely concerned that the ability of our nation to prepare for and respond to disasters has been sharply eroded.

Abandoned to the elements (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4210674.stm)

The famous levees that were breached could have been strengthened and raised at what now seems like a trifling cost of a few million dollars.

The Bush administration, together with Congress, cut the budgets for flood protection and army engineers, while local politicians failed to generate any enthusiasm for local tax increases.

There is lots more to this situation that meets the eye and pinning it all on the mayor of New Orleans solely is illogical. Not blaming Bush is also illogical.

We are talking about something we all knew it was going to happen, days before.

And, what will happen if "The Big One" takes place in the St. Andrews Fault? If in a predicted disaster everything has gone wrong...

There is lots more to this situation that meets the eye and pinning it all on the mayor of New Orleans solely is illogical. Not blaming Bush is also illogical.
And yet... most of your posts attempt to lay the lions share of the blame on Bush. That too is illogical. No single entity is to blame, there's plenty to go around.

Now while you are blaming, why don't you do something to help. And if you have done something, do more.

Until we hear the story behind the non use of buses, one can only speculate what the reasons might be for that happening.

Do you get all your info from weblogs?

Computer models predicted disaster (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9175204/page/2/)

Levee failure predicted

In comments on Thursday, President George W. Bush said, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

But Louisiana State University engineer Joseph Suhayda and others have warned for years that defenses could fail. In 2002, the New Orleans Times Picayune published a five-part series on "The Big One" examining what might happen if they did.

It predicted that 200,000 people or more would be unwilling or unable to heed evacuation orders and thousands would die, that people would be housed in the Superdome, that aid workers would find it difficult to gain access to the city as roads became impassable, as well as many other of the consequences that actually unfolded after Katrina hit this week........

Several experts also believe the decision to make FEMA a part of the Department of Homeland Security, created after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, was a major mistake. Rubin said FEMA functioned well in the 1990s as a small, independent agency.

"Under DHS, it was downgraded, buried in a couple of layers of bureaucracy, and terrorism prevention got all the attention and most of the funds," she said.

Former FEMA director James Lee Witt testified to Congress in March 2004: "I am extremely concerned that the ability of our nation to prepare for and respond to disasters has been sharply eroded.

Abandoned to the elements (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4210674.stm)

The famous levees that were breached could have been strengthened and raised at what now seems like a trifling cost of a few million dollars.

The Bush administration, together with Congress, cut the budgets for flood protection and army engineers, while local politicians failed to generate any enthusiasm for local tax increases.

There is lots more to this situation that meets the eye and pinning it all on the mayor of New Orleans solely is illogical. Not blaming Bush is also illogical.so It's the Mayor's fault for not using resources properly, It's Bush's and CONGRESS's fault for cutting the levee project, it's also the STATE's Fault for also not finding the Fundings once CONGRESS cut the fundings.

that about sums it up.

We are talking about something we all knew it was going to happen, days before.

And, what will happen if "The Big One" takes place in the St. Andrews Fault? If in a predicted disaster everything has gone wrong...
We knew what was going to happen?
That Katrina would hit NO? No we didn't, we suspected, but nature has a way of changing without us being able to predict it.

That the levees wouldn't hold back a cat 4-5? Katrina was a Cat 3 on Saturday before landfall. It didn't strengthen to cat 5 until later sunday.

so It's the Mayor's fault for not using resources properly, It's Bush's and CONGRESS's fault for cutting the levee project, it's also the STATE's Fault for also not finding the Fundings once CONGRESS cut the fundings.

that about sums it up.

I want to state again my respect for all the victims, first.

Now I remember: "Don't ask what can your country do for you, ask what can you do for your country"

Suddendly, that statement is pointless? Or it was before?

My husband as you all know him as Zeppistan, wrote this in his journal today. I felt that enough time has passed, as did he to post such a thread.

Wow, I mean, really. Wow. I always knew Zep and I disagreed, but I expected better than this from him. This is woefully opportunistic and inadequate. In the interest of conservation of space I'll post my comments in bold italics within the quote;


[quote=Zeppistan]
I've been avoiding talking about this subject so far. Didn't want to be accused of political opportunism. But as the facts keep spilling out, about the deep cuts to the levee programs over the past few years, Which 'deep' cuts are you referring to? the cuts to FEMA again, which cuts do you refer to? and it's re tasking away from it's mandate of disaster management to what? leaving the country without a dedicated federal agency to step in to such an event, and the obvious lack of available manpower and equipment which is all all? in the middle east these days, I find myself growing angry.

And when I hear GW make the assinine comment yesterday that nobody could have foreseen the levees failing I believe the expecation was that they'd overflow, but not have huge chuncks missing. Big difference there. Besides, the dept of homeland security is not the same as FEMA - their concern is human caused disasters. when the Department of Homeland security listed it as a huge threat, when you consider all of the articles on the subject, and the very news reports that considered what might be about to happen as Katrina bore down on the city, anger gives way to rage. I have to wonder what, with the mandated security whenever he is about, happened when he circled the city in his shiny jet? Let me guess, you're going to answer your own question. I'd put good money on it that standard clear airspace requirements for Airforce One were enforced which would have meant a suspension of the airborne search and rescue for that period. And you confirmed this how?...Oh, right, you didn't

Clearly the government cannot stop the weather. But I have to ask the question: where were the buses to get the poor people out BEFORE the storm? Just because you don't know does not mean there were none. This is a valid question - but you state it as an accusation - that is what makes it opportunistic rather than constructive, you also ignore the plans which were made within the city. Nobody offered me a bus ticket out of town during Charley, but there were shelters galore. Now they have to try and find their way in and out across shattered highways and through flooded areas. How many lives could have been saved had the evacuation been managed (and funded) you again state an incorrect and over simplified presumption as fact instead of people crossing their fingers, hoping for the best, and leaving so many people in harms way? Did you miss the part when the mayor said 'Get out now!' ?

And what will the cost to the taxpayer be on this? Had those few hundred million exactly what few hundered million are you referring to? been left in the budget over the past three years to perform the needed upkeep on the levees, how many billions would have been saved today? 10? 20? The funding cuts this past year that were deemed unaffordable represented about 7 hours worth of operations in Iraq. Seven hours. According to whom? If just one of those levees had held, or a few pumps kept running, pumps running? Sure? How about those ACs too? surely you are joking now. You obviously know nothing of what it is like after a hurricane has passed. how much of a difference would that money have made? Money cannot stop a barge from crashing into a levee.

The latest Republican mantra has been towards the creation of an "ownership society". Near as I can tell, in practice it means that if you don't own shit, you aren't deemed a worthwhile member of society. Um no, that isn't it at all. It is the correct observation that people take better care of stuff they own, therefore society is better when more people have ownership of it. That ownership = membership. That survival in this ownership society is to be reduced to the ability to own your own way to save yourself.


I'm not sure that represents the America that they put out on their sales brochure... oooh, sarcasm. Dangerous ground. Since it is based on a statement I already demonstrated to be flawed it really isn't very pithy anymore.

But for those who are their on the ground helping, who have taken this event to be a call to help others in dire circumstances, you all have my utmost respect and admiration. Agreed. You must really understand wht it is like there to appreciate it. Television does not communicate well the 95% humidity, still air and 90+ temerature. It is hot, sticky and gross. Nights are not any cooler. There is no relief from the heat and sweat. At least in my own experience I could drive out of town only a few miles to escape. The damage area was only ten miles wide and the roads dry. This area is over a hundred miles wide and soggy (with sewage contaminated water!) all over. There is no easy escape.... or entrance. May you all be safe and well, and may you be granted the opportunity and resource needed to make a profound difference in the lives of others. Because that IS what a caring society should be about. [/here is where the quote ends]

There are certainly questions that deserve answers, but leading questions and presenting speculation as fact are things which I thought were beyond you. I was disappointed to read this, to say the least.

Here are my questions;

1) Of the neighborhoods which were flooded, what pre-storm notification and evacuation services were provided?
2) Who was in charge of the coordination both before and after the storm and why was it so discoordinated?
3) Airspace was crowded, but what about boats? Where were/are the small craft?
4) A certain amount of flooding was to be expected. What was the plan to deal with that and why was it so difficult to expand it to the current circumstances?

It saddens me that there are people who are so willing to invent and distort facts to conform to their political prejudices before really examining all of the information. Many questions out there don't even deserve to be dignified with answers, thankfully you avoided those.

Most of all, the demand to know why it took so 'long' for supplies and relief to arrive. Which of you could tell me how long it took for Federal relief to arrive after hurricane Charley? Frances? Ivan? Jeanne? You don't know. Is it only important to you now because you can assign a political value to it?

I had heard Zep was thorough and thoughtful in his opinions. This post would indicate that is not a correct description. I would hope he could redeem his reputation in the future.




BTW - I've witheld my experienced opinion of this for quite a while since so many of the threads were juvinile, trolling, agenda ridden and offensive. I waited until I saw a thread which had some potential for dignity. I would have preferred better, but this is probably as good as I could hope for. I really don't have time to start my own thread.

so It's the Mayor's fault for not using resources properly, It's Bush's and CONGRESS's fault for cutting the levee project, it's also the STATE's Fault for also not finding the Fundings once CONGRESS cut the fundings.

that about sums it up.
I agree. Having said that, there will be some who will be or should be more accountable than others. When the dust settles and the finger pointing stops, many Americans will go to the polls with this disaster in the back of their minds.

This is woefully opportunistic and inadequate.

Speaking of woefully opportunistic and inadequate. Did you hear the one about Senator Mary Landrieu, President Bush and the 17th Street levee?

Oh it's a good story, it involves Bush and workers fixing the levee in front of a bunch of cameras. Then in comes Senator Mary Landrieu 24 hours later and finding out it was all staged. There was nothing there.

Good times, good times....

I agree. Having said that, there will be some who will be or should be more accountable than others. When the dust settles and the finger pointing stops, many Americans will go to the polls with this disaster in the back of their minds.heh, won't matter for the Pres... since he can't run for another term.

the mayor? possibly, Congress? maybe. But the elections are far away and the spin doctors will be in to do their work.

Mass Media... gotta luv em.

I want to state again my respect for all the victims, first.

Now I remember: "Don't ask what can your country do for you, ask what can you do for your country"

Suddendly, that statement is pointless? Or it was before?it wasn't pointless then. now However, this is the era of Me. so the truer statement is now "Don't ask what You can give for your Country but what your Country has to give to you"

sad but true. :(

it wasn't pointless then. now However, this is the era of Me. so the truer statement is now "Don't ask what You can give for your Country but what your Country has to give to you"

sad but true. :(

True? I hope.

Sad? Nah.

Mankind created the countries... Would you feel patriotic for your PC?

And, the ground you step on... is not property of "your country".

Everyone is to blame. From those who are trapped that could have left to the President. There were many presidents that were told that there was a high probability that something such as Katrina would happen, they did nothing either. Don't just blame Bush.

Alot of those who are trapped there where able to leave, but decided "it won't be so bad". Maybe next time they will listen when they are told to evacuate.

True? I hope.

Sad? Nah.

Mankind created the countries... Would you feel patriotic for your PC?

And, the ground you step on... is not property of "your country".See you agree that it's "Dont ask what you can give to your country but what your country has to give to you."

so I guess the saying "Don't ask what can your country do for you, ask what can you do for your country" is pointless in this day and age.

I don't think you get it? I am sickened by all this and it has little to do with the looters. It has everything to do with inadequate preparation, ignoring the possibilities (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9175204/), and slow response time of emergency responders.

BTW, when I talk about being sickened by all of this, I am not alone. This topic has been discussed quite a bit amongst my friends and they too are upset by this. As much as several posters on here like to think Canadians are anti-American, they are sadly mistaken. We do care, and we are upset that much of this disaster could have been avoided. We were concerned even BEFORE the hurricane hit because we knew from the news what could happen if the levees failed, and sure enough our worse fears were confirmed, and the rest they say is history. :(

(Bold added by me.)


Well said Canuck, I've been accused I don't know how many times of being anti-American. The fact is I'm not and I do care about our neighbours to the south. Zep & I have donated a good chuck of cash to the American Red Cross a few days ago.(which is not tax deductible in Canada) And yes, we are just beside ourselves too about what has taken place. We only hope and wish that the death toll will not be as high as some are predicting and that these poor people affected by this situation can some how put their lives back together. That the government on all levels will not be so complacent in the future so there will never be a "next time"

I had heard Zep was thorough and thoughtful in his opinions. This post would indicate that is not a correct description. I would hope he could redeem his reputation in the future.

First of all, Zep no longer comes to NS. He posted it in his journal. I took it upon myself to post it here. Zeppistan has no need to " redeem his reputation" His reputation stands leaps and bounds above yours and always will. There is plenty of evidence to back up every word my husband wrote. So if you want to attack someone, attack me, don't attack Zep as he doesn't come here anymore, so he can't defend himself, but you can bet your ass I will.

I'd put good money on it that standard clear airspace requirements for Airforce One were enforced which would have meant a suspension of the airborne search and rescue for that period. And you confirmed this how?...Oh, right, you didn't


Here (http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/politics/12548040.htm) . C'mon now, for the shaking finger that was pretty weak. At best it was a long string of "Oh yeah?" and "Uh uh." You provided less than Zepp and scolded him for not providing enough information, which is even more ridiculous when things like this:
And for the entire time Bush was in the state, the congressman said, a ban on helicopter flights further stalled the delivery of food and supplies.

"I thank the president for his visit today, but it was more show than substance," Melancon said. "Frankly, we needed action days ago."
back up what Zepp writes.

Abandoned to the elements (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4210674.stm)

[i]The famous levees that were breached could have been strengthened and raised at what now seems like a trifling cost of a few million dollars.

Um, no. The lowest cost Cat 5 levees would have cost at least 2.5 billion dollars to make. Given the nature of public projects to vastly overrun their budgets that cost would probably have been anywhere from 3-10 billion. Cat 4 levees would have been somewhere between 500 million to 2 billion. Shoring up the levees would have done nothing, especially as the parts that needed renovation weren't the parts that collapsed. The levees were made for a Cat 3, not a Cat 4 which is what hit. For that matter given the timeframe of shit like this, the shoring up would barely have gotten properly started by the time this hurricane hit even if that had been his first act as president.

The author of the book "Bayou Goodbye" , the largest study on the levee's that has ever been done stated on Lou Dobbs last week that the levee's could have been totally fixed, in fact done away with and New Orleans brought up to above sea level for a cost of 14 billion dollars. The plan has been on the table for years. But no one agreed that spending 14 billion on New Orleans was "worth" it. and just to put that into perspective, 14 billion is about 2 weeks worth of what they are now spending in Iraq. I think it would of been worth it, how about you?

The author of the book "Bayou Goodbye" , the largest study on the levee's that has ever been done stated on Lou Dobbs last week that the levee's could have been totally fixed, in fact done away with and New Orleans brought up to above sea level for a cost of 14 billion dollars. The plan has been on the table for years. But no one agreed that spending 14 billion on New Orleans was "worth" it. and just to put that into perspective, 14 billion is about 2 weeks worth of what they are now spending in Iraq. I think it would of been worth it, how about you?
True, but the governor and Mayor didn't voice support for that either. Had they tried to push for that I'm pretty sure it might have gotten done. Since it would severely cut down on the tourism while it was being done however, neither of them attempted to support it.

First of all, Zep no longer comes to NS. He posted it in his journal. I took it upon myself to post it here. Zeppistan has no need to " redeem his reputation" His reputation stands leaps and bounds above yours and always will. There is plenty of evidence to back up every word my husband wrote. So if you want to attack someone, attack me, don't attack Zep as he doesn't come here anymore, so he can't defend himself, but you can bet your ass I will.


Posting by proxy does not excuse the sloppy nature of the message. As far as reputation goes, I'm not so insecure as to really care what people think - though apparently you are.

I'm not attacking anyone. I'm expressing disappointment at the poor quality of the post and the limited thought behind it. From most others here I would not be surprized - but from the two of you it is disappointing. You should be complimented that I would expect higher quality from you than the pedestrians here.

Now, moving on to the world of fact and valid information; Here is an article which I thought would interest you;

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050904/ts_latimes/despitewarningswashingtonfailedtofundleveeprojects

It has many useful pieces of information, insight and opinion. Unlike most of the information on this forum it is not seen through biased colored glasses, so some here may not like it. Here are some tidbits;

"Elected politicians are in office for a limited amount of time and with a limited amount of money, and they don't really have a long-term vision for spending it,"

"In the case of New Orleans and flood control, another factor was at work: the reputation of the Corps of Engineers. Over the years, many in Washington had come to regard the Corps as an out-of-control agency that championed huge projects and sometimes exaggerated need and benefits. "

"So you spend your pot of money where you feel you're going to get the most political support so you can get reelected. It's very difficult to think long-term. If you invest in these levees, is that going to show an immediate return or does it take away from anything else?"

Now, the only thing I really found missing from this article was an explanation why it is apparently the Federal Government's responsibility to pay for the CITY of New Orleans levees. Where is the City's responsibility? The County's? The States? I am curious to know how the juristiction over this matter is determined.

If you have questions about FEMA's mission, role within the Dept. of HLS, or reaction to the storm, go here:
http://www.fema.gov/about/history.shtm
or here;
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/index.jsp

Please take note; I've not filled in any gaps of information with leading questions, speculation, or erroneous assumptions. This is the quality I expected from the two of you.

You claim to have "evidence to back up every word (your) husband wrote." yet so far the only fact you shared is that he posted by proxy, followed by your claim that "his reputation can beat up mine". Maybe I was wrong to hold you to higher regard...

Posting by proxy does not excuse the sloppy nature of the message. As far as reputation goes, I'm not so insecure as to really care what people think - though apparently you are.

I'm not attacking anyone. I'm expressing disappointment at the poor quality of the post and the limited thought behind it. From most others here I would not be surprized - but from the two of you it is disappointing. You should be complimented that I would expect higher quality from you than the pedestrians here.

I more than think Zep researched his journal entry before he made it! He's right and the evidence backs him up. So chew on that.

Did New Orleans Catastrophe Have to Happen? 'Times-Picayune' Had Repeatedly Raised Federal Spending Issues (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313)

By Will Bunch

Published: August 31, 2005 9:00 PM ET

PHILADELPHIA Even though Hurricane Katrina has moved well north of the city, the waters may still keep rising in New Orleans. That's because Lake Pontchartrain continues to pour through a two-block-long break in the main levee, near the city's 17th Street Canal. With much of the Crescent City some 10 feet below sea level, the rising tide may not stop until it's level with the massive lake.

New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. In fact, the federal government has been working with state and local officials in the region since the late 1960s on major hurricane and flood relief efforts. When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.

Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.

Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.

Newhouse News Service, in an article posted late Tuesday night at The Times-Picayune Web site, reported: "No one can say they didn't see it coming. ... Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation."

In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to a Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness.

On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; told the Times-Picayune: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."

Also that June, with the 2004 hurricane season starting, the Corps' project manager Al Naomi went before a local agency, the East Jefferson Levee Authority, and essentially begged for $2 million for urgent work that Washington was now unable to pay for. From the June 18, 2004 Times-Picayune:

"The system is in great shape, but the levees are sinking. Everything is sinking, and if we don't get the money fast enough to raise them, then we can't stay ahead of the settlement," he said. "The problem that we have isn't that the levee is low, but that the federal funds have dried up so that we can't raise them."

The panel authorized that money, and on July 1, 2004, it had to pony up another $250,000 when it learned that stretches of the levee in Metairie had sunk by four feet. The agency had to pay for the work with higher property taxes. The levee board noted in October 2004 that the feds were also now not paying for a hoped-for $15 million project to better shore up the banks of Lake Pontchartrain.

The 2004 hurricane season was the worst in decades. In spite of that, the federal government came back this spring with the steepest reduction in hurricane and flood-control funding for New Orleans in history. Because of the proposed cuts, the Corps office there imposed a hiring freeze. Officials said that money targeted for the SELA project -- $10.4 million, down from $36.5 million -- was not enough to start any new jobs.

There was, at the same time, a growing recognition that more research was needed to see what New Orleans must do to protect itself from a Category 4 or 5 hurricane. But once again, the money was not there. As the Times-Picayune reported last Sept. 22:

"That second study would take about four years to complete and would cost about $4 million, said Army Corps of Engineers project manager Al Naomi. About $300,000 in federal money was proposed for the 2005 fiscal-year budget, and the state had agreed to match that amount. But the cost of the Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money, he said."

The Senate was seeking to restore some of the SELA funding cuts for 2006. But now it's too late.

One project that a contractor had been racing to finish this summer: a bridge and levee job right at the 17th Street Canal, site of the main breach on Monday.

The Newhouse News Service article published Tuesday night observed, "The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana's coast, only to be opposed by the White House. ... In its budget, the Bush administration proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana's chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they need."

Local officials are now saying, the article reported, that had Washington heeded their warnings about the dire need for hurricane protection, including building up levees and repairing barrier islands, "the damage might not have been nearly as bad as it turned out to be."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Bunch (letters@editorandpublisher.com) is senior writer at the Philadelphia Daily News. He won a Pulitzer Prize in 1992 when he reported for Newsday. Much of this article also appears on his blog, Attytood, at the Daily News.

Next time do a little research of your own before you try to tarnish my husband's good name!

Here (http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/politics/12548040.htm) . C'mon now, for the shaking finger that was pretty weak. At best it was a long string of "Oh yeah?" and "Uh uh." You provided less than Zepp and scolded him for not providing enough information, which is even more ridiculous when things like this:

back up what Zepp writes.


(I almost didn't notice your link.)
That is how you back up a claim. Well done. StepZep could have given themselves much more credibility had they followed your example.

The source is not one which I would give unilateral credibility to; Rep. Charlie Melancon (D) : but one who's claims certainly deserve consideration. The emergency pilots and workers there have a much more credible opinion of wether or not the presidents presence impaired their work in any noticeable way.

The only contribution I intended to provide was some perspective from someone with first hand experience, clarify a few of his erroneous assumptions, and request sources of others. The burden of proof is on the writer, not the reader - though I'm sure they appreciate you stepping up with at least one of their claims - even if I find the source of the claim dubious it is at least sourced now.

B0zzy - If you had bother to read the thread before you jumped to wrong conclusions, you would of seen I posted all the supporting evidence back on PAGE 2! :rolleyes:

That does not support his point.
He said I am bashing gays. I am not.
He said I am against religious freedom. The fact is I am a strong proponent of religious freedom.
Also, he stated that if you believe in God, you cannot believe in evolution.
He further claims that religion and race are one and the same.
Me thinks he either doesn't know what he is talking (and is therefore rambling like a madman) or he is attempting to stifle free speech. (or he could simply be a crackpot with mental problems). Then again, he could just be someone with a severe persecution complex.
Ah, that is probably the difference. He thinks he has a right to be not offended when the fact is that he has no such right. No one has a right to not be offended.
Gays are not sacred cows anymore than the Virgin Mary is. See if this guy had his, America would not be a free country, it would a dictatorship where people would be killed for anything they said that someone else found offensive.
Even if someone were to pray publicly for God to smite gays, pagans, or debauchers, it has no negative impact on anyone.

Name one instance in which I tried to shut you up, you moron. You're not a proponent of religious freedom, on the account that you believe (and are happy in that belief) that God killed off thousands of people to punish gays. Mad? You, once again, believe that an incident that killed people is divine retribution. Not hard to tell who's mad here. But, by all means, if someone in your family ever dies (and they, too, will eventually), I'll be glad to use MY freedom of speech to say that karma did that to them or anything like that. I have no right not to be offended, but I have every right to offend in return, you devil-worshipper.

Posting by proxy does not excuse the sloppy nature of the message. As far as reputation goes, I'm not so insecure as to really care what people think - though apparently you are.

I'm not attacking anyone. I'm expressing disappointment at the poor quality of the post and the limited thought behind it. From most others here I would not be surprized - but from the two of you it is disappointing. You should be complimented that I would expect higher quality from you than the pedestrians here.

Now, moving on to the world of fact and valid information; Here is an article which I thought would interest you;

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050904/ts_latimes/despitewarningswashingtonfailedtofundleveeprojects

It has many useful pieces of information, insight and opinion. Unlike most of the information on this forum it is not seen through biased colored glasses, so some here may not like it. Here are some tidbits;

"Elected politicians are in office for a limited amount of time and with a limited amount of money, and they don't really have a long-term vision for spending it,"

"In the case of New Orleans and flood control, another factor was at work: the reputation of the Corps of Engineers. Over the years, many in Washington had come to regard the Corps as an out-of-control agency that championed huge projects and sometimes exaggerated need and benefits. "

"So you spend your pot of money where you feel you're going to get the most political support so you can get reelected. It's very difficult to think long-term. If you invest in these levees, is that going to show an immediate return or does it take away from anything else?"

Now, the only thing I really found missing from this article was an explanation why it is apparently the Federal Government's responsibility to pay for the CITY of New Orleans levees. Where is the City's responsibility? The County's? The States? I am curious to know how the juristiction over this matter is determined.

If you have questions about FEMA's mission, role within the Dept. of HLS, or reaction to the storm, go here:
http://www.fema.gov/about/history.shtm
or here;
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/index.jsp

Please take note; I've not filled in any gaps of information with leading questions, speculation, or erroneous assumptions. This is the quality I expected from the two of you.

You claim to have "evidence to back up every word (your) husband wrote." yet so far the only fact you shared is that he posted by proxy, followed by your claim that "his reputation can beat up mine". Maybe I was wrong to hold you to higher regard...
the citizens pay thier taxes to the federal gov't. the federal government assures them protection from any form of disaster. what about that? the state of louisiana doesn't have 14 billion dollars at any one time, so they turn to the next level of government, and they take care of it. now where do you think the money would be wiser spent, interfering in a country who in the distand future, (perhaps ten years from now) would have had the capability of becomeing a nuclear nation, or protecting several million of our own citizens who, each year are in imminent danger. not to metion that by the time ten years rolled past, saddam would most probably be dead, and a better government would most likely be supported by the UN with a full coalition, not some half assed cobbled together thing that loses a member every few weeks.

I more than think Zep researched his journal entry before he made it! He's right and the evidence backs him up. So chew on that.

Next time do a little research of your own before you try to tarnish my husband's good name!

My you aredefensive (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/defensive)! I thought you were more secure than that. Sorry to be so threatening to you ID.

In your current delusion of rightiousness, maybe you could explain for me, who suggested your husband was 'wrong'? Even more telling - why would you consider a request for a source so threatening? Is it so bad to ask you to source your data? Asking for a source does not necessarily mean I consider you wrong and is certainly not a cause for insecurity. Most people with strong self-esteem understand this.

Most of all, how much arrogance do you have to insist that I research YOUR post?

Since you only provided a link with little else, I'll give you once last chance to source things apropriatly. I already asked once, now I'll lay my earlier request out in a more simple to grasp way;

Please source the following claims;

deep cuts to the levee programs over the past few years, - check, in article you linked.
the cuts to FEMA not sourced
tasking away from it's (FEMA's) mandate of disaster management not sourced
available manpower and equipment which is all in the middle east these days - unsourced
I'd put good money on it that standard clear airspace requirements for Airforce One were enforced which would have meant a suspension of the airborne search and rescue for that period. biased sourced, unconfirmed - provided graciously by 'name.
where were the buses to get the poor people out BEFORE the storm? a rhetorical question which wouold indicate you claim there were none - source.
Also address the counter point I provided about plans and shelters within the city. We both ignored the people who refused to leave.
How many lives could have been saved had the evacuation been managed (and funded) Retorical solicitaon for a speculative answer. You make the assumption that there was no funding or management - that requires a source.
Had those few hundred million been left in the budget over the past three years to perform the needed upkeep on the levees somewhat souced in the article you provided. It does not describe the juristiction of what was state, county, city and federal obligation. Nobody yet has provided info as to why the federal government is expected to provide the CITY of NO levees. Maybe your omnsicient husband has an idea?
The funding cuts this past year that were deemed unaffordable represented about 7 hours worth of operations in Iraq. Seven hours. -unsourced
"ownership society". - no source - inaccurate assumption provided instead.


I'll also re-state my questions which I followed up with;
Here are my questions;

1) Of the neighborhoods which were flooded, what pre-storm notification and evacuation services were provided?
2) Who was in charge of the coordination both before and after the storm and why was it so discoordinated?
3) Airspace was crowded, but what about boats? Where were/are the small craft?
4) A certain amount of flooding was to be expected. What was the plan to deal with that and why was it so difficult to expand it to the current circumstances?

Be prepared to address this issue from another post I provided;

"In the case of New Orleans and flood control, another factor was at work: the reputation of the Corps of Engineers. Over the years, many in Washington had come to regard the Corps as an out-of-control agency that championed huge projects and sometimes exaggerated need and benefits. "

"Elected politicians are in office for a limited amount of time and with a limited amount of money, and they don't really have a long-term vision for spending it,"

"So you spend your pot of money where you feel you're going to get the most political support so you can get reelected. It's very difficult to think long-term. If you invest in these levees, is that going to show an immediate return or does it take away from anything else?"

Which are all more plausible than the 'conspiracy of negliglence' theory you seem to be attempting to propogate.

Now, please demostrate that you can address these things in a clear headed, courteous and unbiased way and I'll be pleased to have my confidence in you reasserted.

(I almost didn't notice your link.)
That is how you back up a claim. Well done. StepZep could have given themselves much more credibility had they followed your example.

The source is not one which I would give unilateral credibility to; Rep. Charlie Melancon (D) : but one who's claims certainly deserve consideration. The emergency pilots and workers there have a much more credible opinion of wether or not the presidents presence impaired their work in any noticeable way.

The only contribution I intended to provide was some perspective from someone with first hand experience, clarify a few of his erroneous assumptions, and request sources of others. The burden of proof is on the writer, not the reader - though I'm sure they appreciate you stepping up with at least one of their claims - even if I find the source of the claim dubious it is at least sourced now.
I would like to know why it is that you don't trust a state representative when he has no reason to lie, and if he did, would most probably be caught red-handed. If you are saying he made a mistake, im sure they would have checked thier facts before putting them in print. And no matter who you are, i think its obvious that a complete halt in helicopter search and rescues is -somewhat- of a hindrance to rescue operations

the citizens pay thier taxes to the federal gov't. the federal government assures them protection from any form of disaster. what about that? the state of louisiana doesn't have 14 billion dollars at any one time, so they turn to the next level of government, and they take care of it. now where do you think the money would be wiser spent, interfering in a country who in the distand future, (perhaps ten years from now) would have had the capability of becomeing a nuclear nation, or protecting several million of our own citizens who, each year are in imminent danger. not to metion that by the time ten years rolled past, saddam would most probably be dead, and a better government would most likely be supported by the UN with a full coalition, not some half assed cobbled together thing that loses a member every few weeks.
the federal government assures them protection from any form of disaster - I missed that part of the constitution. Please illustrate it for me.
the citizens pay thier taxes to the federal gov't who is not the only tax collecting enterprize in the nation. This is a UNION afterall.
the state of louisiana doesn't have 14 billion dollars at any one time, - source
where do you think the money would be wiser spent, interfering in a country who in the distand future, Iraq-baiting should be a actionable offence - it is at least close to hijacking.
or protecting several million of our own citizens who, each year are in imminent danger ah the virtues of hindsight...

B0zzy - If you had bother to read the thread before you jumped to wrong conclusions, you would of seen I posted all the supporting evidence back on PAGE 2! :rolleyes:

It's not a wrong conclusion if the data wasn't there - it was a conclusion based on incomplete information. (an ever so slight difference)
Thanks Steph, I'll have to go look. Why didn't you say so earlier? Sadly, over a year after Charley I am still not in my home (so extrapolate how long N.O .will take!!) Meaning I am on dial-up. You can imagine the time it would take me to go through 20+ pages of posts before responding. I have to take short cuts on occasion.
I'll assume the data is there and valid and say thanks for now. I'll look at it tomorow - for now my time is up.

BTW - With any luck we'll be home in two weeks, though my contractor has been saying that for the last six... I'm learining a whole new perspective on work ethics now that I've had to deal with subcontractors and their flakey employees for the last year. A different day I'll share some of that insight here on NS. You would be DISMAYED!

Name one instance in which I tried to shut you up, you moron. You're not a proponent of religious freedom, on the account that you believe (and are happy in that belief) that God killed off thousands of people to punish gays. Mad? You, once again, believe that an incident that killed people is divine retribution. Not hard to tell who's mad here. But, by all means, if someone in your family ever dies (and they, too, will eventually), I'll be glad to use MY freedom of speech to say that karma did that to them or anything like that. I have no right not to be offended, but I have every right to offend in return, you devil-worshipper.
ok. :rolleyes:
Believing that God allowed the flooding to kill those people is not the same as being against religious freedom.
You are twisting my words. You should look at them more carefully. Cause somehow you are reading "God allowed the hurricane and flooding" to say "God caused the hurricane and flooding cause he was mad at gays." You do realize the difference? Or are you just trying to bait?
Everyone dies. Doesn't give you a right to be mad at God for it or me for that matter. People die everyday. It is the natural order of things.
And I have every right to offend you.

I am not a devil worshipper. I am the only true Christian on this forum. Correction, I am the only one of 3 true christians on this forum. The other so called christians are like Pat Robertson.

That does not support his point.
He said I am bashing gays. I am not.
He said I am against religious freedom. The fact is I am a strong proponent of religious freedom.
Also, he stated that if you believe in God, you cannot believe in evolution.
He further claims that religion and race are one and the same.
Me thinks he either doesn't know what he is talking (and is therefore rambling like a madman) or he is attempting to stifle free speech. (or he could simply be a crackpot with mental problems). Then again, he could just be someone with a severe persecution complex.
Ah, that is probably the difference. He thinks he has a right to be not offended when the fact is that he has no such right. No one has a right to not be offended.
Gays are not sacred cows anymore than the Virgin Mary is. See if this guy had his, America would not be a free country, it would a dictatorship where people would be killed for anything they said that someone else found offensive.
Even if someone were to pray publicly for God to smite gays, pagans, or debauchers, it has no negative impact on anyone.
Are you a crazy person?
You say you don't say something you said then say it again in your defence of not saying it in the first place. You so crazy.

Everyone dies. Doesn't give you a right to be mad at God for it or me for that matter. People die everyday. It is the natural order of things.you can be mad at anyone. Physcially acting on that rage is what you cannot do.
And I have every right to offend you. not purposely... and not here on the NS forums. that is FlameBaiting and that is an Actionable offense.

I am not a devil worshipper. I am the only true Christian on this forum. Correction, I am the only one of 3 true christians on this forum. The other so called christians are like Pat Robertson.Wonders who you think the other two TRUE Christians are?
careful with such claims.

ok. :rolleyes:
Believing that God allowed the flooding to kill those people is not the same as being against religious freedom.
You are twisting my words. You should look at them more carefully. Cause somehow you are reading "God allowed the hurricane and flooding" to say "God caused the hurricane and flooding cause he was mad at gays." You do realize the difference? Or are you just trying to bait?
Everyone dies. Doesn't give you a right to be mad at God for it or me for that matter. People die everyday. It is the natural order of things.
And I have every right to offend you.

I am not a devil worshipper. I am the only true Christian on this forum. Correction, I am the only one of 3 true christians on this forum. The other so called christians are like Pat Robertson.

Your words: "San Francisco should repent before something like that happens to them." I'm not mad at your God, because your God doesn't exist. SOME God exists, but it's not yours, else we'd live in a world of evil. To say you're "one of the 3 true christians" in this forum is pride. There, you just lost your status as a christian. The idea of God you worship would allow deaths on account of sexual option, hence you worship a God of hate. God is love, according to all Christian beliefs. The Devil is His opposite. Hate is the opposite of love. Ergo, you worship the Devil. Do you need me to draw you a picture?

the federal government assures them protection from any form of disaster - I missed that part of the constitution. Please illustrate it for me.
the citizens pay thier taxes to the federal gov't who is not the only tax collecting enterprize in the nation. This is a UNION afterall.
the state of louisiana doesn't have 14 billion dollars at any one time, - source
where do you think the money would be wiser spent, interfering in a country who in the distand future, Iraq-baiting should be a actionable offence - it is at least close to hijacking.
or protecting several million of our own citizens who, each year are in imminent danger ah the virtues of hindsight...
1) its the simplest form of a contract agreement. the taxes that you pay go for the good of the country, and as an extension, to you and your property. those who are in more danger deserve more help.
2)Louisiana Budget (http://www.doa.louisiana.gov/OPB/pub/FY05/State_Budget_Document_05.pdf) as you can see, the yearly budget for the whole state is 17 billion dollars. if they were to spend 14 billion to shore up the leeves, even over say, 3-4 years, that would leave a huge budget hole for the rest of the states services. if they were to simply add to the amount of spending, they would go into debt, and if they were to cut bugets, many other importasnt things would be done half-assed as well.
3) as all speculation as to what would have happened if we had left them alone is just that, we don't accurately know what might have happened to iraq if we had left it as it is. however, as there are no WMDs in Iraq, it would be safe to say, that their country, while sponsoring terrorism, would have itself not posed a threat to the U.S., at least no more so than many other countries, some of whom are "allies" with the united states.
4) As pointed out countless times before by others, it was not merely hindsight, it was a factual, known threat to the city of New Orleans. The threat wasn't taken care of, and, as threats which are not responded to are wont to do, became a reality. Now, whose fault is this? not the City, of New Orleans, no. Theyve been worried about for decades. But it was the fault of George Walker Bush, who in your own words was more worried about how forking a little cash over looked on his political resume than the danger to his own citizens, who he had sworn "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and one of the laws he must uphold is the trial of one commited a crime. such a crime is the crime of ommision, of failure to act. this falls under that heading.

My you aredefensive (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/defensive)! I thought you were more secure than that. Sorry to be so threatening to you ID.

In your current delusion of rightiousness, maybe you could explain for me, who suggested your husband was 'wrong'? Even more telling - why would you consider a request for a source so threatening? Is it so bad to ask you to source your data? Asking for a source does not necessarily mean I consider you wrong and is certainly not a cause for insecurity. Most people with strong self-esteem understand this.


So, what you seem to be stating is that a personal journal entry copied here by someone must come complete with fully cross-indexed supporting links.

Well hell, I'll throw in a few for you:


Most of all, how much arrogance do you have to insist that I research YOUR post?

Since you only provided a link with little else, I'll give you once last chance to source things apropriatly. I already asked once, now I'll lay my earlier request out in a more simple to grasp way;

Please source the following claims;

deep cuts to the levee programs over the past few years, - check, in article you linked.


the cuts to FEMA not sourced


http://archives.thedaily.washington.edu/2001/030101/N9.BIHquakebu.html: When President George W. Bush sent his proposed 2002 budget to Congress yesterday afternoon, there was a glaring omission. The president decided to pull funding for FEMA's Project Impact, effectively ending the disaster-preparedness campaign which since 1997 has given $25 million per year to communities across the country for disaster mitigation, saying the project "has not proven effective."

tasking away from it's (FEMA's) mandate of disaster management not sourced

available manpower and equipment which is all in the middle east these days - unsourced


Feel free to look up IRaq deployments on your own time, however the fact that many elements of the Louisiana NAtional Guard are currently in Iraq has been widely covered.


I'd put good money on it that standard clear airspace requirements for Airforce One were enforced which would have meant a suspension of the airborne search and rescue for that period. biased sourced, unconfirmed - provided graciously by 'name.


where were the buses to get the poor people out BEFORE the storm? a rhetorical question which wouold indicate you claim there were none - source.
Also address the counter point I provided about plans and shelters within the city. We both ignored the people who refused to leave.


That would seem to be a rhetorical statement, however there HAS been a round of criticism today against the mayor for NOT pressing buses into evacuation service, with some supporting links, so I will take it as supported.

Had those few hundred million been left in the budget over the past three years to perform the needed upkeep on the levees somewhat souced in the article you provided. It does not describe the juristiction of what was state, county, city and federal obligation. Nobody yet has provided info as to why the federal government is expected to provide the CITY of NO levees. Maybe your omnsicient husband has an idea?


Right. Why is protecting one of the largest ports in the US a national issue? I mean - really. How stupid would THAT be!


The funding cuts this past year that were deemed unaffordable represented about 7 hours worth of operations in Iraq. Seven hours. -unsourced


Do the math yourself buckwheat. You know - AFTER you read a newspaper...


Etc, etc, etc.....


Most of what you are saying is unsourced in a crosslinked journal post has been fully sourced here already.


So, from what I can gather, you are simply attempting to toss dirt by being rediculously anal in holding this ladie's husband's journal post up to a standard that approaches a national newsroom.

Another one for you Bozzy.

tasking away from it's (FEMA's) mandate of disaster management not sourced


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/29/AR2005082901445_pf.html

This year it was announced that FEMA is to "officially" lose the disaster preparedness function that it has had since its creation. The move is a death blow to an agency that was already on life support. In fact, FEMA employees have been directed not to become involved in disaster preparedness functions, since a new directorate (yet to be established) will have that mission.


So far, I think I've been able to find links to support every single statement you called into question.

Except the seven hours costs. That one is tricky given that a) accounting for the actual costs of the Iraq war is rather dificult, and b) I don't know exactly the budget cut number the original poster was using for comparative purposes.

Now, the IRa Cost of WAr site (http://costofwar.com/) shows a current cost of nearly $200 Billion. Their "about" page clearly indicates that this is a count of Pentagon Supplemental Bills only to limit the costs calculated. This, therefore, does not include the tangental costs of reconstruction costs, and security costs outside the Defence Department (i.e. contracted security services etc.) The state Department Website (http://www.state.gov/e/eb/cba/iraq/) indicates that these budgetary items are apportioned over various departments such as State, Commerce, USAID, PRocurement, etc.

The PCO alone, for example, shows commited funds of over $10 Billion. (http://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/portal/page?_pageid=75,80077&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL)


So, if we take a minimum assumption of say 220B, and prorate over 3.5 years since the war started, then by 365 days, 24 hours, and multiply by the seven hour mark then we get an amount of something on the order of $50 million. Given that other links I have read have suggested budget cuts to SEMA since 2001 of around 170 Million, it would seem that the original poster may have been off.

YEp, if looking at $170 million in terms of the cuts he is talking about, then it might have taken about 20 hours using my math....

But still under a day.

Gosh, that makes it ALL OK then I guess.

Whoops Bozzy. Reread the original post. HE talked about the funding cuts for the past year.

7 hours - or $50 Million if you prefer - in that case seems to be pretty bang on.



Now your whining about all the supporting links not having been properly included in a copy from a personal journal might just have some merit from a procedural standpoint. But examination indicates that the facts enclosed are indeed supported by fact.


Guess you'll have to go back to your drawing board on how to go about libeling the lady here - which seems to have been the point of your posts.

Your words: "San Francisco should repent before something like that happens to them." I'm not mad at your God, because your God doesn't exist. SOME God exists, but it's not yours, else we'd live in a world of evil. To say you're "one of the 3 true christians" in this forum is pride. There, you just lost your status as a christian. The idea of God you worship would allow deaths on account of sexual option, hence you worship a God of hate. God is love, according to all Christian beliefs. The Devil is His opposite. Hate is the opposite of love. Ergo, you worship the Devil. Do you need me to draw you a picture?
God doesn't hate gays. He hates homosexuality. Because homosexuality is an evil act. It causes people to be evil.
If you can't handle the truth that is taught by God's word, then you cannot be a christian. There was a thread on this a while back.

God doesn't hate gays. He hates homosexuality. Because homosexuality is an evil act. It causes people to be evil.
If you can't handle the truth that is taught by God's word, then you cannot be a christian. There was a thread on this a while back.

Oh, right, I'm guessing that all of the rapists, murderers, robbers, genocidals, etc, etc, are gays. Nevermind that it's an act that harms none. Yeah, God hates homosexuality because. Just because. There are many Christians that aren't your kind of christian. They are ACTUAL christians. Not people that believe in a God that's at the same time perfect and whimsical enough to dislike an action "just because", without further justification.

Food for thought:

When the levee breaks

At a press conference a few months after 9/11, Condoleezza Rice said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted" that someone would try to use "a hijacked airplane as a missile." It turns out that she was wrong. Someone could have predicted it, and someone did: Long before 9/11, the Federal Aviation Administration had considered the possibility that terrorists would hijack a plane and use it as a weapon, and the agency specifically warned airports of the possibility in 2001.

Which brings us, somehow, to George W. Bush's appearance this morning on "Good Morning America." There, the president said: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm. But these levees got breached. And as a result, much of New Orleans is flooded."

We're not sure which "anybody" the president has in mind -- and we suppose maybe the president was being extraordinarily careful to distinguish between a "breach" of the levees as opposed to a more general overrunning of them -- but perhaps the White House might want to consult a few clips we found in about five minutes worth of Googling today:

The Associated Press, Aug. 31, 2005: "Even as Katrina approached, experts like Louisiana State University's Ivor van Heerden warned of a pending 'incredible environmental disaster.' He predicted the levees would be overwhelmed and much of the city would be turned into a giant, stagnant pool contaminated with debris, sewage and other hazardous materials."

The Houston Chronicle, Aug, 31, 2005: "Local officials said that had Washington heeded their warnings about the dire need for hurricane protection -- including fortifying homes, building up levees and repairing barrier islands -- the damage might not have been nearly as bad as it turned out to be."

The Associated Press, Aug. 29, 2005: "Experts have warned for years that the levees and pumps that usually keep New Orleans dry have no chance against a direct hit by a Category 5 storm."

From Salon.com


It has also been reported that the Louisiana National Guard are slow in responding because all of their high-water vehicles are currently deployed in Iraq. I'm sure those come in handy in a desert nation.

The fact is that Katrina was a horrible event, but the actions, or lack thereof, of the current government have made it far worse.

Click here to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina (http://www.redcross.org/)
WTF is a "high water vehicle?" :rolleyes:

you can be mad at anyone. Physcially acting on that rage is what you cannot do.
not purposely... and not here on the NS forums. that is FlameBaiting and that is an Actionable offense.

Wonders who you think the other two TRUE Christians are?
careful with such claims.
There was a thread a while back on what constitutes a true christian.

A true christian must oppose abortion.
A true christian cannot be gay or support gays being in the church.
A true christian does not believe in the ordination of women (cause this goes against the teaching of Christ).
A true christian believes in seperation of church and state, but supports the right of freedom to practice one religious faith in public places.
I could go one with a long list of differs true christians from false christians.


The fact is there are many false or non christians on these forums and other forums (and off the forums) and all of them are deeply offended by the truth. But that is what truth does to those who seek to excuse their evil beliefs or actions.
As Jesus stated in Matthew 5: 10
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, 9 for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11
Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me.
12
10 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

People reject the truth because it convicts them and makes them feel bad about themselves.
If people are good, they would recieve the truth and the people who bring it to them.
Yet many people seek to squelch the truth much as the darkness seeks to squelch out the light. Yet the darkness cannot squelch the light.

The truth, like medicine, is painful, yet it heals those who would accept it.

What I present is the truth as presented in God's Word and reveaeld by Christ himself.

WTF is a "high water vehicle?" :rolleyes:


It's usually a humvee.

They have snorkelled engines to allow them to breathe while the engine itself it submerged.

God doesn't hate gays. He hates homosexuality. Because homosexuality is an evil act. It causes people to be evil.
If you can't handle the truth that is taught by God's word, then you cannot be a christian. There was a thread on this a while back.
Well, if that's really the case, then I think it behooves all persons of moral character to rise up in open warfare against this "God" fellow. "God" is clearly a disturbed and murderous bigot, and we should unite in our opposition to such a hateful and distructive tyrant.

WTF is a "high water vehicle?" :rolleyes:

Really Eutrusca, you have been out of the military too long..

High Water Vehicle (http://abc26.trb.com/news/natguard08012005,0,4504131.story?coll=wgno-news-1)

Well, if that's really the case, then I think it behooves all persons of moral character to rise up in open warfare against this "God" fellow. "God" is clearly a disturbed and murderous bigot, and we should unite in our opposition to such a hateful and distructive tyrant.

*Gives Bottle a Bottle of Milk and a Bottle of Cookies*

There was a thread a while back on what constitutes a true christian.

A true christian must oppose abortion.
A true christian cannot be gay or support gays being in the church.
A true christian does not believe in the ordination of women (cause this goes against the teaching of Christ).
A true christian believes in seperation of church and state, but supports the right of freedom to practice one religious faith in public places.
I could go one with a long list of differs true christians from false christians.


The fact is there are many false or non christians on these forums and other forums (and off the forums) and all of them are deeply offended by the truth. But that is what truth does to those who seek to excuse their evil beliefs or actions.
As Jesus stated in Matthew 5: 10
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, 9 for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11
Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me.
12
10 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

People reject the truth because it convicts them and makes them feel bad about themselves.
If people are good, they would recieve the truth and the people who bring it to them.
Yet many people seek to squelch the truth much as the darkness seeks to squelch out the light. Yet the darkness cannot squelch the light.

The truth, like medicine, is painful, yet it heals those who would accept it.

What I present is the truth as presented in God's Word and reveaeld by Christ himself.


Of course, the problem seems to be that in this case your God punishes gay people by killing random poor folks. for an omniscient being he sure seems indiscriminate in his wrath.

I hope for your sake using this benchmark that you don't wind up in a group at the Gates of Heaven where one or two sinners are in the line at the same time. Because if this storm is in any way indicitive of his actions he's likely to condemn you to hell by lazy association - being as He seems unwilling to actually target the "true sinners"..... or whoever it is thatyou are using in justifying this repugnant train of thought.

Oh, right, I'm guessing that all of the rapists, murderers, robbers, genocidals, etc, etc, are gays. Nevermind that it's an act that harms none. Yeah, God hates homosexuality because. Just because. There are many Christians that aren't your kind of christian. They are ACTUAL christians. Not people that believe in a God that's at the same time perfect and whimsical enough to dislike an action "just because", without further justification.
No. If they think you can be gay and christian, they are not real christians. If they tell that, they are lying to you.
God hates all sin. He has a reason for it.
But he loves the sinner. And he wants the sinner to stop committing evil acts.

Homosexuality does harm the person doing it. But hey, if you like to hurt yourself, that's your thing. I'm not going to tell you not to do it. Nor will I force to beleive this religion or that religion.

But when we die, we finally find out which system had it right. Now suppose you die and find out that the small group of christian fundies (as they're called on this forum) turn out to have been right? You would find yourself before the judgment seat of God and blocked from heaven.

Or suppose, for the sake of argument, it turns out the Hindus are right. And you are about to be reincarnated. But just before you are, you learn that due to your lifestyle, you are going to reincarnated as a cockroach.

If you look at most of the world's main religions, gays don't do so good in the afterlife. But then again, neither do the other groups of sinners.

So feel free to do what you want in this world (to an extent) but know that what ever system is right, you will be held accountable for all of your actions and thoughts (good or bad) in the next world.

There was a thread a while back on what constitutes a true christian.

A true christian must oppose abortion.
A true christian cannot be gay or support gays being in the church.
A true christian does not believe in the ordination of women (cause this goes against the teaching of Christ).
A true christian believes in seperation of church and state, but supports the right of freedom to practice one religious faith in public places.
I could go one with a long list of differs true christians from false christians.


The fact is there are many false or non christians on these forums and other forums (and off the forums) and all of them are deeply offended by the truth. But that is what truth does to those who seek to excuse their evil beliefs or actions.
As Jesus stated in Matthew 5: 10
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, 9 for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11
Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me.
12
10 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

People reject the truth because it convicts them and makes them feel bad about themselves.
If people are good, they would recieve the truth and the people who bring it to them.
Yet many people seek to squelch the truth much as the darkness seeks to squelch out the light. Yet the darkness cannot squelch the light.

The truth, like medicine, is painful, yet it heals those who would accept it.

What I present is the truth as presented in God's Word and reveaeld by Christ himself.

So, after listening to all theologians around, you decided what a True Christian is? Good, now go tell that to every congregation and group on Earth, because they seemingly are at a loss for about 400 years now and could use the answer you just obtained at the NS forum. What you call truth I call "the rantings of an idiotic bigot that likes seeing different people suffer and die". Did Christ talk to you? No? Then stop acting as if you have the right to speak for him. Darkness is, indeed, trying to squelch the light - and I can tell that by the fact that you're still in this thread. You refuse to accept a world in which those different aren't punished because you like to see them suffer. The truth is, they aren't being punished. This truth, however, would be painful for you to accept.

Well, if that's really the case, then I think it behooves all persons of moral character to rise up in open warfare against this "God" fellow. "God" is clearly a disturbed and murderous bigot, and we should unite in our opposition to such a hateful and distructive tyrant.
Don't worry. Lord Matrea is on the way. Behold he is already arrived on the political scene at the UN. Where he has already begun his rise through ranks.
When the time come, Matrea will declare war on all christians and on Christ himself.
Behold, when Matrea becomes UN Secretary General, it would be prudent for uncomprimising christians to flee into the deserts and into the most desolate mountains if they seek to preserve their very lives.

No. If they think you can be gay and christian, they are not real christians. If they tell that, they are lying to you.
God hates all sin. He has a reason for it.
But he loves the sinner. And he wants the sinner to stop committing evil acts.

Homosexuality does harm the person doing it. But hey, if you like to hurt yourself, that's your thing. I'm not going to tell you not to do it. Nor will I force to beleive this religion or that religion.

But when we die, we finally find out which system had it right. Now suppose you die and find out that the small group of christian fundies (as they're called on this forum) turn out to have been right? You would find yourself before the judgment seat of God and blocked from heaven.

Or suppose, for the sake of argument, it turns out the Hindus are right. And you are about to be reincarnated. But just before you are, you learn that due to your lifestyle, you are going to reincarnated as a cockroach.

If you look at most of the world's main religions, gays don't do so good in the afterlife. But then again, neither do the other groups of sinners.

So feel free to do what you want in this world (to an extent) but know that what ever system is right, you will be held accountable for all of your actions and thoughts (good or bad) in the next world.


Hey! Imbecile! I'm straight. And I'm not Christian. But I'm defending them because you, that STILL didn't give me a reason, are saying that they're inherently bad and that a fair God will send them to Hell. And that said fair God allowed a disaster to happen to LOTS of people, including CHILDREN, "because" of them.

Of course, the problem seems to be that in this case your God punishes gay people by killing random poor folks. for an omniscient being he sure seems indiscriminate in his wrath.

I hope for your sake using this benchmark that you don't wind up in a group at the Gates of Heaven where one or two sinners are in the line at the same time. Because if this storm is in any way indicitive of his actions he's likely to condemn you to hell by lazy association - being as He seems unwilling to actually target the "true sinners"..... or whoever it is thatyou are using in justifying this repugnant train of thought.
God did not kill those people. But their sins prevented him from saving them. Because by sinning you are saying that you don't accept God's help.

Don't worry. Lord Matrea is on the way. Behold he is already arrived on the political scene at the UN. Where he has already begun his rise through ranks.
When the time come, Matrea will declare war on all christians and on Christ himself.
Behold, when Matrea becomes UN Secretary General, it would be prudent for uncomprimising christians to flee into the deserts and into the most desolate mountains if they seek to preserve their very lives.

Wait, wasn't it this guy that was calling me insane and saying I have a prosecution complex? It was? Ahhh...

It's usually a humvee.

They have snorkelled engines to allow them to breathe while the engine itself it submerged.
Actually, what they have is a fording kit.

God did not kill those people. But their sins prevented him from saving them. Because by sinning you are saying that you don't accept God's help.

Hello, moron, there were children there as well. Christian ones too. Even working within your idiotic idea, you'll justify this how?

So, after listening to all theologians around, you decided what a True Christian is? Good, now go tell that to every congregation and group on Earth, because they seemingly are at a loss for about 400 years now and could use the answer you just obtained at the NS forum. What you call truth I call "the rantings of an idiotic bigot that likes seeing different people suffer and die". Did Christ talk to you? No? Then stop acting as if you have the right to speak for him. Darkness is, indeed, trying to squelch the light - and I can tell that by the fact that you're still in this thread. You refuse to accept a world in which those different aren't punished because you like to see them suffer. The truth is, they aren't being punished. This truth, however, would be painful for you to accept.
So you think it is wrong to pass judgment on murderers and rapists. What about pedophiles? They aren't "really" hurting anyone are they?
Or what about that guy that has sex with your wife? Surely he is causing no harm to anyone.
Or what of the CEO of the pharmaceutical company that is using third world children to conduct deadly experiments of a new medication that turns out to have deadly side effects, all to line his own pocket? Surely he is not harming anyone.
Or of the mayor who makes sure all the rich and middle class get out of the city before a hurricane hits but makes no provision to get the poor and disable out? What the heck? the poor can always walk can't they? But hey, he wasn't harming anyone by ignoring his duty to make sure the poor got out now was he?

Or what of the guy that goes to a restaurant and leaves no tip? Surely he is not harming any one.

Or the drug user? We all know that drug users don't harm anyone.

So you think it is wrong to pass judgment on murderers and rapists. What about pedophiles? They aren't "really" hurting anyone are they?
Or what about that guy that has sex with your wife? Surely he is causing no harm to anyone.
Or what of the CEO of the pharmaceutical company that is using third world children to conduct deadly experiments of a new medication that turns out to have deadly side effects, all to line his own pocket? Surely he is not harming anyone.
Or of the mayor who makes sure all the rich and middle class get out of the city before a hurricane hits but makes no provision to get the poor and disable out? What the heck? the poor can always walk can't they? But hey, he wasn't harming anyone by ignoring his duty to make sure the poor got out now was he?

Or what of the guy that goes to a restaurant and leaves no tip? Surely he is not harming any one.

Or the drug user? We all know that drug users don't harm anyone.

You're actually comparing consentual gays that are within THEIR rights as ADULTS to PEDOPHILES? Fair enough, but I'll add "hateful bigots that like to see different people burn in Hell" to your list of sinners. Whoops! You're burning in Hell now. And since I never did any of the above-listed, I'm in Heaven. Enjoy your stay, it's the first day of the rest of eternity.

Hey! Imbecile! I'm straight. And I'm not Christian. But I'm defending them because you, that STILL didn't give me a reason, are saying that they're inherently bad and that a fair God will send them to Hell. And that said fair God allowed a disaster to happen to LOTS of people, including CHILDREN, "because" of them.
Relax. I didn't say you were. You claim to be a linguist. You should have figured that out.
I am saying that which is found in the word of God.

Hello, moron, there were children there as well. Christian ones too. Even working within your idiotic idea, you'll justify this how?
It is not for me to justify God's actions to those who reject him. Neither is it for you to pass judgment on God. Are you greater than he?

Relax. I didn't say you were. You claim to be a linguist. You should have figured that out.
I am saying that which is found in the word of God.

You surely claim to know whole lots about Him. I didn't know He allowed you to speak in his name, especially because of the beating you're taking from me, an occultist, in His name. If He's as hateful as you think, He'll send you to Hell for being an incompetent idiot. If He's a loving God he'll let Satan have you because of your sins of hatred, wrath, pride, etc. It's a win-win situation.

It is not for me to justify God's actions to those who reject him. Neither is it for you to pass judgment on God. Are you greater than he?

I'm not greater than the ACTUAL God, but I sure am greater than YOUR IDEA of a God.

You're actually comparing consentual gays that are within THEIR rights as ADULTS to PEDOPHILES? Fair enough, but I'll add "hateful bigots that like to see different people burn in Hell" to your list of sinners. Whoops! You're burning in Hell now. And since I never did any of the above-listed, I'm in Heaven. Enjoy your stay, it's the first day of the rest of eternity.
I never said I liked to see them burn in hell. I only said that it was going to happen. I don't make the spiritual laws, I only state them. God makes the laws. He puts them in the Bible. And the true christians reveal to the world what those laws are.
God does not think the same way you do. Or I do for that matter. The thoughts of God are very different from the thoughts of people.
For it is written, that in the latter days, people will twist the truth and call evil good and call good evil. And even in this very hour there are millions of people doing just that.

I'm not greater than the ACTUAL God, but I sure am greater than YOUR IDEA of a God.
The actual God is the one who will pass judgment on all mankind, and, in keeping with the law, send 4/5 of the human race to hell for their sins becuase they rejected the truth.

You surely claim to know whole lots about Him. I didn't know He allowed you to speak in his name, especially because of the beating you're taking from me, an occultist, in His name. If He's as hateful as you think, He'll send you to Hell for being an incompetent idiot. If He's a loving God he'll let Satan have you because of your sins of hatred, wrath, pride, etc. It's a win-win situation.
That's because he talks to me.

I never said I liked to see them burn in hell. I only said that it was going to happen. I don't make the spiritual laws, I only state them. God makes the laws. He puts them in the Bible. And the true christians reveal to the world what those laws are.
God does not think the same way you do. Or I do for that matter. The thoughts of God are very different from the thoughts of people.

Funny, Bin Laden can make the same statement about "what are the Laws" with the same thing to back him up: A book. A wiccan can use a Book of Shadows. African religions use oral tradition. Yet you're arrogant enough to believe YOUR version is the only one.

For it is written, that in the latter days, people will twist the truth and call evil good and call good evil. And even in this very hour there are millions of people doing just that.

Like you.

I'm not greater than the ACTUAL God, but I sure am greater than YOUR IDEA of a God.

Amen.

The actual God is the one who will pass judgment on all mankind, and, in keeping with the law, send 4/5 of the human race to hell for their sins becuase they rejected the truth.

And you consider that God a good and just God. Which makes you evil.

That's because he talks to me.

I can claim the same thing.

It is not for me to justify God's actions to those who reject him. Neither is it for you to pass judgment on God. Are you greater than he?

Then shut up about it already.

Hypocrite.

I can claim the same thing.
You could. The only difference being that for me, it is fact. For you, it is false.

You could. The only difference being that for me, it is fact. For you, it is false.

Again: I can ALSO claim the same thing. And a few people DO claim the same thing. Some are terrorists, some are priests, some are African shamans and some are in mental institutions, which is where you've proven to belong.

Then shut up about it already.

Hypocrite.
You clearly have no grasp on what a true christian is. Might want to stick to man's law. ;)

You could. The only difference being that for me, it is fact. For you, it is false.

1. You are incapable of knowing either.

2. Demons and ghosts also talk to, correct? And are trying to possess you?

Again: I can ALSO claim the same thing. And a few people DO claim the same thing. Some are terrorists, some are priests, some are African shamans and some are in mental institutions, which is where you've proven to belong.
It is written that you will know the true christians by their fruits and by the fact that they obey and promulgate the laws of God. By the fact that they openly seek converts.

You clearly have no grasp on what a true christian is. Might want to stick to man's law. ;)

And neither do, seemingly, the whole lot of informed, respected and skilled theologians that disagree with you, right? MAN, you're stupid...

It is written that you will know the true christians by their fruits and by the fact that they obey and promulgate the laws of God. By the fact that they openly seek converts.

The Catholic Church does that too, and you're OBVIOUSLY not a Catholic.

You clearly have no grasp on what a true christian is. Might want to stick to man's law. ;)

I understand Christianity better than you, my friend.

I also understand you fairly well.

Regardless, you claim to speak for God ....

.. but, if you don't have a good explanatio ....

... it is because you can't speak for God.

Thus my statement.

Behold, when Matrea becomes UN Secretary General, it would be prudent for uncomprimising christians to flee into the deserts and into the most desolate mountains if they seek to preserve their very lives.
If "uncompromising Christians" refers to "terrified homophobes who like to attribute natural disasters to their homicidal diety," then I fail to see how your described scenario would be a negative situation.

1. You are incapable of knowing either.

2. Demons and ghosts also talk to, correct? And are trying to possess you?
Ghosts = demons.
UFO's=demons

Yes, demons do talk. But a true christian like myself can tell the difference between an angel or God talking and a demon talking.
for a true christian, the ability to distinguish is part of the sixth sense.
But if you are living in sin, and a demon comes up to you, disguised as an angel or as the ghost of your long dead grandpa, or even as an ET, you would not be able to know you are being decieved.

I understand Christianity better than you, my friend.

I also understand you fairly well.

Regardless, you claim to speak for God ....

.. but, if you don't have a good explanatio ....

... it is because you can't speak for God.

Thus my statement.

You tell him The Cat-Tribe.

Whittier, you really need to come back down to reality. Your making the rest of us Christians look bad.

If "uncompromising Christians" refers to "terrified homophobes who like to attribute natural disasters to their homicidal diety," then I fail to see how your described scenario would be a negative situation.

Oh crap... Wait. *Sells his house, car and one of his kidneys. Spends the money he got on cookies. Gives them all to Bottle.*

Ghosts = demons.
UFO's=demons

Yes, demons do talk. But a true christian like myself can tell the difference between an angel or God talking and a demon talking.
for a true christian, the ability to distinguish is part of the sixth sense.
But if you are living in sin, and a demon comes up to you, disguised as an angel or as the ghost of your long dead grandpa, or even as an ET, you would not be able to know you are being decieved.

You haven't even COMMON sense, how would you have the SIXTH sense?

I understand Christianity better than you, my friend.

I also understand you fairly well.

Regardless, you claim to speak for God ....

.. but, if you don't have a good explanatio ....

... it is because you can't speak for God.

Thus my statement.

Christianity is not a religion that is based on argumentation. Just accept and it. Believe and convert.

Oh crap... Wait. *Sells his house, car and one of his kidneys. Spends the money he got on cookies. Gives them all to Bottle.*
Bottle *hearts* cookies.

Ghosts = demons.
UFO's=demons

Yes, demons do talk. But a true christian like myself can tell the difference between an angel or God talking and a demon talking.
for a true christian, the ability to distinguish is part of the sixth sense.
But if you are living in sin, and a demon comes up to you, disguised as an angel or as the ghost of your long dead grandpa, or even as an ET, you would not be able to know you are being decieved.

So, you believe both demons and God talk to you, but that you can tell them apart.

And we should take your word for this because:

(a) the loving persuasiveness of your Christlike teachings,

(b) your track record for honesty and accuracy in these forums,

(c) because only a true Christian spends much of his time fighting off demonic possession,

????

Christianity is not a religion that is based on argumentation. Just accept and it. Believe and convert.

Neither is Islam, neither is Shinto, neither is Hinduism... The list goes on. Everybody speaks for God, I've yet to see someone that does it with a procuration.

Christianity is not a religion that is based on argumentation. Just accept and it. Believe and convert.

Why?

And what is it based on?

(And please, quit slandering Christianity by confusing it with your private beliefs.)

Christianity is not a religion that is based on argumentation. Just accept and it. Believe and convert.
Scientology is not a religion that is based on argumentation. Just give us money and cast out your negative thetans.

You tell him The Cat-Tribe.

Whittier, you really need to come back down to reality. Your making the rest of us Christians look bad.
A real christian is not concerned with how sinners see them. Their only concern is obeying and promulgating the laws of God and converting other people the faith.
If you are a christian, you are supposed to be seperate from the people of the world. But if you embrace the ways of the world then you are not a true christian.

Bottle *hearts* cookies.

Other than wise and witty statements, what will Bottle *do* for a cookie?

The Cat-Tribe wants to know.

:eek: :D

Other than wise and witty statements, what will Bottle *do* for a cookie?

The Cat-Tribe wants to know.

:eek: :D
On the advice of council, Bottle chooses to take the 5th...;)

So, you believe both demons and God talk to you, but that you can tell them apart.

And we should take your word for this because:

(a) the loving persuasiveness of your Christlike teachings,

(b) your track record for honesty and accuracy in these forums,

(c) because only a true Christian spends much of his time fighting off demonic possession,

????
Sarcasm eh? Look I'm only trying to save your soul from the fires of hell. At the judgment you will know that what I am saying now is the truth. But by then it will be too late for you.
Convert and come to the truth faith before it is too late.

A real christian is not concerned with how sinners see them. Their only concern is obeying and promulgating the laws of God and converting other people the faith.
If you are a christian, you are supposed to be seperate from the people of the world. But if you embrace the ways of the world then you are not a true christian.

And you decided that we're all sinners (though not harming anyone) because your merciful God decided to make us so. How very... Christian. *Sarcasm*

Sarcasm eh? Look I'm only trying to save your soul from the fires of hell. At the judgment you will know that what I am saying now is the truth. But by then it will be too late for you.
Convert and come to the truth faith before it is too late.

Only if you do that when a hinduist tells you the same thing with as much evidence as you're offering here - namely none.

Sarcasm eh? Look I'm only trying to save your soul from the fires of hell. At the judgment you will know that what I am saying now is the truth. But by then it will be too late for you.
Convert and come to the truth faith before it is too late.
Seriously, dude. You're not stupid. You have to know how crazy you sound. You must realize that you are scaring people AWAY from Christianity by talking this way.

Why?

And what is it based on?

(And please, quit slandering Christianity by confusing it with your private beliefs.)
The christianity you say I am slandering is not the true christianity. The world's version of Christianity claims the vast majority of the world's population because it is like sugar to their tongues. But there are only about 144,000 adherents of the true christianity because it is like bitterness to the tongues of the majority of the world's population.

The christianity you say I am slandering is not the true christianity. The world's version of Christianity claims the vast majority of the world's population because it is like sugar to their tongues. But there are only about 144,000 adherents of the true christianity because it is like bitterness to the tongues of the majority of the world's population.

Did you recently become a Jehovah's Witness?

And you decided that we're all sinners (though not harming anyone) because your merciful God decided to make us so. How very... Christian. *Sarcasm*
It is written that all are sinners. There are no innocents. Not a single person.
But some of us have had our sins paid for by the blood of the son of man.

The christianity you say I am slandering is not the true christianity. The world's version of Christianity claims the vast majority of the world's population because it is like sugar to their tongues. But there are only about 144,000 adherents of the true christianity because it is like bitterness to the tongues of the majority of the world's population.

Let me get this straight: There'll be judgement, etc. and then CHILDREN that had no means of picking a religion because they couldn't even grasp the concept will go to Hell? Is that part of what you're saying? Because the world has more than 144,000 toddlers in it.

It is written that all are sinners. There are no innocents. Not a single person.
But some of us have had our sins paid for by the blood of the son of man.

Not even children that can't pick religion? Merciful, eh?

Did you recently become a Jehovah's Witness?
no. The Jehovah's Witnesses are lead into deception. The path they follow is the path of eternal destruction.

On the advice of council, Bottle chooses to take the 5th...;)

Ah, shucks.

Well, maybe we can share a fifth

....of something bubbly

... and some cookies. ;)

no. The Jehovah's Witnesses are lead into deception. The path they follow is the path of eternal destruction.

Funny, they say (and believe with as much intensity as you do) that YOUR path is the path of eternal destruction. What a coincidence!

Ah, shucks.

Well, maybe we can share a fifth

....of something bubbly

... and some cookies. ;)
Damn. Will you marry me?! :)

no. The Jehovah's Witnesses are lead into deception. The path they follow is the path of eternal destruction.

Okey, dokey. Should have known.

Let me get this straight: There'll be judgement, etc. and then CHILDREN that had no means of picking a religion because they couldn't even grasp the concept will go to Hell? Is that part of what you're saying? Because the world has more than 144,000 toddlers in it.
??? I would have figured that you and Cat Tribe would have been able to figure out that 144,000 is not a literal number. Its just a symbol that the only a tiny percent of the world's population actually adheres to true christianity.

Edit: I know what it is. You two are pulling my true christian leg.

Damn. Will you marry me?! :)

Done. :)

But Whittier-- is not allowed to perform any ceremonies. :eek:

Not even children that can't pick religion? Merciful, eh?
The children who never had a chance to hear about the true christianity will be in heaven but many of their parents and other siblings will not be.

Done. :)

Sweet!! Who wants to host my bachelorette party?! :)


But Whittier-- is not allowed to perform any ceremonies. :eek:
Aww, come on! We could save so much money by paying one rate for both Officiate and Entertainment!

??? I would have figured that you and Cat Tribe would have been able to figure out that 144,000 is not a literal number. Its just a symbol that the only a tiny percent of the world's population actually adheres to true christianity.

Dodging the question. Children under the age of 6 can't grasp religion or God as a concept. Will ALL of them go to Heaven?

Edit: I know what it is. You two are pulling my true christian leg.

I'd only do that if I knew that I could make it come off.

The children who never had a chance to hear about the true christianity will be in heaven but many of their parents and other siblings will not be.

Ah, right, so "Hello, kid, you're in Heaven now, but EVERYONE YOU LOVE is in Hell. Enjoy."

Again: Merciful!

Done. :)

But Whittier-- is not allowed to perform any ceremonies. :eek:
I wouldn't exactly say that.

Ah, right, so "Hello, kid, you're in Heaven now, but EVERYONE YOU LOVE is in Hell. Enjoy."

Again: Merciful!
Hey now. Any Heaven-worthy person would be perfectly content to enjoy paradise even if they knew all their love ones were burning in eternal torture. That's, like, the definition of a good person!

I wouldn't exactly say that.

Dude, I'm so elated at having finally seduced the tantalizing Bottle, you can come to the wedding!

Ah, right, so "Hello, kid, you're in Heaven now, but EVERYONE YOU LOVE is in Hell. Enjoy."

Again: Merciful!
They're in heaven having the time of their life. They're not going to remember the sinners in their family nor will they care that those people are in hell. They'll only be thinking of the good time they're having.

Hey now. Any Heaven-worthy person would be perfectly content to enjoy paradise even if they knew all their love ones were burning in eternal torture. That's, like, the definition of a good person!

I already sold my house, car and kidney to feed you, so, I beg of you, STOP MAKING ME GIVE YOU COOKIES!!! *Sells his cell phone and a part of his liver, gives Bottle more cookies.

I already sold my house, car and kidney to feed you, so, I beg of you, STOP MAKING ME GIVE YOU COOKIES!!! *Sells his cell phone and a part of his liver, gives Bottle more cookies.
Mmmm, liver cookies...

They're in heaven having the time of their life. They're not going to remember the sinners in their family nor will they care that those people are in hell. They'll only be thinking of the good time they're having.

So Heaven is a life without either individuality or mercy for people that one LOVES? Wow, again, how MERCIFUL!

Damn. Will you marry me?! :)
Looks like it's the sidelines for Milhouse again...



Damn, folks. I go make some pasta and gas up the van and this turns all revival meeting. Wasn't there a hurricane or something in here a while ago?

Whitt wants us to move this to a thread he just created. I'm inclined to agree, since Steph's thread has already be hijacked to a ridiculous degree...though I certainly don't want to lose track of the "Bottle is getting cookies" element...:)

Looks like it's the sidelines for Milhouse again...

I have no objection to a hareem setup. ;)

Whitt wants us to move this to a thread he just created. I'm inclined to agree, since Steph's thread has already be hijacked to a ridiculous degree...though I certainly don't want to lose track of the "Bottle is getting cookies" element...:)

And I don't want to lose the "getting married to Bottle" element. :)

But, I agree we are in several layers of hijack.

I'm out of this thread now. (Although I may go back and read Steph and Zepp's original point.)

I have no objection to a hareem setup.

Me, either. ;)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9583545#post9583545

You clearly have no grasp on what a true christian is. Might want to stick to man's law. ;)
excuse me, but do you know how many "true christians" who claimed that they were doing the bidding of god were just murdering SOBs looking for an excuse? take the Crusaders. do you kno how many innocent jews and muslims were killed in the name of god just because they were there? maybe 70,000 jews were slaughtered, maybe more, just for living in a town where the crusaders were passing. How about King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, kicking out more than 250,000 jews, and the inquisition thereafter. and they further expelled all muslims, including women and children who did notheing of any danger. the horrible tortures forced upon anone who came under suspicion? and even christians would be tortured at the hands of the church, if they so much taught from the original source, the hebrew bible, instead of officially sancioned church material. if that is god, he who tortures and rapes, exiles without reason innocents, than i'll have no part in it, and niether should anyone with any sence of decency.

move all the religion stuff to here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=442296

and let Steph have her thread back.

I have no objection to a hareem setup. ;)
EVerythings comin' up Milhouse! :D

Whitt wants us to move this to a thread he just created. I'm inclined to agree, since Steph's thread has already be hijacked to a ridiculous degree...though I certainly don't want to lose track of the "Bottle is getting cookies" element...:)
I've asked for the religion posts to be moved there too. If that is possible.