This storm looks like a BIg ONE!
hilarious, and very odd.
<img src="http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/storm_graphics/AT18/refresh/AL1805S_sm2+gif/085837P_sm.gif" alt=" - " />
BadSushi to thread, stat!
<~~~~~~~ patience tried :mad:
Me? Or him?
Normally I think he is just a nuisance, but that was pretty funny.
Normally I think he is just a nuisance, but that was pretty funny.
me thinks mother nature is getting back at senator santorum for wanting to privatize weather forecasting…
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:Oh come on, you know if she saw this it'd be more of "boys club, women hating, porn laugh" blah blah blah. People who whine like 5 year olds shouldn't get elevated to a position where their own whining is off-limits as fodder for the masses.
<~~~~~~~ patience tried :mad:
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:him because the unessecary personal attacks need to end…
Me? Or him?
Normally I think he is just a nuisance, but that was pretty funny.
the image is hilarious
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:I can't wait till Father Time makes Santorum's kid into a homosexual.
me thinks mother nature is getting back at senator santorum for wanting to privatize weather forecasting…
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:How is this a personal attack? This is the exact sort of thing she's twists into us being a "boys club" and somehow it's offensive for me to point out it's the sort of thing she goes off about? Excardon me.
him because the unessecary personal attacks need to end…
Originally posted by [username edited by p.c. moderator]:but for the time being the whining has stopped, so there is no need to keep bring it up… and this is the sort of bullyish behavior that was frowned upon recently…
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:Oh come on, you know if she saw this it'd be more of "boys club, women hating, porn laugh" blah blah blah. People who whine like 5 year olds shouldn't get elevated to a position where their own whining is off-limits as fodder for the masses.
<~~~~~~~ patience tried :mad:
all i'm saying is give a rest, or the big stick might come out
Originally posted by [username edited by p.c. moderator]:See, that was a personal attack. You pick out an individual and rile against them.
How is this a personal attack? This is the exact sort of thing she's twists into us being a "boys club" and somehow it's offensive for me to point out it's the sort of thing she goes off about? Excardon me.
Something that other people do not do.
Kosmo is right, no one is enjoying it, give it a rest.
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:Amen.
Kosmo is right, no one is enjoying it, give it a rest.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:bless you
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:Amen.
Kosmo is right, no one is enjoying it, give it a rest.
Originally posted by sonickteam, forum nice guy:Praise be
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:bless you
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:Amen.
Kosmo is right, no one is enjoying it, give it a rest.
In 1927, a major unnamed hurricane struck the city of New Orleans.
It was actually more powerful than Katrina. The scope of damage was much more severe because this particular hurricane actually hit the city. Katrina missed it by 25 miles.
The interesting difference is the response the government gave in 1927 to those refugees, compared to the refugees of Katrina, err- I meant "survivors" —(sorry Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson).
How much aid did the government dispense at that time? Zero, nada, not one dime. And you know how much aid the army offered? The only aid from the army came in the form of loaning the city of New Orleans tents and camp stoves. Ironically, later, the army sued the city for reimbursement. So what was the big difference here?
It was the attitude the people had towards the government at that time, compared to the attitude that Katrina's victims have. The 1927 "survivors" expected nothing from the government. 80 years ago, people understood that the government was there to "protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Today, Americans expect the government to "provide life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That's a major difference. And now, a week later, when the government failed on all three levels of local, state, and federal to provide for their needs, Americans were sorely disappointed.
Reverend Jackson and Reverend Sharpton spend their opportunities arguing about semantics. "They shouldn't be called refugees, they should be called survivors". Unfortunately, they missed the boat. It was a perfect opportunity to deliver a very basic message to their people.
Fact, if you are poor and uneducated in America, this is what happens.
Fact, if you depend on the government, you will be sorely disappointed.
Fact, if you are poor in America, there is no reason for you to be uneducated. It's free! 12 grades. And if you really apply yourself, there is enough grants and assistance out there for higher education, which will raise you above the poverty level. And no longer will you depend on the government and be disappointed. It's unfortunate that this lesson will be missed by most "survivors".
A couple of other points should be brought to light. G.W. has asked the congess for 50 billion dollars worth of aid for the "survivors" and clean up of the city. Interesting, isn't it? One million people displaced and out of work in that city, sitting all day in shelters, waiting for the next handout. Of course, the thought never occurred to anyone that just maybe, "hey, we should give all these folks jobs filling sand bags to plug the levees and clearing trees." (Wonder how many of them would want government aid if they had to work for it?)
And finally, they haven't hardly begun the task of picking up dead bodies, and already the finger pointing has started. The congressional hearings and probes will go on forever. Millions will be spent on a wasted diatribe of a bipartisan "witch hunting expedition"- all of which will be nonsense. If you're a Democrat, you are going to blame the President. If you are a Republican, you are going to blame the mayor and the governor. This is another case in point of how the government will once again fail its people, they could have spent the millions educating the poor and misplaced citizens of new Orleans so that they could go out and get a new and better life, instead of wasting it on useless blame investigations.
<img src="http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/team_dupek/021432cd.jpg" alt=" - " /> <img src="http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/team_dupek/b825ae1a.jpg" alt=" - " />
It was actually more powerful than Katrina. The scope of damage was much more severe because this particular hurricane actually hit the city. Katrina missed it by 25 miles.
The interesting difference is the response the government gave in 1927 to those refugees, compared to the refugees of Katrina, err- I meant "survivors" —(sorry Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson).
How much aid did the government dispense at that time? Zero, nada, not one dime. And you know how much aid the army offered? The only aid from the army came in the form of loaning the city of New Orleans tents and camp stoves. Ironically, later, the army sued the city for reimbursement. So what was the big difference here?
It was the attitude the people had towards the government at that time, compared to the attitude that Katrina's victims have. The 1927 "survivors" expected nothing from the government. 80 years ago, people understood that the government was there to "protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Today, Americans expect the government to "provide life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That's a major difference. And now, a week later, when the government failed on all three levels of local, state, and federal to provide for their needs, Americans were sorely disappointed.
Reverend Jackson and Reverend Sharpton spend their opportunities arguing about semantics. "They shouldn't be called refugees, they should be called survivors". Unfortunately, they missed the boat. It was a perfect opportunity to deliver a very basic message to their people.
Fact, if you are poor and uneducated in America, this is what happens.
Fact, if you depend on the government, you will be sorely disappointed.
Fact, if you are poor in America, there is no reason for you to be uneducated. It's free! 12 grades. And if you really apply yourself, there is enough grants and assistance out there for higher education, which will raise you above the poverty level. And no longer will you depend on the government and be disappointed. It's unfortunate that this lesson will be missed by most "survivors".
A couple of other points should be brought to light. G.W. has asked the congess for 50 billion dollars worth of aid for the "survivors" and clean up of the city. Interesting, isn't it? One million people displaced and out of work in that city, sitting all day in shelters, waiting for the next handout. Of course, the thought never occurred to anyone that just maybe, "hey, we should give all these folks jobs filling sand bags to plug the levees and clearing trees." (Wonder how many of them would want government aid if they had to work for it?)
And finally, they haven't hardly begun the task of picking up dead bodies, and already the finger pointing has started. The congressional hearings and probes will go on forever. Millions will be spent on a wasted diatribe of a bipartisan "witch hunting expedition"- all of which will be nonsense. If you're a Democrat, you are going to blame the President. If you are a Republican, you are going to blame the mayor and the governor. This is another case in point of how the government will once again fail its people, they could have spent the millions educating the poor and misplaced citizens of new Orleans so that they could go out and get a new and better life, instead of wasting it on useless blame investigations.
<img src="http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/team_dupek/021432cd.jpg" alt=" - " /> <img src="http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/team_dupek/b825ae1a.jpg" alt=" - " />
interesting points BUT many things have changed since 1927 with society, infrastructure and govt role in it. today govt provides buses, subways etc etc. then, their werent as many ppl and today they arent as "nice" and relatively unproblematic as back then. then there wasnt environmental degradation like today. i think its an assumption and unfair that all the ppl in norlens where unemployed and useless alot of poor people bust their asses for wat lil they get. its a bit racist to assume they r all lazy hoodlums. and the origins and constraints that hav them in the position need to be considered. not that there isnt some lack of self-initiative to blame for their economic plight.
Come on man, this is so ridiculous for so many reasons.
I think its unanimously agreed that this hurricane was so deadly because it hit where it did, causing the levees to break and flood the city.
And you really think comparing 2005 to 1927 is an adequate comparison? The world hasn't changed to the point of making this ridiculous? Let us think for a second about how connected the country has become, not to mention the world. In 1927, the federal government would have had no way of knowing the extent of the impact of a hurricane that hit Louisiana until weeks after the fact - the way in which information circulated was fundamentally different. The same can be said about the ways in which aid is transmitted to victims - things went slower, and priorities were different. Not to mention the fact that the government in 1927 was in economic contraction prior to the Great Depression (http://www.amatecon.com/gd/gdtimeline.html).
And let's look at your facts:
Tell me where there is a fact in any of these statements. If you're poor and uneducated, you deserve to have everything that you own and know washed away in a flood? If you're poor and depend on the government, you deserve to be disappointed? If you're poor and uneducated, its your fault for not taking advantage of a public education system?
This is just absurd logic, and is one of the fundamental misunderstandings of federalism. One of the largest problems with the federal system is that wealth is unevenly distributed - a fact which is self-reinforcing. Explain to me how an education system that is funded primarily through state finances is going to get better in a state where there isn't any money to begin with. Lets not forget the fact that localities within states have the same problem - local taxes often supply the bread and butter of the education system. Ever have a referendum passed in your county that was to support the local school system?
The fact is, the money available for schooling in Louisiana is absurdly less than, say, Northern Virginia, New York, or any other affluent state in this country. You think public schools in Montana are on par with public schools in Northern Virginia?
I don't disagree with your point about using the money in investigations for educating and aiding the victims of the storm. But I think an investigation is still vital for the sake of knowing how to fix it. We've sunk billions of dollars into increasing our safety and capability to respond to disaster. A few hundred thousand more isn't going to change much (note that the 9/11 Commission was only allocated $600,000 to do their work…compared to the $64 million spent on Clinton's impeachment).
The scope of damage was much more severe because this particular hurricane actually hit the city. Katrina missed it by 25 miles.
I think its unanimously agreed that this hurricane was so deadly because it hit where it did, causing the levees to break and flood the city.
And you really think comparing 2005 to 1927 is an adequate comparison? The world hasn't changed to the point of making this ridiculous? Let us think for a second about how connected the country has become, not to mention the world. In 1927, the federal government would have had no way of knowing the extent of the impact of a hurricane that hit Louisiana until weeks after the fact - the way in which information circulated was fundamentally different. The same can be said about the ways in which aid is transmitted to victims - things went slower, and priorities were different. Not to mention the fact that the government in 1927 was in economic contraction prior to the Great Depression (http://www.amatecon.com/gd/gdtimeline.html).
And let's look at your facts:
Fact, if you are poor and uneducated in America, this is what happens.
Fact, if you depend on the government, you will be sorely disappointed.
Fact, if you are poor in America, there is no reason for you to be uneducated. It's free! 12 grades. And if you really apply yourself, there is enough grants and assistance out there for higher education, which will raise you above the poverty level. And no longer will you depend on the government and be disappointed. It's unfortunate that this lesson will be missed by most "survivors".
Tell me where there is a fact in any of these statements. If you're poor and uneducated, you deserve to have everything that you own and know washed away in a flood? If you're poor and depend on the government, you deserve to be disappointed? If you're poor and uneducated, its your fault for not taking advantage of a public education system?
This is just absurd logic, and is one of the fundamental misunderstandings of federalism. One of the largest problems with the federal system is that wealth is unevenly distributed - a fact which is self-reinforcing. Explain to me how an education system that is funded primarily through state finances is going to get better in a state where there isn't any money to begin with. Lets not forget the fact that localities within states have the same problem - local taxes often supply the bread and butter of the education system. Ever have a referendum passed in your county that was to support the local school system?
The fact is, the money available for schooling in Louisiana is absurdly less than, say, Northern Virginia, New York, or any other affluent state in this country. You think public schools in Montana are on par with public schools in Northern Virginia?
I don't disagree with your point about using the money in investigations for educating and aiding the victims of the storm. But I think an investigation is still vital for the sake of knowing how to fix it. We've sunk billions of dollars into increasing our safety and capability to respond to disaster. A few hundred thousand more isn't going to change much (note that the 9/11 Commission was only allocated $600,000 to do their work…compared to the $64 million spent on Clinton's impeachment).
guess Ellis has gone to the Xavier school of posting…
http://www.wmi.org/multi_boards/Politics/T12449.htm
http://www.wmi.org/multi_boards/Politics/T12449.htm