Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Help Lizard Breath Save Bush from Hurricane Katrina
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6695 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 106 of 205 (241439)
09-08-2005 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Yaro
09-08-2005 1:07 PM


Re: The Plan
Seriously, not everyone shares the same views on sex. Some people are legitemetly curious and want to try it. It's not necisseraly a bad thing either, I don't belive that the only "good" sex is within marriage.
What is legitemetly curious? We all have hormones and sex drives. That's undeniable. But with the drive goes responsibility. As far as sex only being good in marriage is false. If sex wasn't good outside of marriage, nobody would be adulterating or fornucating. What is over looked is the emotional sequence in favor of the imidiate physical gratification.
It's the emotional toll of promiscuity that is the hidden demon in this behavior and is also what the liberal adgenda tries to whitewash. You cannot have sex with someone without some type of emotional bonding taking place. And if the emotional bonding is extremely superficial and temporary, when it blows away, a scar is left just like when a scab is torn from flesh. The result is surface scaring of the soul. If you enguage in this long enough, what is left is almost too callous to be able to experience the true sensations of honest unselfish emotional gratification of a relationship reinforced with sexual contact. All that's left is the sex act with animalistic physical satisfaction.
If the promiscuity is much less, and with fewer partners but for longer stints, the result is like a tree that is transplanted every year or two and then violently ripped up by the roots. The scaring of the soul is much deeper and leaves great rifts in the emotional bank account, which doesn't allow the individual to properly reciprocate emotionally in a meaningful committed marriage. So years after marriage, these college coed genius's who "Experimented and Co-habitated" with each other have serious emotional toxic sewage rising to the surface and scars the emotional landscape of the marriage.
So you can only imagine the emotional train wrecks out there who have chossen the combination platter of these sexual practices.
It's like you are building your marriage on a toxic landfill of emotional dumpings that are buried and unresolved but surface to affect the partner who arrived long after the "Legitimate Curiosity" was spent on all the others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Yaro, posted 09-08-2005 1:07 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Yaro, posted 09-08-2005 4:47 PM Lizard Breath has replied
 Message 111 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2005 6:47 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 107 of 205 (241445)
09-08-2005 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Lizard Breath
09-08-2005 4:41 PM


Re: The Plan
Hey liz. I started a new thread to deal with this issue. It's called "Sex Education".
Would you mind reposting it there? Once done, I will be more than happy to reply to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Lizard Breath, posted 09-08-2005 4:41 PM Lizard Breath has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Lizard Breath, posted 09-08-2005 5:39 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 108 of 205 (241448)
09-08-2005 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Tal
09-08-2005 1:15 PM


Re: 13% say Bush is mostly responsible
Where is all the critisism coming from? The right?
No, I have pointed out already that "all the criticism" is not coming from any one particular side. Are you claiming there has been no criticism of the federal response in general, and Bush's handling of the situation in specific, coming from the right?
Again I ask the question, how come every time there is criticism, it gets immediately rejected by a group of true believers, and lumped into a category of singular partisan flavor.
Bush declared the emergency before Katrina hit, but can't interevene until the Governor asks.
It has already been shown that he was asked, but that's besides the point. You may be correct that he cannot intervene, but he sure as hell can protect federal land and buildings and federal works projects. He sure can prepare for the possibility that locals will need help given reasonable contingencies, and have it ready for immediate action once the request is made (though obviously not as the hurricane is in full swing).
What more could Bush have done?
You asked this before and I told you. I have also told others. That you continue to ignore what I say in order to throw up your hands again does not make your question look any more valid.
Here it is for a third time...
There was a history of flooding, and known catastrophic flooding dangers associated with high level storms in that area. Recent international flooding events as well as a US event 10 years ago indicated how vulnerable nations can be in the face of storms and floods. In addition to criminal behavior, given our new perspective on national security terrorist possibilities should have been planned for.
Thus whether they asked for it yet or not a plan should have been in motion at the very least when Bush declared a state of emergency, though really some of it should have been before that (to protect levees from sabotage), that created centers of federal control/info that locals could fall back on if they needed to, that would coordinate federal assistance from within once it was asked for, and work as a safeguard for critical assets (like levees) which could be sabotaged. They could hae been preparing critical supplies over and above food and water, to include generators and pumps (which seem here to have been only an afterthought).

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Tal, posted 09-08-2005 1:15 PM Tal has not replied

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6695 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 109 of 205 (241458)
09-08-2005 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Yaro
09-08-2005 4:47 PM


Re: The Plan
Roger that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Yaro, posted 09-08-2005 4:47 PM Yaro has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 110 of 205 (241477)
09-08-2005 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tal
09-08-2005 7:53 AM


Do you have a source?
The government's own investigations.
They were absolutely FALSE!!!
No, they turned out to be true.
The story was retracted.
Newsweek had to retract the story because that story was based soley on the claim of a single source; when the source recanted they had no choice but to retract.
On the other hand, the government's own survey of its detention centers, unrelated to the claims of the Newsweek source, uncovered not only credible reports of Koran abuse, but several homocides during interrogation and, among other things, a guard urinating on a prisoner.
Now, flushing books and urination is uncouth but not, to my mind, something to get worked up over. On the other hand, over 30 homocides by American personnel during interrogations makes me sit up and take notice. How about you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tal, posted 09-08-2005 7:53 AM Tal has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 111 of 205 (241479)
09-08-2005 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Lizard Breath
09-08-2005 4:41 PM


Re: The Plan
So you can only imagine the emotional train wrecks out there who have chossen the combination platter of these sexual practices.
You mean like my wife and I?
Emotional train wrecks, huh? We're in our second year of happy marriage despite neither of us being the other's only ever sex partner. We both have steady jobs, she's working on an advanced degree, we're paying the rent, paying off loans, and saving up.
Somehow, what you're saying doesn't quite add up, as far as I can tell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Lizard Breath, posted 09-08-2005 4:41 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Yaro, posted 09-08-2005 6:52 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 112 of 205 (241480)
09-08-2005 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by crashfrog
09-08-2005 6:47 PM


Re: The Plan
Crash, please join us in the Sex Education forum. All sex talk is OT for this thrad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2005 6:47 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 113 of 205 (241494)
09-08-2005 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Silent H
09-08-2005 6:09 AM


Wait a minute, were you seriously punking on my comment regarding Bush's failure to act after receiving news that a second plane had hit the WTC?
yes, i am seriously punking on that comment. i don't think it's a fair evaluation of the situation.
When Pearl Harbor was attacked, would it have been acceptable for any of the men, especially the leaders, to wait 7 minutes as the attack went on?
if i recall, the pearl harbor attack took a lot longer than 7 minutes.
look at it like this. bush is essentially a figurehead, like any other president. he has power over the armed forces -- but: they don't need his authorization to scramble jets in protection of us airspace. what do you HONESTLY expect to happen in times of disaster? did you expect him to stand up in front a gradeschool class and say "i have to go, the country is under attack" ? what would he do when he left? tell the military to keep doing what they're doing?
a good analogy is reflex action. bush is the brain (shudder) in control of a very advanced system of command, like a spinal column. but if you touch something hot, the signal doesn't go to the brain. that takes too much time. instead, there is an immediate reaction lower in the chain of command.
at the point bush found out, there should have been fighter jets in the air -- some say they shot down the flight over pa. the response was already going on.
the job of the president is to read to gradeschool classes. hug people in need. shake hands with important people. pose in front of trees and in flight suits. think about this honestly for a second. we know the sort of intelligence this guy has. would rather him commanding the military, or reading to school children?
i'd rather he stay in the classroom and let the structures designed to run the country in times of crisis actually work.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Silent H, posted 09-08-2005 6:09 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2005 9:03 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 121 by Silent H, posted 09-09-2005 8:42 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 114 of 205 (241496)
09-08-2005 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Yaro
09-08-2005 4:18 PM


once again, things are not black and white, tal
source
Myth: 1. Poor women have more children because of the "financial incentives" of welfare benefits.
Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women's choice to have children. (See, for example, Urban Institute Policy and Research Report, Fall/93.) States providing relatively higher benefits do not show higher birth rates among recipients.
In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of "incentive": A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC(Aid to Families with Dependent Children) benefits if she has another child.
Furthermore, the real value of AFDC benefits, which do not rise withinflation, has fallen 37 percent during the last two decades (The Nation,12/12/94). Birth rates among poor women have not dropped correspondingly.
The average family receiving AFDC has 1.9 children -- about the same as the national average.
source
As Congress considers reauthorization of welfare, we consider it imperative that any welfare legislation consider the particular needs of welfare recipients who are victims of domestic violence. Research demonstrates both the high prevalence of domestic violence among Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) recipients as well as the importance of TANF in helping women to escape abuse.
” Studies consistently show that at least 50 to 60 percent of women receiving welfare have experienced physical abuse by an intimate partner at some point during their adult lives, compared to 22 percent of the general population; some studies indicate rates as high as 82 percent. A significant number of women receiving welfare also report a history physical and sexual abuse in childhood.
” As many as 30 percent of women on welfare report abuse in a current relationship.
” In addition to domestic violence, many welfare recipients face additional barriers to employment, including, mental and physical health problems, disabilities, substance abuse, lack of child care, housing instability and lack of transportation.
” In a recent study of two California counties, Kern and Stanislaus, welfare recipients had lifetime abuse rates of 80 percent and 83 percent, respectively.
” Most battered women work or want to work if they can do so safely. Many women use welfare andwork as a way to escape an abusive relationship.
” Abusive partners often sabotage women’s efforts to become more financially self-sufficient by preventing women from working, attending interviews, or studying. By starting fights or inflicting visible injuries before key events, abusers also may prevent women from attending job interviews or going to work. Abusers may also threaten to kidnap the children or fail to provide promised child care or transportation.
” Some abusive partners may try to stop women from working by calling them frequently during the day or coming to their place of work unannounced. Research indicates that about 50 percent of battered women who are employed are harassed at work by their abusive partners.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Yaro, posted 09-08-2005 4:18 PM Yaro has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 115 of 205 (241497)
09-08-2005 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Tal
09-08-2005 7:26 AM


Keep thinking that.
i will. especially now that it's right.
Yeah, that's why he and republicans have been winning by ever increasing margins. Win some elections before you make this claim. Last time I checked, you lost the Presidential election (by a wider margin) and you lost more seats in the house and the senate despite an incumbant President (which isn't the norm).
we're talking current approval ratings, as of right now, tal. not the elections 5 years ago and last year.
Oh you mean the forged docuements at CBS and the made up Koran flushing story? You are correct, the media doesn't have a spine. They will have a spine when they start reporting the truth, instead of the "if it bleeds it leads" mentality it currently has so that it can sell more commercials.
no. i'm talking about things like what i saw the other day. someone was questioning the head of fema, and asking why they took so long to respond to the disaster. mike brown said they had just learned of it.
the interviewer cut him off, and said something to the extent "excuse me, what? you just learned of this TODAY? isn't this your job?"
he just repeated what he said about just learning of it that day.
and the interviewer said the obvious: "don't you guys own a tv?"
sorry, but the bullshit is pretty obvious to most of the country now.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Tal, posted 09-08-2005 7:26 AM Tal has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 116 of 205 (241498)
09-08-2005 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Tal
09-08-2005 8:58 AM


I have a new found respect for you arach.
because i suddenly appear to defend bush? make no bones about it, i'm not bush defender. i think there's a lot of stuff he should legitimately be criticized for, and maybe even impeached for.
but 7 minutes to respond vs a few days? and this vacation bullshit? nah, i'm after him for his poor economic planning, who he appoints to offices (like michael brown of fema), the shoddy war planning, lies, and just general ineptitude.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Tal, posted 09-08-2005 8:58 AM Tal has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 117 of 205 (241515)
09-08-2005 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by arachnophilia
09-08-2005 7:33 PM


did you expect him to stand up in front a gradeschool class and say "i have to go, the country is under attack" ?
I don't know if you remember, but that's what he did. His first media appearance after the attack was him, right there in the school with the children, saying "we have been attacked."
we know the sort of intelligence this guy has. would rather him commanding the military, or reading to school children?
I repudiate Bush's leadership because of what he does. If he were the kind of guy that sprang into action to lead a military response - keeping in mind that there were still two planes in the air - he'd probably be the kind of leader I wouldn't mind in charge of the military.
Instead we have a guy who sits around and waits - for seven minutes, for five days - for someone to tell him what to do.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-08-2005 09:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by arachnophilia, posted 09-08-2005 7:33 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by arachnophilia, posted 09-08-2005 10:31 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 118 of 205 (241548)
09-08-2005 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by crashfrog
09-08-2005 9:03 PM


I don't know if you remember, but that's what he did. His first media appearance after the attack was him, right there in the school with the children, saying "we have been attacked."
alright, point withdrawn. bush is just an idiot, then.
I repudiate Bush's leadership because of what he does. If he were the kind of guy that sprang into action to lead a military response - keeping in mind that there were still two planes in the air - he'd probably be the kind of leader I wouldn't mind in charge of the military.
right, but he's not. and when he DOES pre-emptively spring into action, he does entirely the wrong thing. i want this guy as far away from the military as possible.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2005 9:03 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 119 of 205 (241596)
09-09-2005 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Tal
09-08-2005 10:22 AM


Re: this is weird, but should also settle the matter.
Wrong again bucko!
(The arrogance you present is sickening...)
Press Release
Date: 8/27/2005
BATON ROUGE”Today Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco forwarded a letter to President Bush requesting that he declare an emergency for the State of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina. The full text of the letter follows:
August 27, 2005
The President
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Through:
Regional Director
FEMA Region VI
800 North Loop 288
Denton, Texas 76209
Dear Mr. President:
...
Pursuant to 44 CFR 206.35, I have determined that this incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments, and that supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster. I am specifically requesting emergency protective measures, direct Federal Assistance, Individual and Household Program (IHP) assistance, Special Needs Program assistance, and debris removal.
...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Tal, posted 09-08-2005 10:22 AM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2005 6:29 AM DBlevins has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 120 of 205 (241712)
09-09-2005 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by DBlevins
09-09-2005 12:20 AM


Re: this is weird, but should also settle the matter.
Good post. Not to mention that we already know now that, by the time Bush made his phone call, the evacuation had already been ordered by the state authorities.
Once again Tal falls for the Rovian spin machine hook, line, and sinker.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by DBlevins, posted 09-09-2005 12:20 AM DBlevins has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024