Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Excellent deflection from her negligence or idiocy, which obvloisly was primary to the deaths of some, to the Feds.

Have you no shame? No objectivity whatsoever?

hank, can I get a ruling?

I saw interviews on the local news last night with a SF-based SAR team that was at the Superdome with supplies days ago, giving food and water to people. So I will charitably suggest that things may be more complicated than your post suggested.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Dissent. Penn will sue the Feds for cholera first. And also for failing to regulate the placement of the drain plug in his boat.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I saw interviews on the local news last night with a SF-based SAR team that was at the Superdome with supplies days ago, giving food and water to people. So I will charitably suggest that things may be more complicated than your post suggested.

cite please? I have been searching the internet, including the Mercury News, and can find no mention of this SAR team.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It is ridiculous to me - as a NYer with firemen in my family - that so many outside firemen would have to be flown in to replace corrupt the NOPD and NOFD (the acronym, when read differently, is apt) that disappeared on the job.

These heroes are here to work - not to give the Olbermann's a scoop.

You and both know that there was plenty for them to do, even without 80% of NO being under water.

And there's just no good reason for FEMA to tell them not to talk to the press.

I've only seen this nonsense on lefty blogs so I doubt its veracity. Its absurd to me.

The lefty blogs are all getting it from an article in the Salt Lake City Tribune, which I posted here yesterday. Kinda makes you wonder why only lefty blogs are picking up on the news, huh?

It is absurd, though. As you said above, those guys volunteered to work, not to do PR for FEMA or to sit in a Sheraton in Atlanta.

This is now a HazMat area of epic proportions. They should be able to bar whomever they please. I'm waiting for the first "bacterial disease" class action suit against everyone.

They should bar everyone or no one, but they shouldn't be singling out journalists, which is what two of those sources said. I take it you agree with that.

This is assumption of risk at its finest. After a certain cutoff point - anyone that refuses to leave - let 'em starve, drown or fester.

No one is under an obligation to keep bringing 'em water. I just question on what authority the government can force people to leave their homes. Unless it's going to tear them down to build a hotel, I mean.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Ty - you know this is highly inaccuarate.

The media questioned these guys about "conditions" at the Superdome - and, unfortunately, in today's beurocracy, media travels much faster than proper government channels.

I saw the clips, and they seemed pretty clueless.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


No one is under an obligation to keep bringing 'em water. I just question on what authority the government can force people to leave their homes. Unless it's going to tear them down to build a hotel, I mean.

I am not sure I am for it, but isnt the rationale public safety?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
cite please? I have been searching the internet, including the Mercury News, and can find no mention of this SAR team.

There were a number of interviews with these people on KTVU, Channel 2 in SF, the local FOX affiliate (!). I was watching the news after the Giants lost to the Dodgers on a Jeff Kent HR. I'm not sure that it was a SAR team -- their function might have something related. I think it included a doctor and chaplain, inter alia.

eta:

This account from someone who was at the Superdome makes clear that there were National Guardsmen there handing out food and water.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
The lefty blogs are all getting it from an article in the Salt Lake City Tribune, which I posted here yesterday. Kinda makes you wonder why only lefty blogs are picking up on the news, huh?

I don't know. But given the anti-administration sentiment on those sites, I wouldn't be surprised if an inaccurate story was spread like wildfire.

For instance, the "Bush plays guitar" nonsense started on Kos and spread everywhere - I even received an email discussing it today - when it was debunked 8 days ago

This is why I've withheld comment on this fucking nightmare until today. It's waaaay too early to tell who ALL fucked up and why - while people are homeless and hungry.

They should bar everyone or no one, but they shouldn't be singling out journalists, which is what two of those sources said. I take it you agree with that.

They should bar everyone that isn't a rescue worker, yes.

No one is under an obligation to keep bringing 'em water. I just question on what authority the government can force people to leave their homes. Unless it's going to tear them down to build a hotel, I mean.

Martial law? Disaster area?

Hell, call an ex parte takings hearing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I don't know. But given the anti-administration sentiment on those sites, I wouldn't be surprised if an inaccurate story was spread like wildfire.

Here is the story as I posted it (sorry for the formatting), and here is a link to a more legible version on the newspaper's site.

etal

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• "The inescapable conclusion from the committee's work is that the United Nations organization needs thorough reform _ and it needs it urgently," the report said.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/07/D8CFJC180.html

You'll be disappointed to know that John Bolton is doing his level best to prevent reform.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No one is under an obligation to keep bringing 'em water. I just question on what authority the government can force people to leave their homes. Unless it's going to tear them down to build a hotel, I mean.

Still bitter about Waco?

Governments can evict people from unsafe buildings, can't they?

The problem here is that threat isn't credible. Anyone who stays, and gets sick, will eventually show up at a hospital.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Still bitter about Waco?

Governments can evict people from unsafe buildings, can't they?

The problem here is that threat isn't credible. Anyone who stays, and gets sick, will eventually show up at a hospital.

I agree that forcing people to leave is a good idea. I was just asking why it's OK. What gives the government the authority to evict people from unsafe buildings? (Not a rhetorical question -- I'm asking.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You'll be disappointed to know that John Bolton is doing his level best to prevent reform.

I just read the first of you evidentiary "blogs" that I have ever read. I will never read another. Do you even read this stuff before you post it?

The reform Club's article speaks of is how to eliminate corruption in the programs where money flows. The "obstruction" you cite, is trying to change the programs to which money will flow. Unless I'm whiffing here, I can chalk up another win.

[Southern Patriot]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I just read the first of you evidentiary "blogs" that I have ever read. I will never read another. Do you even read this stuff before you post it?

The reform Club's article speaks of is how to eliminate corruption in the programs where money flows. The "obstruction" you cite, is trying to change the programs to which money will flow. Unless I'm whiffing here, I can chalk up another win.

My God, son, you have a win-loss record that looks like mine!

Congratulations!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I agree that forcing people to leave is a good idea. I was just asking why it's OK. What gives the government the authority to evict people from unsafe buildings? (Not a rhetorical question -- I'm asking.)

You mean, as a matter of natural law?

Laws exist to compel people to do lots of things, such as get immunizations. Is it the absence of a carrot (such as being allowed to enroll in school) that troubles you?

Or are you saying just compensation is due for a temporary "taking"?