"The time for that debate was later, after folks had been rescued."
No.
This couldn't be more wrong.
The time for debate on an issue of rebuilding people's HOMES is immediately after those homes were destroyed. Partially because it will prevent unnecessary waste of resources, but mostly because people shouldn't have to wait to have their homes rebuilt.
Unless that's what you're suggesting. Making these families wait until you're happy to debate the issue. Somehow, I think being homeless is more of a concern to them at the moment.
"Third, what a sad state we're in when we elect people so fucking dumb we feel like we have to go easy on them when they say something stupid."
That wasn't the point.
It has nothing to do with someone's intelligence, it has to do with 24 hours news shows repeatedly airing stories of a nanny who didn't have the right immigration papers, or an office indiscretion 20 years ago.
The point was, people sometimes make mistakes. It has nothing to do with being dumb. It has to do with being allowed to mess up without the fear of having your every move dissected for weeks at a time by pundits, whose only motive is to use those mistakes and embarrass you.
Now an observation. You've made mistakes that I'm sure you would prefer to have the opportunity to rectify. Does that make you dumb?
"It is so much easier to defend your position when you don't have to deal with opposing viewpoints"
Why does it have to be about defending his positions? Why isn't it enough to have access to the thoughts of the speaker of the house?
Or, to put it plainly, why does everything have to be adversarial? Why can't you just accept that this is a blog to get information from and nothing more?
I wasn't apologizing. I never said anyhting to idicate I was, so this is simply more evidence of something I already suspected.
You're an imbecile.
Here's how I deduced that.
First,some moronic liar (YOU, in case you were wondering)made the (false) claim that
"The governor and mayor did everything possible with the resources at their disposal"
With me so far? Good, I'll talk slowfor you.
Next, I refuted that lie by asking about a resourcethat was not used, but wasatthe disposal of said governor and mayor. When I questioned the moronic liar (YOU, again in case you are having trouble following) the reply was
"The school buses weren't used because the evacuation had never gone right before. What good are school buses that are locked in a traffic jam?"
My answer would be for moving people, but I'm not a moronic liar. Nowthis next part seems to be where it got too complicated for our little moronic liar (still YOU by the way) as said moronic liar, for some reason couldn't understand that a failed LOCAL evcuation plan, and failure to use resources that were freely available during the storm, is the fault of LOCAL officials. THEY fialed to make the plan work. Not the feds, but your precious mayor and guvnuh. Our littlemoron did not appreciate that he had claimed (lied) in one post about the gov and mayor doing everything they could, while in the VERY NEXT POST giving an example of something they DID NOT DO but could have.
Did you follow that? I realize it requires our moron (yes, still YOU) to actually think, but there's a first time for everything, this might as well be it.
"how's about next time there's a cat 5 hurricane barreling our way you shag your own fat ass down to NOLA and show us how it's done, 'k?"
Well, since I live in CENTRAL FLORIDA, where we get hit with more hurricanes than New Orleans has welfare recipients, I could most certainly lend my expertise.
How's it feel to pick the one area of the country that you can't use that pathetic little trick on?
But I am sure our little moron would continue to deny the facts laid before him, in an effort to, well fuck I don't know what. Our moron (YOU still, do I have to keep reminding you?) seems to have a grudge with one group of politicians, while letting the others off the hook. I think that's because our moron is too stupid to understand they ALL screwed him, and he hasn'tfigured out he's been lied to yet.
SO, now that I've laid it out for you, do yourself a favor. Learn how to read for comprehension, then thank me. I don't usually give free lessons like this.
"A court of law has the strictest definitions for lying and he didn't break them."
That's great!
"I love the way people have no grasp of"... the difference between a court of law and congress.
"A court of law has the strictest definitions for lying and he didn't break them."
OOOOOH! You did it, you tried to make a lucid point, then completely fudged it. How can you be credible when you can't even intelligently discuss the venue? What possible insight could you have if you don't know enough about the situation to even know where the hearings were?
"The school buses weren't used because the evacuation had never gone right before. What good are school buses that are locked in a traffic jam?"
See, here's the part where you go "Oh, wait, that guy was making the point that LOCAL officials screwed up, and evacuation is the responsibility of LOCAL officials, so it was the fault of the LOCAL officials that the LOCAL evacuation plan was messed up".
At which point, I will thank you for making my point, and call you a scholar and a gentleman.
"Also, Clinton didn't personally profit from his military adventures, unlike the current administration."
BWAHAHAHAAHAHA.
BWAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA.
First, are you Clinton's accountant? Then there's no way you could possibly know this. Second, you honestly believe that a PRESIDENT with all the knowledge of that office, and Clinton's obvious lack of scruples, wouldn't use that information for personal gain?
BWAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAAhAAHAAAHAHAAH.
"Your entire movement is morally bankrupt and incompetent. Your guys even make Clinton look good, and that takes some doing."
You left out engage in ad hominem attacks. Oh, wait I get it, if you'd said that then YOU couldn't do it, like you just did there.
"And when some righty lies about national security it's ok because...?"
Clinton did it first, and you guys said it was ok then. Good for the goose and all..
Seriously, if you plan to play at partisan politics, do a better job of picking sides. Both of them are dirty, and idiotic rants only highlight how stupid partisans like you can be.
"The governor and mayor did everything possible with the resources at their disposal"
Then why were all of those school buses lined up waiting, but never got used?
Oh, right, you're a liar.
Now, whether that's because you're too stupid to see you're being lied to (that's where my money is) or you just refuse to admit it, you're still wrong.
Stop lying, you'll feel less sleazy, and you won't have to hide when honest people try to talk to you.
"Lying about extra-marital sex is done on a regular basis by men and women all across our great country every day. It's as quintessentially American as Mom and Apple Pie."
And it's still a LIE, and it was still UNDER OATH, and it was still a CRIME.
He wasn't in trouble because he lied about getting a hummer, he was in trouble because of WHO he lied to and WHEN he did it.
How sad are you though, that you think it's ok that he lied? How fucking pathetic.
"Blowing(you meant lying) about a blow job, understandable. Blowing the cover of a CIA agent because you're pissed that they uncovered one of your major lies for going to war, understandable but kind of much worse than the blowjob thing."
Dude, you just lost eversy shred of credibility.
You gave one liar a pass because YOU think what he did wasn't that bad, but you hold the other liar accountable because you think what he did was that bad.
Taht makes you a pathetic fucking hypocrite, and your opinion is worthless.
God, what the helll is wring with idiots like you.
"The Onion is clearly satirical and no one can reasonably claim that the Onion is trying to convey sponsorship or approval of the administration"
I can, and do so claim.
And now that I've mooted your argument, what's left.
You're wrong here, you just don't like the "White House" (by which you mean Bush) so you've assumed that "no one can reasonably claim..." but I've never read the Onion, and I have no other experience with them apart from this article. Tell me why it's unreasonable to assume a seal that is supposed to convey the approval of the president, in this case, does not?
Right, you can't, you're relying on the common sense and knowledge of the people doing the reading. But that's NOT the test, so please save your cliams of what is and is not reasonable for a discussion where they matter.
"The government has no copyrights, trademarks, patents, or anything else that could be considered intellectual property. Everything they have is public domain or licensed from a private entity."
"Way to be callous, man. A 2% raise... adjusted for cost of living, that's actually a pay cut."
NO, IT'S NOT ACUTALLY A PAY CUT.
Stop repeating this idiotic lie. You get more, nothing us being cut, even if you use COLA because you STILL GET MORE.
God, can't you people make a point without repeating moronic memes over and over? I'm sure it sounded great when you heard it, because it reinforced your biases in exactly the right way, but it's still wrong, and you still sound like a dumbass when you say it.
"What about the people working 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet?"
What choices have they made that tie them to three jobs, the sum total of which barely pays for their necessities? That's right what CHOICES?
"How is someone born into a poor family supposed to get enough money to pay for the education required to get the high paying jobs to become rich?"
Just like I am, work hard in public school (knowing it's your best chance at a good life) go to college (on a scholarship in an area I hated, but tolerated in order to pay for school, and work) then work a crappy job during the day in your field, while working a second one at night to pay back miscellaneous student loans.
It's a liberal lie that poor people are stuck. Student loans are available to virtually anyone.
It is opinions like yours, and the perpetuation of ignorant opinions like yours, that allow people in poverty to continue to make excuses instead of making their lives better.
"This situation continues until the company that hired us starts to lose money from their customers leaving from bad support or the employee numbers drop to a point where it is not possible to fulfill staffing hours. The only people who really suffer in the end is the employees who don't quit and the customers (end users) who deal with poor support."
Right, and as the only level heade, reasonable employee there, you can see it while no one else can.
OR, it's not nearly as bad as you claim, you're exaggerating for effect, and mostly, the system you describes works, but has occasional glitches.
"Unions are the only way for the workers to stand up against management."
Ah, you've had some of the obligatory union koolaid.
Riddle me this then smart guy, how do people stand up against management in my state, where unions have essentially no power (Florida)? This is a right to work state, and as a result of that, the typical union protections are not present.
Yet AMAZINGLY, people still stand up against management. Explain how that's possible, if as you say
"Unions are the only way for the workers to stand up against management."
Well?
Oh, right, you're just a union shill, looking to convince people that your dumb decision wasn't a result of your fear of failure and profound lack of drive, but rather a smart business decision.
"Why should corporate profits leap by huge percentages while employee salaries do not?"
Better question. Why should a group of lazy ass do nothings drive up the cost of employing good workers?
I don't want my salary based on how much the company can give the union without going out of business. I don't want a group of elected representatives negotiating my compensation for me. I don't want to be told not to go to work, then be socially stigmatized if I disagree with the opinion of the masses.
Unions are extortion schemes, nothing more. Like all things, they have good and bad sides, but the good things don't change what a union is fundamentally.
"Did anyone ever look into how many of the victims are seniors?"
What does being old have to do with being greedy? What, there are no old, greedy people? Did it ever occur to you that maybe one of the reasons old people get scammed is because they're GREEDY old people?
"The slightest chance of not having to worry about money, or being able to leave something for their children or grand children"
Blah blah blah. What you just said was "they want something they don't have, and they aren't willing to do what they have to (or failed during their lives) and are now desperately grasping at straws for MATERIAL WEALTH. Greed dude, any way you slice it.
You're the fourth person I've read this argument from , and it was dumb all four times.
We get just as pissed off at CEOs, in fact I personally get far more pissed at them when they steal. The whole already being wealthy thing.
I distinctly remeber a shitstorm after the Savings & Loan scandal, Enron, & Worldcom. People went to jail, or are being prosecuted. What would you like to happen, a revolt?
"So right now we're worried about some Nigerians stealling tens of millions a year when we've got tens of billions in medical fraud going on in this country."
If you'd bothered to ask instead of assuming you can gauge the feeling of an entire country on your own, you'd realize we can be concerned about BOTH at the same time. Ask, you'll see I'm right and you're wrong.
You just did it. You tried to justify one wrong by referring to another.
The problem is, I completely reject your concept that
"the entire system of private property is based on theft and unfair advantage."
Primarily, how can it be theft if (as you claim) NO ONE owned it? What you fail to consider is that some people have doen MORE than their fair share to protect their exclusive use of these resources. They found them, developed them, exploited and, most importantly, protected them. Dismissing their effort because you reject property ownership is just propaganda, and has no basis in reason at all.
If you put in a larger amount of effort, then you deserve a greater share.
"How does this system benefit the common person?"
By allowing them the opportunity to work harder, and thus gain more than someone who works less.
"I still fail to see how America is the magnanimous global citizen that we are being asked to praise."
Because we give aid to place swhere we have NO OBLIGATION TO DO SO.
I really, really despise idiots like you who think charity is something to be belittled to meet your own moronic political agenda.
Read your own posts, all you do is refer back to the US, Bush, and US business interests. How fucking sad that you can't see anything outside your dim little world view.
Slashdot Mirror
"The time for that debate was later, after folks had been rescued."
No.
This couldn't be more wrong.
The time for debate on an issue of rebuilding people's HOMES is immediately after those homes were destroyed. Partially because it will prevent unnecessary waste of resources, but mostly because people shouldn't have to wait to have their homes rebuilt.
Unless that's what you're suggesting. Making these families wait until you're happy to debate the issue. Somehow, I think being homeless is more of a concern to them at the moment.
"Third, what a sad state we're in when we elect people so fucking dumb we feel like we have to go easy on them when they say something stupid."
That wasn't the point.
It has nothing to do with someone's intelligence, it has to do with 24 hours news shows repeatedly airing stories of a nanny who didn't have the right immigration papers, or an office indiscretion 20 years ago.
The point was, people sometimes make mistakes. It has nothing to do with being dumb. It has to do with being allowed to mess up without the fear of having your every move dissected for weeks at a time by pundits, whose only motive is to use those mistakes and embarrass you.
Now an observation. You've made mistakes that I'm sure you would prefer to have the opportunity to rectify. Does that make you dumb?
"It is so much easier to defend your position when you don't have to deal with opposing viewpoints"
Why does it have to be about defending his positions? Why isn't it enough to have access to the thoughts of the speaker of the house?
Or, to put it plainly, why does everything have to be adversarial? Why can't you just accept that this is a blog to get information from and nothing more?
"Well, you already called me a liar"
You are.
I wasn't apologizing. I never said anyhting to idicate I was, so this is simply more evidence of something I already suspected.
You're an imbecile.
Here's how I deduced that.
First,some moronic liar (YOU, in case you were wondering)made the (false) claim that
"The governor and mayor did everything possible with the resources at their disposal"
With me so far? Good, I'll talk slowfor you.
Next, I refuted that lie by asking about a resourcethat was not used, but wasatthe disposal of said governor and mayor. When I questioned the moronic liar (YOU, again in case you are having trouble following) the reply was
"The school buses weren't used because the evacuation had never gone right before. What good are school buses that are locked in a traffic jam?"
My answer would be for moving people, but I'm not a moronic liar. Nowthis next part seems to be where it got too complicated for our little moronic liar (still YOU by the way) as said moronic liar, for some reason couldn't understand that a failed LOCAL evcuation plan, and failure to use resources that were freely available during the storm, is the fault of LOCAL officials. THEY fialed to make the plan work. Not the feds, but your precious mayor and guvnuh. Our littlemoron did not appreciate that he had claimed (lied) in one post about the gov and mayor doing everything they could, while in the VERY NEXT POST giving an example of something they DID NOT DO but could have.
Did you follow that? I realize it requires our moron (yes, still YOU) to actually think, but there's a first time for everything, this might as well be it.
"how's about next time there's a cat 5 hurricane barreling our way you shag your own fat ass down to NOLA and show us how it's done, 'k?"
Well, since I live in CENTRAL FLORIDA, where we get hit with more hurricanes than New Orleans has welfare recipients, I could most certainly lend my expertise.
How's it feel to pick the one area of the country that you can't use that pathetic little trick on?
But I am sure our little moron would continue to deny the facts laid before him, in an effort to, well fuck I don't know what. Our moron (YOU still, do I have to keep reminding you?) seems to have a grudge with one group of politicians, while letting the others off the hook. I think that's because our moron is too stupid to understand they ALL screwed him, and he hasn'tfigured out he's been lied to yet.
SO, now that I've laid it out for you, do yourself a favor. Learn how to read for comprehension, then thank me. I don't usually give free lessons like this.
"First off, yes, it is a crime to leak the name of an undercover agent (or any other classified information) regardless of intent."
No, it is not.
So, apart from this obvious and easily disproven lie, is there anything that in your post that isn't a deliberate falsehood?
You've lost all credibility, so I would have to assume you lie about everything.
"A court of law has the strictest definitions for lying and he didn't break them."
That's great!
"I love the way people have no grasp of"... the difference between a court of law and congress.
"A court of law has the strictest definitions for lying and he didn't break them."
OOOOOH! You did it, you tried to make a lucid point, then completely fudged it. How can you be credible when you can't even intelligently discuss the venue? What possible insight could you have if you don't know enough about the situation to even know where the hearings were?
"The school buses weren't used because the evacuation had never gone right before. What good are school buses that are locked in a traffic jam?"
See, here's the part where you go "Oh, wait, that guy was making the point that LOCAL officials screwed up, and evacuation is the responsibility of LOCAL officials, so it was the fault of the LOCAL officials that the LOCAL evacuation plan was messed up".
At which point, I will thank you for making my point, and call you a scholar and a gentleman.
"Also, Clinton didn't personally profit from his military adventures, unlike the current administration."
...?"
BWAHAHAHAAHAHA.
BWAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA.
First, are you Clinton's accountant? Then there's no way you could possibly know this. Second, you honestly believe that a PRESIDENT with all the knowledge of that office, and Clinton's obvious lack of scruples, wouldn't use that information for personal gain?
BWAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAAhAAHAAAHAHAAH.
"Your entire movement is morally bankrupt and incompetent. Your guys even make Clinton look good, and that takes some doing."
You left out engage in ad hominem attacks. Oh, wait I get it, if you'd said that then YOU couldn't do it, like you just did there.
"And when some righty lies about national security it's ok because
Clinton did it first, and you guys said it was ok then. Good for the goose and all..
Seriously, if you plan to play at partisan politics, do a better job of picking sides. Both of them are dirty, and idiotic rants only highlight how stupid partisans like you can be.
"The governor and mayor did everything possible with the resources at their disposal"
Then why were all of those school buses lined up waiting, but never got used?
Oh, right, you're a liar.
Now, whether that's because you're too stupid to see you're being lied to (that's where my money is) or you just refuse to admit it, you're still wrong.
Stop lying, you'll feel less sleazy, and you won't have to hide when honest people try to talk to you.
"Lying about extra-marital sex is done on a regular basis by men and women all across our great country every day. It's as quintessentially American as Mom and Apple Pie."
And it's still a LIE, and it was still UNDER OATH, and it was still a CRIME.
He wasn't in trouble because he lied about getting a hummer, he was in trouble because of WHO he lied to and WHEN he did it.
How sad are you though, that you think it's ok that he lied? How fucking pathetic.
"Blowing(you meant lying) about a blow job, understandable. Blowing the cover of a CIA agent because you're pissed that they uncovered one of your major lies for going to war, understandable but kind of much worse than the blowjob thing."
Dude, you just lost eversy shred of credibility.
You gave one liar a pass because YOU think what he did wasn't that bad, but you hold the other liar accountable because you think what he did was that bad.
Taht makes you a pathetic fucking hypocrite, and your opinion is worthless.
God, what the helll is wring with idiots like you.
"The Onion is clearly satirical and no one can reasonably claim that the Onion is trying to convey sponsorship or approval of the administration"
I can, and do so claim.
And now that I've mooted your argument, what's left.
You're wrong here, you just don't like the "White House" (by which you mean Bush) so you've assumed that "no one can reasonably claim..." but I've never read the Onion, and I have no other experience with them apart from this article. Tell me why it's unreasonable to assume a seal that is supposed to convey the approval of the president, in this case, does not?
Right, you can't, you're relying on the common sense and knowledge of the people doing the reading. But that's NOT the test, so please save your cliams of what is and is not reasonable for a discussion where they matter.
"The government has no copyrights, trademarks, patents, or anything else that could be considered intellectual property. Everything they have is public domain or licensed from a private entity."
NSA
Oops, you were wrong, shut up now.
"Way to be callous, man. A 2% raise... adjusted for cost of living, that's actually a pay cut."
NO, IT'S NOT ACUTALLY A PAY CUT.
Stop repeating this idiotic lie. You get more, nothing us being cut, even if you use COLA because you STILL GET MORE.
God, can't you people make a point without repeating moronic memes over and over? I'm sure it sounded great when you heard it, because it reinforced your biases in exactly the right way, but it's still wrong, and you still sound like a dumbass when you say it.
"without them, we couls still produce and sell the same product."
Then your solution is to do so, at which point you'll have nothing left to bitch about.
So get to it. What are you waiting for?
"What about the people working 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet?"
What choices have they made that tie them to three jobs, the sum total of which barely pays for their necessities? That's right what CHOICES?
"How is someone born into a poor family supposed to get enough money to pay for the education required to get the high paying jobs to become rich?"
Just like I am, work hard in public school (knowing it's your best chance at a good life) go to college (on a scholarship in an area I hated, but tolerated in order to pay for school, and work) then work a crappy job during the day in your field, while working a second one at night to pay back miscellaneous student loans.
It's a liberal lie that poor people are stuck. Student loans are available to virtually anyone.
It is opinions like yours, and the perpetuation of ignorant opinions like yours, that allow people in poverty to continue to make excuses instead of making their lives better.
"This situation continues until the company that hired us starts to lose money from their customers leaving from bad support or the employee numbers drop to a point where it is not possible to fulfill staffing hours. The only people who really suffer in the end is the employees who don't quit and the customers (end users) who deal with poor support."
Right, and as the only level heade, reasonable employee there, you can see it while no one else can.
OR, it's not nearly as bad as you claim, you're exaggerating for effect, and mostly, the system you describes works, but has occasional glitches.
I know which one I believe.
"Why should purchasing personal health insurance be any more difficult than buying car insurance?"
It's not, I did it when I was in college, at the rate of $33 a month. I shopped around, and got excellent coverage.
If you've been led to believe that getting health insurance is difficult, you were lied to.
"Unions are the only way for the workers to stand up against management."
Ah, you've had some of the obligatory union koolaid.
Riddle me this then smart guy, how do people stand up against management in my state, where unions have essentially no power (Florida)? This is a right to work state, and as a result of that, the typical union protections are not present.
Yet AMAZINGLY, people still stand up against management. Explain how that's possible, if as you say
"Unions are the only way for the workers to stand up against management."
Well?
Oh, right, you're just a union shill, looking to convince people that your dumb decision wasn't a result of your fear of failure and profound lack of drive, but rather a smart business decision.
"Why should corporate profits leap by huge percentages while employee salaries do not?"
Better question. Why should a group of lazy ass do nothings drive up the cost of employing good workers?
I don't want my salary based on how much the company can give the union without going out of business. I don't want a group of elected representatives negotiating my compensation for me. I don't want to be told not to go to work, then be socially stigmatized if I disagree with the opinion of the masses.
Unions are extortion schemes, nothing more. Like all things, they have good and bad sides, but the good things don't change what a union is fundamentally.
"Did anyone ever look into how many of the victims are seniors?"
What does being old have to do with being greedy? What, there are no old, greedy people? Did it ever occur to you that maybe one of the reasons old people get scammed is because they're GREEDY old people?
"The slightest chance of not having to worry about money, or being able to leave something for their children or grand children"
Blah blah blah. What you just said was "they want something they don't have, and they aren't willing to do what they have to (or failed during their lives) and are now desperately grasping at straws for MATERIAL WEALTH. Greed dude, any way you slice it.
You're the fourth person I've read this argument from , and it was dumb all four times.
"Get some perspective."
I suggest you do the same.
You, with all due respect, are making shit up.
We get just as pissed off at CEOs, in fact I personally get far more pissed at them when they steal. The whole already being wealthy thing.
I distinctly remeber a shitstorm after the Savings & Loan scandal, Enron, & Worldcom. People went to jail, or are being prosecuted. What would you like to happen, a revolt?
"So right now we're worried about some Nigerians stealling tens of millions a year when we've got tens of billions in medical fraud going on in this country."
If you'd bothered to ask instead of assuming you can gauge the feeling of an entire country on your own, you'd realize we can be concerned about BOTH at the same time. Ask, you'll see I'm right and you're wrong.
Yeah, see this one
"- It's their fair share."
You just did it. You tried to justify one wrong by referring to another.
The problem is, I completely reject your concept that
"the entire system of private property is based on theft and unfair advantage."
Primarily, how can it be theft if (as you claim) NO ONE owned it? What you fail to consider is that some people have doen MORE than their fair share to protect their exclusive use of these resources. They found them, developed them, exploited and, most importantly, protected them.
Dismissing their effort because you reject property ownership is just propaganda, and has no basis in reason at all.
If you put in a larger amount of effort, then you deserve a greater share.
"How does this system benefit the common person?"
By allowing them the opportunity to work harder, and thus gain more than someone who works less.
"I still fail to see how America is the magnanimous global citizen that we are being asked to praise."
Because we give aid to place swhere we have NO OBLIGATION TO DO SO.
I really, really despise idiots like you who think charity is something to be belittled to meet your own moronic political agenda.
Read your own posts, all you do is refer back to the US, Bush, and US business interests. How fucking sad that you can't see anything outside your dim little world view.
"Yeah, and how are they going to do that without western technology like big tractors, combine harvesters, bio technology etc etc?"
The same way humanity did it until the last 100 years or so?
Oh, right, agriculture has only been viable since the invention of "western technology"...