Katrina Thread / New Orleans

[shmokes]

What's a legacy admission and how can I obtain one?

[DrewKaree]

You people are so wacky. You claim not to trust the government, yet when government says jump, you say "F those who don't listen, let them die, don't even let them help themselves!".

Yeah, I guess you're right, we're all saying that they should have listened when the government said "jump".  Nevermind that big friggen swirly thing that even blind people could tell was coming.  Yeah, we simply marched in lockstep, following orders.  Everyone (well, at least YOU could) can see the government faked all the news reports on a sound stage somewhere and couldn't be trusted to be telling us the truth.

You should think about selling this stuff on video as a workout tape.  You could call it "Stretching (facts or truth) For Dummies", or are you only limited to writing books under the "Dummies" label?

What's a legacy admission and how can I obtain one?

Buy a Subaru.  Free with purchase.  And I think you get a cool T-shirt. 

[Grasshopper]

When you claim someone snuck into Yale and ignore the very real problem you have that BOTH candidates in America for President in the last election went to the same school and had similar grades and priveledge, it pretty much lets us know that either you would have hated ANY presidential candidate who won our last election, or you just have an intense hatred for the one who DID win, and seek any opportunity to badmouth him, even if your ignorance is found out.

Well you could have voted for Ralph Nader.

[DrewKaree]

Somehow I think Dexter would see ol' Ralphy-boy as not "progressive" enough

That's about it for me this weekend.  See you guys Sunday-ish.  I'm betting I care far less about this thread by that time:

[Grasshopper]

You people are so wacky. You claim not to trust the government, yet when government says jump, you say "F those who don't listen, let them die, don't even let them help themselves!".

Yeah, I guess you're right, we're all saying that they should have listened when the government said "jump".  Nevermind that big friggen swirly thing that even blind people could tell was coming.  Yeah, we simply marched in lockstep, following orders.  Everyone (well, at least YOU could) can see the government faked all the news reports on a sound stage somewhere and couldn't be trusted to be telling us the truth.

You should think about selling this stuff on video as a workout tape.  You could call it "Stretching (facts or truth) For Dummies", or are you only limited to writing books under the "Dummies" label?

What's a legacy admission and how can I obtain one?

Buy a Subaru.  Free with purchase.  And I think you get a cool T-shirt. 

So just to clarify Drew, you think these people deserve to die, and it's perfectly OK for the local authorities to take steps that increase their likelihood of dying, just because they failed to heed the warnings.

[Dartful Dodger]

You people are so wacky. You claim not to trust the government, yet when government says jump, you say "F those who don't listen, let them die, don't even let them help themselves!".

This is truly something I can't fathom. Hate government, yet refuse to condemn government when they act like jack-booted thugs.

That is the complete opposite of what I am saying.

I say:
Love the government,

[shmokes]

You should think about selling this stuff on video as a workout tape.  You could call it "Stretching (facts or truth) For Dummies", or are you only limited to writing books under the "Dummies" label?

Drew....this is perhaps the worst joke ever.  Were you eating paste when you wrote your last post?

[markrvp]

You people are so wacky. You claim not to trust the government, yet when government says jump, you say "F those who don't listen, let them die, don't even let them help themselves!".

Yeah, I guess you're right, we're all saying that they should have listened when the government said "jump".

[ChadTower]

Buying a Subaru won't help... I had a Legacy, and we had a couple lengthy threads about how it was worthless.

[DrewKaree]

So just to clarify Drew, you think these people deserve to die, and it's perfectly OK for the local authorities to take steps that increase their likelihood of dying, just because they failed to heed the warnings.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.  I'm also saying I'm AGAINST clean air and water, I'm against banning lead paint, I'm FOR allowing smoking and consumption of alcohol by women who are pregnant, I'm AGAINST improving our schools/roads/whatever, I'm FOR.......

Yeah, there you go.  Something you'll be able to quote me for until the end of time. 

Let me clarify, Grasshopper.  You think that these people didn't deserve to die, and only through God's grace they're still alive, in spite of the belief of many that God doesn't exist?

Here's a question for you.  Have you stopped beating your wife yet? 

[Grasshopper]

I don't think that pointing out the wrongdoings of the local authorities lets Bush off the hook.

It seems to me that both the local authorities and Bush screwed up.

[Grasshopper]

So just to clarify Drew, you think these people deserve to die, and it's perfectly OK for the local authorities to take steps that increase their likelihood of dying, just because they failed to heed the warnings.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.  I'm also saying I'm AGAINST clean air and water, I'm against banning lead paint, I'm FOR allowing smoking and consumption of alcohol by women who are pregnant, I'm AGAINST improving our schools/roads/whatever, I'm FOR.......

Thanks for clarifying that. 

[shmokes]

in spite of the belief of many that God doesn't exist?

Why would that matter?

[Grasshopper]

in spite of the belief of many that God doesn't exist?

Why would that matter?

Yeah I was wondering that. In fact the whole sentence makes no sense to me.

[Dexter]

When you claim someone snuck into Yale and ignore the very real problem you have that BOTH candidates in America for President in the last election went to the same school and had similar grades and priveledge, it pretty much lets us know that either you would have hated ANY presidential candidate who won our last election, or you just have an intense hatred for the one who DID win, and seek any opportunity to badmouth him, even if your ignorance is found out.

My comments relate to anybody who takes their good fortune for granted. I mention bush because it is relevant to this thread.

[Dartful Dodger]

My comments relate to anybody who takes their good fortune for granted. I mention bush because it is relevant to this thread.

He was elected president, TWICE, I'd say he used his good fortune to better himself, and the world.

[ChadTower]

Himself, clearly, but the world?

[shmokes]

He was elected once.  He was appointed the first time.

At least Iraqis are free now, though.

[ChadTower]

Why is it that you have so much faith in the judicial system when it comes to babystabbers, but refuse to accept their decisions in the case of Bush's first electoral win?

[shmokes]

I accept it.  I think Bush was the legal president after his appointment.  I just don't think that he was "elected" president.  The Supreme Court acted within their powers.  I think that it was bad law and that the conservatives on the court, especially with respect to Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, had to sacrifice their principles in order to get their guy appointed, but I still considered Bush the legal, if not legitimate president.

[ChadTower]

There is no difference between legal and legitimate in this context.  The Supreme Court did not get their guy elected, they interpreted the Constitution as it applied to the case and ruled according to the law.  There is no room for sacrifice of principals there.  The law is clear and was applied properly.

[Stingray]

None of which changes the fact that Bush is a p3nis wrinkle.

-S

[shmokes]

Chad, you're talking out your ass.  The law is clear that states set their own election laws and that the final arbiter of those laws is the State Supreme Court.  On any other case, the three justices I mentioned would have been the very first to refuse to hear the case.  And had they heard it anyway (it only takes a minority vote of four justices to hear a case) the three would have voted to uphold the Florida Supreme Court ruling, possibly noting that they think it is misguided, but that they don't have jurisdiction.  These are States rights justices.

[ChadTower]

That sure does look like the truth.

He has played a major role in making this country, and the entire world, worse off than it was before he was elected.

[ChadTower]

Chad, you're talking out your ass.

[JCL]

One for the "Get a Gun!" crowd:

NY-Times Link

You can't stay. You can't leave. You can't shelter yourself. You can't protect yourself.

We're from the Government and we're here to help you!


Edit by saint - fixed long link

[ChadTower]

"Individuals are at risk of dying," said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of the New Orleans police. "There's nothing more important than the preservation of human life."

So, the solution is to threaten to shoot them if they do not evacuate, apparently.  We'll kill them before allowing them to die on their own.

[Stingray]

It's starting to look more and more like the NOPD rep for corruption has a pretty solid basis in fact. Not that I'm placing all of the blame for this mess on them. It might start there, but it goes all the way to the top.

-S

[shmokes]

Given the importance of a Presidential election, there was no real way for the Federal Supreme Court to avoid hearing this case.  Had Florida said that Gore won, the Republicans would have forced it to the Supreme Court.  Had they said Bush won, same thing other side.  This was going to go to the Federal level no matter what happened. 

Nonsense.  By not hearing the case they would simply be saying, "The Florida Supreme Court interpreted Florida election law.  They ordered that selectively recounting votes wouldn't do and that every vote must be counted.  They are the final arbiters of Florida law except when that law violates the U.S. Constitution.  It doesn't, so the Florida Supreme Court ruling stands."  Which is what those justices would say under any other circumstances, presented with a similar situation.  Even if they couldn't "avoid hearing the case" as you say, that's still exactly how those three (and probably both the other conservatives on the court) would end up ruling.

When you say, "Given the importance of a Presidential election...," you hit the nail on the head.  When Sandra Day O'Connor was watching election coverage and Florida was initially called for Gore she said, "Oh ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---," and walked out of the room (She had cancer and was getting ready to retire, remember -- she wanted to be replaced by a republican president).  The personal consequences of not hearing this case (Gore likely winning and likely replacing two conservative justices) outweighed those justices' principles.

[shmokes]

...they interpreted the Constitution as it applied to the case and ruled according to the law.  There is no room for sacrifice of principals there.  The law is clear and was applied properly.

You do realize, at least, that it was a 5-4 vote, right?

[ChadTower]

Doesn't matter.  You can sour grapes and accuse them of bending their principles all you want, that doesn't make much of it fact.

[shmokes]

Well....journalists reporting on a giant hurricane in NO doesn't make the hurricane fact either.  But it still happened. 

You can insist, without doing any research, knowing virtually nothing about the justices on the Supreme Court and the constitutional philosophies they ascribe to or even the laws they were interpreting, that, "the law is clear and was applied properly,"  But it just adds to your history of boldly stating "facts" that you pull straight from your gut, and didn't bother to actually verify, and then defending them to the death in the face of reason or absolutely any damning information.

[markrvp]

...they interpreted the Constitution as it applied to the case and ruled according to the law.

[JCL]

...they interpreted the Constitution as it applied to the case and ruled according to the law.

[Dartful Dodger]

I find it interesting that when votes are split down party lines that the losing party always says it was purely a partisan vote by the majority.

I find this interesting:
Bush was elected president by a partisan vote by the majority...

Majority: ma

[JCL]

I find it interesting that when votes are split down party lines that the losing party always says it was purely a partisan vote by the majority.

I find this interesting:
Bush was elected president by a partisan vote by the majority...

Majority: ma

[ChadTower]

The popular vote is meaningless anyway.  We don't have a national election, we have 50 state elections. 

[shmokes]

It absolutely could be that the democrats on the court were voting based on partisanship.  It's just not so clear because their dissenting opinion isn't so hypocritical.

The state legislature's power to choose electors for the presidential election is plenary.  If they wanted to they could simply appoint electors without even holding a statewide election of any kind.  They could draw names from a hat if they wanted.  It's none of the Federal Supreme Court's business how a state chooses it's electors.  Once the legislature writes laws governing the selection of their electors it is then up to the Florida courts, and ultimately the Florida Supreme Court to interpret those laws, except where they violate the U.S. Constitution or federal laws that stem from powers granted by the U.S. constitution. 

The majority's opinion was held per curiam which means it is held in the name of the court, rather than having individual justices sign it.  Per curiam opnionsare normally short, deal with non-controversial issues and are unanimous.  The majority opinion also contains this zinger:

Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.

Even the majority realized that this went against their principles and would come back to bite them in the ass.  No problem, though.  They got around that by taking the unusual step of saying, "Oh....this is how we're going to decide this case, but we're stating for the record that we are not setting a precedent here."

How convenient.  They get to have their cake and eat it too.

[JCL]

It absolutely could be that the democrats on the court were voting based on partisanship.

[ChadTower]

But with all the complaining about it, are the Democrats any less self serving?  Does anyone really doubt that, given the majority in that situation, that the Democrats would not have simply shoved Gore into office the same way you are accusing the Republicans of doing with Bush?

There really is little difference at this level.  It's all about retention of power, not what is best for the country or what is right or what is legal.