100,000 Americans murdered since 9/11 (and not by terr'ists)
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
So that no one embarrasses you on the internet.
If you (or Mike) had any brains you would appreciate that I'm not the one being embarrassed here. But, I will have to admit that you are pretty fly (for a white guy). [^] :laugh:
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
That's a pretty sweet 1990s alternative music reference, I am so embarrassed by your iron-fisted hold on pop culture! What's next, a Chumbawumba-based slam? You are making us all laugh, but I don't think it's in the way you want.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Guarding is predicated on the continued existence of those structures, no? If your job is to keep things safe, isn't part of that responsibility, you know, keeping them safe?
Guarding from interior or exterior threats, which would not include deterioration due to natural causes.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
George Bush architected the War on Terror, including the War in Iraq. He created the DHS with his own pen. The fact that he did not vote on funding is irrelevant. Every penny spent through agencies and efforts Bush himself was responsible for creating is his responsibility. Through direct executive orders, the US has spent half a trillion dollars on war.
It seems to me that you are wanting to give Bush more power. Saying he is responsible for all domestic spending just because a federal agency oversees security on infrastructure is absurd. Congress appropriates funds and in order to get any federal money to the states Bush has to sign it, he doesn't have a line-item veto.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Why would you post that article to defend your point? The only way Bush can affect infrastructure is by granting more money to the states (40% of states' spending on highways and bridges is federal money, thanks for the source), which he refused to do. He doesn't want to raise the federal gas tax in order to support infrastructure repairs because it would "slow economic growth" (in other words, hurt energy companies). So, the only thing he could do to help, he has refused to do. Yet, somehow, he is not responsible.
Think about it a minute. Congress appropriates the money and they say where it can be spent. Some of the money that should go to bridges instead gets spent on museums, monuments, and other PORK projects. Instead of raising taxes, which would doubtless hurt the economy, why not spend more responsibly? Let the money go to infrastructure and not PORK.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Somebody has been feeding you a line of bull, or likely, a line of truth you don't like the taste of.
In war there is doubtless going to be an extension of executive power. See Lincoln in the Civil War, Roosevelt in WWII, etc. I would venture to guess that your source is a radical left leaning blog or "news" site. The Patriot Act was approved by Congress. We have che
Jason Henderson wrote:
Guarding from interior or exterior threats, which would not include deterioration due to natural causes.
How convenient. Maybe if we wait for all of our infrastructure to fall apart, the terrorists won't have to use bombs to blow it up, they can just jump up and down on it!
Jason Henderson wrote:
It seems to me that you are wanting to give Bush more power. Saying he is responsible for all domestic spending just because a federal agency oversees security on infrastructure is absurd. Congress appropriates funds and in order to get any federal money to the states Bush has to sign it, he doesn't have a line-item veto.
You're confusing power with responsibility. He already has the power, I am just holding him responsible. Listening to you, it sounds like the poor guy just can't get anything done! There's a difference between power and accountability.
Jason Henderson wrote:
In war there is doubtless going to be an extension of executive power.
Thanks, that's where I stopped reading. I hope I have been of educational use to you today. Remember, learning is a lifelong process (my invoice is in the mail)!
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
Guarding from interior or exterior threats, which would not include deterioration due to natural causes.
How convenient. Maybe if we wait for all of our infrastructure to fall apart, the terrorists won't have to use bombs to blow it up, they can just jump up and down on it!
Jason Henderson wrote:
It seems to me that you are wanting to give Bush more power. Saying he is responsible for all domestic spending just because a federal agency oversees security on infrastructure is absurd. Congress appropriates funds and in order to get any federal money to the states Bush has to sign it, he doesn't have a line-item veto.
You're confusing power with responsibility. He already has the power, I am just holding him responsible. Listening to you, it sounds like the poor guy just can't get anything done! There's a difference between power and accountability.
Jason Henderson wrote:
In war there is doubtless going to be an extension of executive power.
Thanks, that's where I stopped reading. I hope I have been of educational use to you today. Remember, learning is a lifelong process (my invoice is in the mail)!
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How convenient. Maybe if we wait for all of our infrastructure to fall apart, the terrorists won't have to use bombs to blow it up, they can just jump up and down on it!
What part are you failing to understand? DHS is responsible for SECURITY, not maintenance. Congress and the states are responsible for appropriating and spending on infrastructure. Do you want DHS, which we didn't really need in the first place, to balloon into an all encompassing mega bureaucracy?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
You're confusing power with responsibility. He already has the power, I am just holding him responsible. Listening to you, it sounds like the poor guy just can't get anything done! There's a difference between power and accountability.
I'm sorry but your the one confused about federal and state powers. If you haven't noticed, nobody in politics wants accountability. See Katrina and now the Minnesota bridge collapse for examples. There are distinct lines between the power of states and the feds, try not to blur them.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Jason Henderson wrote: In war there is doubtless going to be an extension of executive power. Thanks, that's where I stopped reading. I hope I have been of educational use to you today. Remember, learning is a lifelong process (my invoice is in the mail)!
:wtf: :sigh:
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
-
That's a pretty sweet 1990s alternative music reference, I am so embarrassed by your iron-fisted hold on pop culture! What's next, a Chumbawumba-based slam? You are making us all laugh, but I don't think it's in the way you want.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
I am so embarrassed by your iron-fisted hold on pop culture!
Well, I have been exposed to it for a very long time after all.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
You are making us all laugh, but I don't think it's in the way you want.
OK, so whats funny about the president's authority as commander in chief being subverted by the other branches of government being refuted by Mike's example of a president expressing his authority as command in chief under the constitution? Mike's reply supported my argument, not his. Please frame your answer in a Jeffersonian context.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
led mike wrote:
there's controversy about that?
if you're a pedophile
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How convenient. Maybe if we wait for all of our infrastructure to fall apart, the terrorists won't have to use bombs to blow it up, they can just jump up and down on it!
What part are you failing to understand? DHS is responsible for SECURITY, not maintenance. Congress and the states are responsible for appropriating and spending on infrastructure. Do you want DHS, which we didn't really need in the first place, to balloon into an all encompassing mega bureaucracy?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
You're confusing power with responsibility. He already has the power, I am just holding him responsible. Listening to you, it sounds like the poor guy just can't get anything done! There's a difference between power and accountability.
I'm sorry but your the one confused about federal and state powers. If you haven't noticed, nobody in politics wants accountability. See Katrina and now the Minnesota bridge collapse for examples. There are distinct lines between the power of states and the feds, try not to blur them.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Jason Henderson wrote: In war there is doubtless going to be an extension of executive power. Thanks, that's where I stopped reading. I hope I have been of educational use to you today. Remember, learning is a lifelong process (my invoice is in the mail)!
:wtf: :sigh:
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
Jason Henderson wrote:
What part are you failing to understand? DHS is responsible for SECURITY, not maintenance.
What part are you failing to understand? The security of these structures assumes their existence. How can DHS assume responsibility for structures it cannot guarantee are properly maintained? It's like saying the Dept of Education has no responsibility for school facilities, only education. The TSA does more than just check your bags. The least the DHS could do is get a report of structural hazards and oversee them getting fixed. Possibly rating each infrastructure point and including in its report the risk of collapse of each structure? I don't know, I'm just riffing here, I do not have a hundred-million-dollar budget to cram up my ass. You're right about the DHS being unneeded, but if it's here, it may as well do its job, right?
Jason Henderson wrote:
I'm sorry but your the one confused about federal and state powers.
I said "responsibility" not "federal and state powers". Respond to what I typed, not what's in your head.
Jason Henderson wrote:
See Katrina and now the Minnesota bridge collapse for examples. There are distinct lines between the power of states and the feds, try not to blur them.
Guess what the "F" in FEMA stands for. Go on, guess!
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
What part are you failing to understand? DHS is responsible for SECURITY, not maintenance.
What part are you failing to understand? The security of these structures assumes their existence. How can DHS assume responsibility for structures it cannot guarantee are properly maintained? It's like saying the Dept of Education has no responsibility for school facilities, only education. The TSA does more than just check your bags. The least the DHS could do is get a report of structural hazards and oversee them getting fixed. Possibly rating each infrastructure point and including in its report the risk of collapse of each structure? I don't know, I'm just riffing here, I do not have a hundred-million-dollar budget to cram up my ass. You're right about the DHS being unneeded, but if it's here, it may as well do its job, right?
Jason Henderson wrote:
I'm sorry but your the one confused about federal and state powers.
I said "responsibility" not "federal and state powers". Respond to what I typed, not what's in your head.
Jason Henderson wrote:
See Katrina and now the Minnesota bridge collapse for examples. There are distinct lines between the power of states and the feds, try not to blur them.
Guess what the "F" in FEMA stands for. Go on, guess!
So you just want the office of the president to assume direct personal responsibility for every possible issue through out the entire country?
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
So you just want the office of the president to assume direct personal responsibility for every possible issue through out the entire country?
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Isn't that what "The Buck Stops Here" means?
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
What part are you failing to understand? DHS is responsible for SECURITY, not maintenance.
What part are you failing to understand? The security of these structures assumes their existence. How can DHS assume responsibility for structures it cannot guarantee are properly maintained? It's like saying the Dept of Education has no responsibility for school facilities, only education. The TSA does more than just check your bags. The least the DHS could do is get a report of structural hazards and oversee them getting fixed. Possibly rating each infrastructure point and including in its report the risk of collapse of each structure? I don't know, I'm just riffing here, I do not have a hundred-million-dollar budget to cram up my ass. You're right about the DHS being unneeded, but if it's here, it may as well do its job, right?
Jason Henderson wrote:
I'm sorry but your the one confused about federal and state powers.
I said "responsibility" not "federal and state powers". Respond to what I typed, not what's in your head.
Jason Henderson wrote:
See Katrina and now the Minnesota bridge collapse for examples. There are distinct lines between the power of states and the feds, try not to blur them.
Guess what the "F" in FEMA stands for. Go on, guess!
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
I said "responsibility" not "federal and state powers". Respond to what I typed, not what's in your head.
Um they mean virtually the same thing.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Guess what the "F" in FEMA stands for. Go on, guess!
Guess what, most states have EMAs also.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
-
Isn't that what "The Buck Stops Here" means?
Weren't you just railing about Bush's power grab? You're not being consistent.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
-
led mike wrote:
No you're a bigot, that desires the majority have the right to legislate the erosion of individual freedom of homosexuals because you don't like them.
No true at all. I happen to believe that sex between consenting adults in private is no ones business but their own. I would happily vote in favor of such a law - if free to do so. I would happily use my freedom of speech to argue in favor of it - if I had any meaningful freedom of speech.
led mike wrote:
We fought a civil war because states wanted the right to enslave people. They had the majority to support it in those states.
But the CIvil war did not end slavery - the 13th amendment did. The concept of State's Rights is central to Jeffersonian federalism. The Civil War was not fought to end it - but modern interpretations of the 14th amendment threaten to.
led mike wrote:
Live your own freaking life and stop worrying about what those gays next door to you are doing in the privacy of their own home. How f****ing hard is that to do? If one of them breaks down your door and sticks his dick in your ass, call me and I will come over and blow his head off with my 12 gauge, until then stop bothering me with your whiny cry-face sissy nonsense.
That is a libertarian philosophy, Mike, not a conservative one. As a conservative, I merely claim that my right to free speech is more fundamental to the constitution than is someone else's right to stick his dick in someone's ass. Freedom of speech is there, freedom of ass fucking isn't. Sorry. That view is not based on my moral principles but on my Jeffersonian ones.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
freedom of ass f****ing isn't
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: thats so obscene that it's poetic
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
I said "responsibility" not "federal and state powers". Respond to what I typed, not what's in your head.
Um they mean virtually the same thing.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Guess what the "F" in FEMA stands for. Go on, guess!
Guess what, most states have EMAs also.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
Jason Henderson wrote:
Um they mean virtually the same thing.
"They" what? State and Federal? Power and responsibility? State power and federal responsibility? What are you talking about?
Jason Henderson wrote:
Guess what, most states have EMAs also.
No they don't.
-
Isn't that what "The Buck Stops Here" means?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Isn't that what "The Buck Stops Here" means?
If you'll check, I'm pretty sure you will discover that was a sign on Harry Truman's desk, not actually part of our legal system. (BTW, Harry was even more unpopular at the time than Bush is today)
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
As a consequence of federal and state laws granting married couples certain legal rights, yes, they have fewer rights.
valid but not in the context of the question, which was, "what rights have been eroded?" Gays have never had these rights, point in fact homosexual activity has been illegal in many quarters ujtil fairly recently - the end result is not an erosion but increased rights, just not on a par with married hetrosexuals. If anything, hetrosexuals are losing rights through an adversion to marriage, which then puts them on a par with homosexuals.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
hetrosexuals are losing rights through an adversion to marriage
:confused: I'm too lazy to google this talking point. Could you please fill me in?
Man is a marvelous curiosity ... he thinks he is the Creator's pet ... he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea. - Mark Twain
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
Um they mean virtually the same thing.
"They" what? State and Federal? Power and responsibility? State power and federal responsibility? What are you talking about?
Jason Henderson wrote:
Guess what, most states have EMAs also.
No they don't.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
No they don't.
Hmmmm, than I suppose my company had better stop selling software to them. :rolleyes:
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
freedom of ass f****ing isn't
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: thats so obscene that it's poetic
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
I suppose I could have called it the 'right to keep and bear KY Jelly'. :~
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
No they don't.
Hmmmm, than I suppose my company had better stop selling software to them. :rolleyes:
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Oh really? What is the name of the office of emergency management in Louisiana?
-
Oh really? What is the name of the office of emergency management in Louisiana?
The only one I've had direct contact with is New Mexico's office of emergency managment because they needed an enhancement to one of my modules. So I spoke by phone with them. http://www.nmdhsem.org/default.asp?CustComKey=270308&CategoryKey=274276&pn=Page&DomName=nmdhsem.org[^] We have had people working with Louisiana since Katrina, but I don't know what state agency they are working with directly. I know that similar offices exist in Idaho, Illinois, and Maryland becuase we have had installation issues at those sites. Other's also, but I don't keep up a lot with day to day sales operations. They certainly exist by one name or another.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Are you freakin' serious? The president doesn't have the type of power you imagine him to have.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
Jason Henderson wrote:
The president doesn't have the type of power you imagine him to have.
Well that's just spoilt it for me. I thought Georgie wore his underwear on the oputside, tied his bedsheet around his neck and flew around the US saving the day.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
Um they mean virtually the same thing.
"They" what? State and Federal? Power and responsibility? State power and federal responsibility? What are you talking about?
Jason Henderson wrote:
Guess what, most states have EMAs also.
No they don't.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
State power and federal responsibility? What are you talking about?
The same thing you were talking about. When we talk about states rights/powers vs federal it means virtually the same thing as responsibilities.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Jason Henderson wrote: Guess what, most states have EMAs also. No they don't.
Yes, they do. http://www.emergencymanagement.org/states/[^]
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson