100,000 Americans murdered since 9/11 (and not by terr'ists)
-
You couldn't hop on google and just crank out five or ten states? I mean, surely a search like "STATE_NAME emergency management" would turn up a few hits, right? Well, don't bother, I already ran those searches before I posted (I know, amazing, right?), and they came up with widely varying results. Most state emergency management systems are actually part of the Federal Homeland Security department. Some of them are run out of the governor's office, some are arms of state police forces. Some I just plain ol' couldn't find at all. Louisiana's is barely an agency at all, I couldn't even find who heads it up. 90% of the news items on their page had the word "FEMA" in the title somewhere. Take a look at New Mexico's staff list. Nothing but IT guys and admins and executives, along with about 25% "VACANT" spots. There's as many employees in the grants & administration bureau as there are in any of the others. Most of the states formed their emergency management agencies after 9/11. FEMA has been around since Carter.
Not sure I understand your point. But the fact that these operations are still being put together makes it a very lucretive software market.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
What the f*** are you talking about? "states rights/powers vs federal means the same thing as responsibilities"? Seriously, does that make sense to you in your head or what? Can someone else come in here and explain what this guy is saying?
I can't help it if your too dense to understand.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
How about refining or clarifying your statement? You know I'm not dense, and your refusal to clarify just means you don't know what you're arguing about, either. Thanks, and have a great day.
-
Not sure I understand your point. But the fact that these operations are still being put together makes it a very lucretive software market.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
My point is that responsibility lies where there is ability to affect change, and the fact is that the states do not have that ability. Your lucrative software market is at the expense of American emergency preparedness, great work.
-
Not sure I understand your point. But the fact that these operations are still being put together makes it a very lucretive software market.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
My point is that responsibility lies where there is ability to affect change, and the fact is that the states do not have that ability.
And yet isn't it incredible that we have managed to eek out a national existence for 230 years without it. Do you ever wonder how San Francisco managed to rebuild almost overnight with virtually no federal assistance of any kind? Or Chicago? What you are suggesting represents a complete abandonment of American federalism. Maybe its time we did that, theres precious little of it left in any case, but frankly I would not want George W. Bush to be the guy doing it. On the other hand, I cannot think of anyone that I would want.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Your lucrative software market is at the expense of American emergency preparedness, great work.
Well, we like to think our software is helping solve the problem. The biggest hurdle we face is that government agencies don't want to use anything that allows them to get by with fewer people. It simply is not in the nature of the bureaucrats.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
How about refining or clarifying your statement? You know I'm not dense, and your refusal to clarify just means you don't know what you're arguing about, either. Thanks, and have a great day.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How about refining or clarifying your statement? You know I'm not dense, and your refusal to clarify just means you don't know what you're arguing about, either. Thanks, and have a great day.
Why should I? The tone of your messages don't give me any reason to clarify. I've tried to explain, maybe I'm the dense one. But it seems to me that you don't understand the roles of the state and federal governments and I don't have the time to give you a civics/history lesson.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How about refining or clarifying your statement? You know I'm not dense, and your refusal to clarify just means you don't know what you're arguing about, either. Thanks, and have a great day.
Why should I? The tone of your messages don't give me any reason to clarify. I've tried to explain, maybe I'm the dense one. But it seems to me that you don't understand the roles of the state and federal governments and I don't have the time to give you a civics/history lesson.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
Jason Henderson wrote:
Why should I?
Perhaps in order to communicate? Unless the only reason you're here is to see your name on the screen. You can do that in Word.
Jason Henderson wrote:
But it seems to me that you don't understand the roles of the state and federal governments and I don't have the time to give you a civics/history lesson.
But yet you have time to type up a couple of hundred words. You are confusing power with responsibility. I ask you to clarify and you start with the state/federal thing. I proved that the executive has the power, therefore the responsibility. You have only shown that you disagree, not that the states have the means to carry out what you feel are their responsibilities. Speak clearly and concisely or just don't post from now on, OK?
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How about refining or clarifying your statement? You know I'm not dense, and your refusal to clarify just means you don't know what you're arguing about, either. Thanks, and have a great day.
Why should I? The tone of your messages don't give me any reason to clarify. I've tried to explain, maybe I'm the dense one. But it seems to me that you don't understand the roles of the state and federal governments and I don't have the time to give you a civics/history lesson.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
I don't particularly like talking to you because you act like a child. I'm also quite busy right now. So consider this "discussion" complete.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How about refining or clarifying your statement? You know I'm not dense, and your refusal to clarify just means you don't know what you're arguing about, either. Thanks, and have a great day.
Why should I? The tone of your messages don't give me any reason to clarify. I've tried to explain, maybe I'm the dense one. But it seems to me that you don't understand the roles of the state and federal governments and I don't have the time to give you a civics/history lesson.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
Jason Henderson wrote:
I don't particularly like talking to you because you act like a child. I'm also quite busy right now. So consider this "discussion" complete.
Actually, Jason, I'm not so sure that Chris isn't absolutely correct. Given the way our federalism has been evolving, why shouldn't the presidency assume direct authority to force the federal government's power onto states and local communities? We have surrendered virtually every other vestage of our Jeffersonian heritage, why not just kill it off entirely? I mean, with Chris, we have a perfect example of the final product of a modern liberal education. He has absolutely no concern for what Americans have fought and died for over 230 years. Rather, he sees that politcal power exists only to solve problems regardless of how much power and authority that becomes concentrated into the hands of a centralized ruling elite as a consequence. He has no concern at all that our democracy will thus become indistinquishable from any European soical welfare state. That is what he wants, and apparently a large and growing number of Americans agree with him. The king is dead, long live the king.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
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:
From Wikipedia:
Jason Henderson wrote:
Hardly seems like domestic spying as most liberals and democrats have described.
Jason Henderson wrote:
Care to divulge your sources?
HAhahahahahaha.... .wiki... a bona fide trustworthy source... hahahahahaha. Oooh, that was good. Thanks, I needed to laugh today. Too bad Chris is a bit whacked. I think his concern is valid, but his conclusions are wrong. I agree with most of your summation with regard to state and federal powers. But, Bush has abused his power. Just wish people could discuss this as citizens instead of partisans. But then again, we aren't a democracy. We're a republic.
This statement was never false.
-
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
Michael Martin wrote:
I thought Georgie wore his underwear on the oputside, tied his bedsheet around his neck and flew around the US saving the day.
You wouldn't be speaking from experience would you? :laugh:
This statement was never false.
-
Sorry I am not going to get dragged into another retarded discussion about how they never had the right to marry where the (D)espeir logic prism is used to render conclusions *bored now*. It's just as boring as talking about abortion with someone that refuses to consider, as part of the issue, THE FACT, that the life that is being "murdered" is INSIDE THE WOMB OF ANOTHER LIVING PERSON.
Why not? His point is perfectly valid. And logical. I support the right for gay people to marry. I don't like it, but I don't have to. I support them having the right. But, Mike's point in this case is very valid.
This statement was never false.
-
OK, abortion? How much more off-topic are you planning on getting here. The topic, by the way is a 10% increase in violent crime over the last few years. Meanwhile, we're supposed to be afraid of terrorists.
Dude, you may have started the thread, but you have no right to dictate its discussion. You might as well get over whatever trip your on and just let it go. Threads have always wandered, and been hijacked. Welcome to public forums. Start a private forum if you want to dictate.
This statement was never false.
-
Michael Martin wrote:
I thought Georgie wore his underwear on the oputside, tied his bedsheet around his neck and flew around the US saving the day.
You wouldn't be speaking from experience would you? :laugh:
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
You wouldn't be speaking from experience would you? :laugh:
Yes, but I do it for truth, justice and the beer drinking way.
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
-
led mike wrote:
for you to support gay marriage
sure. then on to pedophilia.
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.
How does that relate. Those are two wholly different subjects. Pedophilia isn't consensual. And it isn't necessarily gay. It is sick. Love between two adults is completely different.
This statement was never false.
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
From Wikipedia:
Jason Henderson wrote:
Hardly seems like domestic spying as most liberals and democrats have described.
Jason Henderson wrote:
Care to divulge your sources?
HAhahahahahaha.... .wiki... a bona fide trustworthy source... hahahahahaha. Oooh, that was good. Thanks, I needed to laugh today. Too bad Chris is a bit whacked. I think his concern is valid, but his conclusions are wrong. I agree with most of your summation with regard to state and federal powers. But, Bush has abused his power. Just wish people could discuss this as citizens instead of partisans. But then again, we aren't a democracy. We're a republic.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Bush has abused his power
According to who? Citizens or partisans?
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Just wish people could discuss this as citizens instead of partisans.
And what would that sound like?
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How about refining or clarifying your statement? You know I'm not dense, and your refusal to clarify just means you don't know what you're arguing about, either. Thanks, and have a great day.
Why should I? The tone of your messages don't give me any reason to clarify. I've tried to explain, maybe I'm the dense one. But it seems to me that you don't understand the roles of the state and federal governments and I don't have the time to give you a civics/history lesson.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
Stan Shannon wrote:
I mean, with Chris, we have a perfect example of the final product of a modern liberal education. He has absolutely no concern for what Americans have fought and died for over 230 years. Rather, he sees that politcal power exists only to solve problems regardless of how much power and authority that becomes concentrated into the hands of a centralized ruling elite as a consequence.
We still do have a separation of powers, although not like it used to be. The federals have taken more and more and the states seem to give it up freely. And we see people, like IamChrisMcCall, expecting more and more out of the feds, expecting even more responsibility than they currently have. This misunderstanding feeds the federal government and it thinks it should take even more power.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How about refining or clarifying your statement? You know I'm not dense, and your refusal to clarify just means you don't know what you're arguing about, either. Thanks, and have a great day.
Why should I? The tone of your messages don't give me any reason to clarify. I've tried to explain, maybe I'm the dense one. But it seems to me that you don't understand the roles of the state and federal governments and I don't have the time to give you a civics/history lesson.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
And the ironic part is that the very people who want the central government to have so much power seem so authentically surprised when such power is 'abused', as if it were something anyone could actually control. Such an incredible combination of arrogance and ignorance. But apparently, as long as we are all free to have anal sex, everything is just fine. Who could ask for more? :sigh:
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How about refining or clarifying your statement? You know I'm not dense, and your refusal to clarify just means you don't know what you're arguing about, either. Thanks, and have a great day.
Why should I? The tone of your messages don't give me any reason to clarify. I've tried to explain, maybe I'm the dense one. But it seems to me that you don't understand the roles of the state and federal governments and I don't have the time to give you a civics/history lesson.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
Stan Shannon wrote:
And the ironic part is that the very people who want the central government to have so much power seem so authentically surprised when such power is 'abused', as if it were something anyone could actually control.
Its as if they don't realize that behind every office there are corruptible people.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But apparently, as long as we are all free to have anal sex, everything is just fine. Who could ask for more?
Yeah, kind of said. They're selective about which rights they want to defend and they add new ones that aren't rights at all.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
-
led mike wrote:
Excuse me if I refuse to accept your philosophical interpretations.
You can refuse anything you like, but your views are clearly libertarian, not Jeffersonian.
led mike wrote:
You are the guy who simultaneously claims to support Jeffersonian principles and that critics of the Bush administration should be considered traitors.
When you overtly attempt to subvert the president's execution of his constitutional responsibilities to defend the nation, yes, you are a traitor. Sorry.
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:
When you overtly attempt to subvert the president's execution of his constitutional responsibilities to defend the nation, yes, you are a traitor. Sorry.
I'm still curious what you think qualifies as such. Specific citations too please.. Does defending the nation excuse unlawful acts? Does that trump the rule of law?
This statement was never false.
-
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.
Speak for yourself. That was pretty funny.
This statement was never false.