Like

Archive through September 14, 2005

 

Gold Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 1271
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

I, unlike you will not respond when I am angry.



Should I really bother? You never really cared if we were friends anyway......so you tell me. Should I walk away right here?
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 290
Registered: Dec-03
Now Art, don't try to spin propaganda. Right now it's not working...look at the polls. As much concern as you say you have about your social work I'm supprised that you can turn a blind eye.
 

Silver Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 288
Registered: Jan-05
The moral superiority on display by everyone posting to this thread in the past week is sickening. I haven't had much time to follow the forum this summer until this week. Now, I'm sorry I did catch up. Hopefully, some of you old dogs will remember your common grounds and return to some level of decency with one another. If anyone thinks they are already at the point, they are sadly mistaken.

Thanks to all for the advice and laughs from last year. Take care and good luck to all!

Ghia






 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2669
Registered: Dec-03
Unfortunatly Jan wether you really think so or not your initial post was
very much so political in nature and as usual many took offense to it.

I really don't believe anyone thinks the situation was handled correctly and I
believe most are pretty upset at how it went down.

But you choose to throw a blame here and make us aware of your distain for the
ones "you" feel are responsable (that was very much so political) if you wanted
to rant and rave about how things were going and felt the need to express that
you were upset we all would of rallied but you put it in the context of knocking
the president and his party among other things that got others upset and lashed
out at you. We have said many times that things like this are very touchy and
usuallly nothing good comes from it (like a cable duiscussion). Most of the time
you seem to have no problem with a heated discussion or debate but others do not
feel the same way and would rather just try and ignore it but a lot of times you egg
people on to the point where they may say something that they normally would not
want to.

I don't have the thick skin that you say you do and things that bother me really do
bother me and I try not to debate or get into heated discussions but sometimes they
do happen I just try to keep them to a minimum..
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2670
Registered: Dec-03
GHIA I am truly ashammed at what this has turned into!

You take care and god bless!
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5536
Registered: May-04

Art and Rick - I tried to keep the specifics of politics out of what I just wrote.


Both of you make statements that you are "bi-partisan" and you are "independent". Look at your posts. You both attack me becuase I am a liberal. Art, you are the worst at this. Everything is meant to go after me. Do you know how to do anything other than insult when it comes to politics? When have you rebutted anything I've said without also dismissing me and every liberal you percieve?

I think it's a bit easier to understand Ohm's Law than the fourteen year old that ran away from home. So there's a very large difference between what I use as my experience and what you try to shove down everyone's throat. Don't tell me you understand "these people". You obviously hold them in comtempt. To you they are nothing but hands held out. What a way to help someone.

Both of you rail against liberals. The hatred is quite obvious. Never a word against republicans. Just a viceral reaction when anyone says anything about them. I asked you both to tell me what good has been done in this country over the last four years. You both ignored the request and all but told me I had no business to ask.

There's only one thing worse than a b!got. That's a b!got that won't admit to themself they are one.


Look at what you've written and then what you claim to be. It's not the same thing. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.


Rick - You didn't understand me. I said I didn't need a friend that found me not to be in their league because we disagree. I really thought you were in a different league than that.


 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5537
Registered: May-04


Kegger - Can I remind you the man in the White House is my president too. If you think I am only upset about this hurricane, you didn't pay attention. No one has defended the action of the government concerning the hurricane. No one has defended the situations that have preceded the hurricane. I have become the scapegoat. Attacking me has been sufficient.

I was and still am furious. That not one of you have said, "I am furious too", has been the most disappointing. This is a terrrible disaster and yet the attack on my failings is what you want to address. The idea that "your" president can screw up big time is something that just seems too much to admit. It's easier to go after me. I don't understand.


 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2671
Registered: Dec-03
Jan If you look at any of my responses I am not and have not been going after you! The only thing I said
is that is one mans oppinion and that politics should be left out of a forum for audio or anything else that
is not meant for them.

I've also said this many times!

"I really don't believe anyone thinks the situation was handled correctly and I
believe most are pretty upset at how it went down."

Yes that means I'm upset! I just wasn't horribly antiment about it. I don't get all worked up very often
and rarely do I show it. I keep to myself generally my feelings and my distraught. Is that a crime?

And these are the kind of statements that get us where we are:

"The idea that "your" president can screw up big time is something that just seems too much to admit"

If that is true then what does this mean:
"I really don't believe anyone thinks the situation was handled correctly and I
believe most are pretty upset at how it went down."

It seems you are convinced he has screwed up. I am not convinced at this point that it is necasarily
his fault. I would not dought that anyone who was president during this disaster would have problems
basically because we have never had to deal with a disaster like this before.

Sure he can screw up and "may" have yes "may" have in my oppinion depending on all the facts and
exactly how things were handled. It seems someone or somewhere had a breakdown but I don't think
you or I know exactly where that is nor do I think now is the time for the acusations. We first need to
get to it and get what we can done done then figure where the faults were and fix them without tossing
the blame around. So many people want to blame someone or jump to the race card before we even
have all the facts. The facts on this are nowhere near clear cut nor are they all in yet or possably never
will be revealded to us. I would hate for it to happen but there is a good chance we will never know the
truth of where the breakdown was and where they still lie. But I'm not going to take someones word for
it that they know exactly what the problem is no matter who or where they are.

You seem to want to talk politics, that is fine if you have others that want to talk it with you and you are
in the right enviornment or others will get upset usually wether you care or not.

So please reread my posts, I am not and have not been attacking you. All I've ever asked is to keep the
politics away from here. If politics get mixed in then the words go a flyin and some people who I enjoy to
converse with will get upset!


 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1611
Registered: Feb-05
Jan, your post #5536, replace the word liberal and you are talking about yourself. If you can't see your part in all of this then you are more egomaniacal than even I thought.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1612
Registered: Feb-05
"Don't tell me you understand "these people". You obviously hold them in comtempt. To you they are nothing but hands held out. What a way to help someone"

That is truly a disgusting statement and you should be ashamed of yourself. I never said "these people". Once agin you are putting words in my mouth only this time your lying is truly offensive. You once wrongly accused me of saying that you aren't doing enough (which I never said or implied). What exactly is it that you are saying with the statement above. You have not read my posts with anything that approximates comprehension if you actually believe what you wrote.
 

Gold Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 1272
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

I have already decided to go, but before I do I want to set the record straight.

The Facts:

In my original post, all I tried to do was see if any of the dogs could help in any way. I said now is not the time for politics.

You replied with a political tirade.

I said nothing. Do you think you are the only one that has questions? I have a lot of questions. Let's help the needy first. Then I'll ask the hard qustions.

Others joined the discussion and the politics escalated. Again I nicely asked (as a friend) to keep it off the forum.

Again you blew me off. That is when I made the statement, I'm trying really hard to be your friend, in spite of you dissing me.

You went on with more exchanges with Art, and told him his remarks would upset me.

At this point I asked you, and I think I even said please, don't speak for me, not many men can, and you are not in THEIR league. I never said you are not in my league. Go back and read it if you must. The people I had in mind when I said that are my father, my wife, and my maker. I never said or felt I was better than anyone else on this planet ever!

More rants followed. I all but pleaded for you to let it go. You couldn't or wouldn't. The only time I mentioned the word bi-partisan, was to state I could keep it off the forum.

The final blow was the statement you didn't really care if we were friend anyway. That just shows how little you really know about me. I can count the people that I call a real friend on my fingers. That title doesn't come easily by me. It has to be earned. You were one of the few people in life, I actually wanted to look in the eye and shake hands with. Nobody could ask for a better friend, and any of mine will attest to that.

The final blow is being called a big0t Congratulations! You are the first person in my lifetime to call me that. I am so offended by that I really don't know how to respond. I have been colorblind all my life, and am always the first to extend a helping hand, to ANYONE!

Please show me anywhere in my posts where I attacked you personally. Please! Hell, I defended you from trolls on other threads.

I have said enough. Time to go for good. If you think of me at all in the future, please remember this. I have seen many mistakes by administrations of both parties. I was the one who volunteered to go in and clean up the mess.

 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5538
Registered: May-04


Kegger - Yes, you agree that people think this situation was not handled correctly. But, you have missed my point. This is not just about this hurricane. Go back and read my first few posts. There are objectives that have been pursued by this current government, one after the other, that have weakened this country and put it in peril. It is about taking from the lowest and giving to those who do not need more. No one has discussed that. Shutting me up has been the objective.



Congress is back in session and their stated intent is to pass $35 billion in cuts to Medicaid, welfare, low income housing and education. They also want to pass legislation that will do away with the estate tax which affects the smallest, wealthiest portion of the population. Removing this tax will take $75 billion per year, each year, away from the government when we have the highest deficits in our history and no sign of slowing down.


This is what I'm talking about, Kegger. If these two initiatives pass, this country is morally bankrupt. We are taking money from the poor to give to the rich in the most blatant way imaginable. If this happens, everyone who votes for this should be removed from office. Anyone who sits idly by and says or does nothing is as corrupt as those who vote for this.

We'll see what our country wants to be in the next few weeks.





Art - You'll obviously never get my point. You make two mistakes with that first comment. To begin, I never claimed to be anything but a liberal. I didn't try to hide what I think behind some veil of broadminded nonpartisan affiliation. I am who I am, I will not change and I will not waiver. Am I upset with other than republicans? Certainly. The people I have representing my interests in this Nation have failed to protect what they told me they stood for. They have in many ways been complicit in what is happening to this country. Did any one want to know what I thought about the democrats? No, you wanted me to shut up about the republicans.


The second mistake you have made, there was never a point where I wasn't willing to discuss this with the other guy. You know for a fact I tried to open a dialogue between you, Rick and me that would civilly discuss why we all felt and thought they way we do. It ended with the first question I asked; when I asked both of you to tell me why you are a conservative. Tell me why you think what you think. I got no reply. Not even a "you go first." So, please, let's remember; this liberal tried to open up some discussion, off this forum, and I got nowhere with the conservatives on this forum.


Yes, I believe what I wrote about your attitude toward your clients. As liberals learn at their daddy's knee, it's hard to give a man a hand up when all you see is a hand out. But, why worry about what I think? I have my idea of how you deal with your clients that I have made up in my mind. Just like you have your ideas of how I deal with everything. Neither one of us knows the other or the other's circumstance. So what I think of you is as much conjecture as what you think of me. Why does it even bother you what a liberal thinks?


Only you can look at how you deal with life and those around you and decide whether there is any truth at all to my idea. Looking inward doesn't seem to be a strong suit of too many people right now. Myself included? Probably. I tried to get a conversation started to see where you and I stood; but no one wanted to look beyond their opinions.


I'm furious at the republicans for doing what they are doing and I'm furious at the democrats who are allowing them to get away with it. I didn't start this by discussing anyone but those people. That this has become a discussion about me is too bad. But, it's easier to go after me than discuss what I say. Any one of you could have said, "Jan, let's discuss this off the forum. I can see you're upset, but this is not the place for it." I don't remember reading that post. Instead shutting me up was what you wanted to do. Dismissing me. Telling me I was amusing but not in your league. Making me the problem is what you wanted to do.



I need to step away from this thread for a while. You guys have won. I have a problem and this is not the place to discuss it. I have a problem and I have to do something to resolve it on my own.



Save a spot on the Old Dogs' couch.




 

Gold Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 1273
Registered: Dec-03
Can someone please tell me how to delete my user profile?

Admin: I respectfully request that my user profile be deleted. I no longer wish to be a registered member on this forum. Thank you.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1613
Registered: Feb-05
Jan you never tried an open dialogue with Rick and I. You asked us for a discussion then continued to pile on rules and conditions until I for one was no longer interested.

Apparently I don't get your point. Actually I believe that I do, but I don't often agree with you and that should be ok.

What you say about my attitude toward my clients is beyond defense. I have a very good reputation as a Case Manager with compassion for the people I work for. The community partners call me when they want something done for our clients.

I too am finished with this discussion as I tried to be earlier. There is no winner, just people who disagree.
 

Rantz
Unregistered guest
Jan stated: Any one of you could have said, "Jan, let's discuss this off the forum

The thing is Jan, no one wanted to. Rick, Kegger and I did not wish to engage in a political discussion. Art took you on and you both read things into what each other said and the fallout continues. In a battle of the egos there are no winners!


Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 11:43 pm:

"But I do have opinions and one of them is that this is an audio forum and a political debate will create a barrage of long winded postings, much animosity and quite possibly forum archarcy. Not to mention elevating blood pressure levels."

I rest my case.


This is really a damn shame!


 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2672
Registered: Dec-03
Agreed! Rantz! (pretty much as usual)

Rick I don't think you need to delete and go away.

I beliebve for now at least this thread should be clear of politics and hopefully
any jabbing at one another. Just jump in now and then when you want to.

If not we will talk soon.
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 291
Registered: Dec-03
I think we all need to smoke a 'lude, or something like that.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5540
Registered: May-04


Art - Like I said; why worry about what I think? Do your job well and that should be enough.

Rick - I cannot make what I said disappear. I don't use words lightly. So I see no reason in trying to make an excuse for what I posted. It's there unless the administrator removes it.


Let me just say this. B!gotry, to paraphrase Barack Obama, is color blind. Once you think the little lady is amusing or the g@ys are so predictable, you have opened a door. If you are no longer talking to people who do not hold your own opinions, you have opened it a bit wider. Once you stop talking then you will stop listening. Once you think the other candidate has nothing to say, you stop listening.

I never thought I'd use that word with you, Rick. You have demonstrated exceptional fairness on this forum as I suspect you do in your life. I'm sorry you let me have that glimpse of what you believe.


Rantz - Discuss politics? I guess I have not made it clear this was not all about politics.


Shall we call it quits?


 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2673
Registered: Dec-03
Not that anyone really cares but I will still be around. Posting less with other
matters to deal with and not having the time or energy to spend on forums lately.

Anyone on here I'm sure I'll still see you from time to time.

Everyone please take care! We are all on the same road in life and I hope we
don't crash in to each other or get to much road rage! Peace out!
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1614
Registered: Feb-05
I for one won't be leaving the forum. Jan, peace man. I'm extending my hand in peace I hope you accept. For the rest of ya...onward and upward (what other direction is there).
 

Rantz
Unregistered guest
Jan - go back - if that wasn't politics I don't know what is. Sure, your discussion made it about other stuff too - not good stuff at that - but, nethertheless, your persistance disagreed with almost everyone here at present. You're angry, the others are angry and by heck, even I'm angry. That ain't gonna help anyone right now. Take out your frustration at the polls. Write to your congressman, whatever. You don't bend - I don't mean you have to change your views - but you don't care to back off when it's obvious you are putting other peoples wishes aside.

Others including myself, have said things they wish they hadn't now and in the past. It's not all about you. It's all of us. We ain't kindergarten kids for God's sake - so why are we acting like we are? Isn't there enough of them on this forum?

I really hope everyone CAN call it quits and forgive and forget. Real dogs get over it - can the old dogs?


 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5548
Registered: May-04


Let me check. diablo, anonymous, uncle fester, ben james, sem, John S., Jack Asscot - are we all done saying stuff? It looks like I've been appointed the responsible party for all of you guys. Kind of like the designated liberal. Speak now or forever hold your piece.


 

Rantz
Unregistered guest
Well, there's the sort of response we've come to expect.

What more is there to say - zilch!






 

Silver Member
Username: Diablo

Fylde Coast, England

Post Number: 240
Registered: Dec-04
I have not posted since my original comment, but have watched the thread with interest.
Most of the comments since my post have been involved with politics and the US social security system, about which I have views, but being so distant I am not inclined to pontificate from the sidelines.

As to politics being kept off this 'audio' forum - well most forums have 'general' areas where such things can be discussed. This one doesn't, so the 'old dogs' thread serves that purpose. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Keep up the good work, Jan!
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

New York USA

Post Number: 510
Registered: Mar-04
"Let me check. diablo, anonymous, uncle fester, ben james, sem, John S., Jack Asscot - are we all done saying stuff? It looks like I've been appointed the responsible party for all of you guys. Kind of like the designated liberal. Speak now or forever hold your piece."

I *really* don't want to enter into this political discussion, especially here. Although I do have a strong opinion on what's happened politically in the U.S. over the past 5 1/2 years, I feel this just isn't the place for *me* to air it out. The one observation I will throw out though is that I haven't seen America this divided in the last 35 years. It's no wonder this is such a hot-button for so many.

 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5557
Registered: May-04


Rantz - What kind of answer is that? The one that points out the obvious?

Every one of you ignored the fact other members had posted with comments that echoed, and in some cases were more inflammatory than, what I was saying. Look back at the posts. After my first post, most of what I posted thereafter was in response to the comments that were made directly at me. Don't get on some frigging high horse here. No one said, "Hey John S., your comments aren't welcome here; back off."

This thing died down and then a few people made some comments about Kanye West and William Rehnquist to which I responded with a comment about Barbara Bush. Not about the republicans. Not about George. We were discussing Barbara Bush. Is she some kind of icon who can't be touched either?

Then someone said I just couldn't let it go. Let what go? Like Old Dogs has never had a session where we talk about people and the dumbass things they say and do?


Come on guys, you beat up on me and said nothing to the others. I was "the designated liberal". Now you can argue the fact if you want. You can ignore what's in the posts in front of you. But, what's the point? Why not just let these people have their say, if they have anything else to say?




While I'm here again, I would like to make one clarification.



Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 10:00 am:

"At this point I asked you, and I think I even said please, don't speak for me, not many men can, and you are not in THEIR league. I never said you are not in my league. Go back and read it if you must. The people I had in mind when I said that are my father, my wife, and my maker.


Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 04:22 pm:

"Please don't be so bold as to think you can speak for me. Not many men can, and you certainly are NOT in that league."


I'm not trying to pick a fight again. But, Rick, you're accusing me of something you have wrong. You can go back and read it yourself if you think I played around with this. This is copy and paste stuff. If somebody wants to puff out their chest and act like I did them wrong by mentioning their name, then I think they should go back and read what they wrote before jumping off the cliff. And, I guess I was just lazy and waiting for someone to hand me the ability to read minds. "Cause that's the only way I could have known who Rick was talking about. Did you guys? Did you think he was talking about me our his maker? Care to be honest?


Gimme a break. You guys were in full attack mode and I was the only target.



It's too bad when you can't read what you write and stand by it. I try to and, if I screw up, I make a correction. It's rather poor when you ignore the other seven posters on this forum who joined into the discussion (on my side) and you decide I'm the one guy to go after. It's really very idiotic to take what was a joke and turn it into some thing it was not. OK, maybe Rick was so pissed he could see no humor in what I said. He can't read minds either. But really, guys, all that crap is a diversion. You made stuff up and you said you didn't say stuff when it's clear that you did. You selectively came after me and me alone. One response to diablo, that's it. Otherwise, I was your guy.


My offer still stands. Tell me where I'm wrong. Don't come after me again. No slurs and, "yeah, buts." You tell me where I'm wrong in my facts.






 

Rantz
Unregistered guest
"What kind of answer is that? The one that points out the obvious? "

No Jan, you just seem to have a need to keep up the sarcasm and keep everyone biting. I'm not attacking you but my responses were related to our communications not to those few comments added by others. I stated this was not just about you but all of us. It takes two to tango and more to fill the dance floor.

Well I agreed to call it quits after you asked the question - and before that. And on this discussion I am.



 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5566
Registered: May-04


YEP!
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5567
Registered: May-04

"My offer still stands. Tell me where I'm wrong. Don't come after me again. No slurs and, "yeah, buts." You tell me where I'm wrong in my facts."


"No Jan, you just seem to have a need to keep up the sarcasm and keep everyone biting."


Rantz! No slurs; OK? Stick to the facts. What I posted was in response to things that were meant for me and no one else. You guys seemed unable to let it go; but I'm supposed to? Does somebody here really think they didn't want to get in the last word. You know, like after I posted, "Shall we call it quits?"


"I'm not attacking you but my responses were related to our communications not to those few comments added by others."


Now, don't you think that amounts to a "yeah, but"?



"I stated this was not just about you but all of us."


But not about diablo, anonymous, uncle fester, ben james, sem, John S., Jack Asscot?


Come on, Rantz. The question is; why just me? Why did this all revolve around me? Why can one thing be put in print and then become something else?





 

Rantz
Unregistered guest
My very last word on this matter - I mean it - this is it - zip - the grand finale - no more - over and out!

You said: Does somebody here really think they didn't want to get in the last word. You know, like after I posted, "Shall we call it quits?"

Duh! - does that not require an answer?

(now you may have the last word)


You responded with sarcasm - saying so is hardly called a slur.

To me - all this does not revolve around you. You simply started it and won't stop it.

"diablo, anonymous, uncle fester, ben james, sem, John S., Jack Asscot" These guys added one or two comments, they didn't go on and on and on and on. Kegger, Rick and I did not communicate with them we communicated with you.

Besides, this is more about Rick and you and Art and you - as for me - well I stated my position way, way back.

Now - here's a big cheerio from me

CHEERIO



 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5579
Registered: May-04


You said: Does somebody here really think they didn't want to get in the last word. You know, like after I posted, "Shall we call it quits?"

Duh! - does that not require an answer?

(now you may have the last word)






The one you gave?





 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5605
Registered: May-04


" Kegger, Rick and I did not communicate with them we communicated with you."


YEP! And only me. That's my point.



 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5606
Registered: May-04


"Shall we call it quits?"


I think that requires a yes or no answer.


I know. You guys are tired of hearing me.


I'll simply take that as a "yes".






 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2674
Registered: Dec-03
..........................yep..............................!
 

Silver Member
Username: John_s

Columbus, Ohio US

Post Number: 439
Registered: Feb-04
"With Rehnquist still above ground and some unfortunate citizens of the 'Big Easy' still under water, Dubya takes decisive action."

Upload

This little bit of history has Karl Rove written all over it. All administrations want to show themselves in the best light, but this one is laughable. The White House counted on immediate congressional hearings on John Roberts' approval, thus drawing away from the media coverage of the devastation in New Orleans. They hadn't counted on the minority's ability (and the rules of order) to delay the proceedings for further study. However, if approved, Roberts may actually be more even handed than Rehnquist.* At least any reasonable person should hope so.

*"We yield enormous power to the unelected Supreme Court because we believe the justices' decision-making process is more considered and deeply reasoned than the processes at work in the elected branches.

"Rehnquist undermined this essential rationale for the court's authority. Inside a very narrowly divided court, his approach too often reduced the justices' decision-making to the shallow calculus of five votes beats four with the winning side announcing the result backed by a peremptory "it-is-so-because-we-say-so" opinion.

"This was true even in the most important cases, as the debacle of Bush vs. Gore attests. There, the Rehnquist Court exercised a previously unknown and almost unimaginable authority to inject itself into a presidential election, short-circuit the processes contained in the Constitution and declare a winner. And it did so in an opinion that even supporters of the result shy away from defending because it is so devoid of coherent legal principle."

Edward Lazarus Miami Herald 9-10-05



 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5611
Registered: May-04


Why, John S, you provocative soul you!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3752
Registered: Dec-03
Sem,

Thanks for the remarks on September 4. This is a late response; I have been away. I, too, have learned many things here. Yes, let us hope our paths cross.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5626
Registered: May-04


diablo, anonymous, uncle fester, ben james, sem, John S., Jack Asscot - no one else needs to read this -

I just saw Newt Gingrich on George Stephanopoulis' show. He was arguing with George Will that what the country needs right now is effective leadership. I can't believe I'm in agreement with Newt Gingrich. Did somebody let him read this forum? Is Newt just Uncle Fester in disguise?


 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2676
Registered: Dec-03
Bush is great! VIVA LA BUSH!
 

New member
Username: Uncle_fester

Transylvania

Post Number: 5
Registered: Apr-05
> "Is Newt just Uncle Fester in disguise?"
It would need to be a heavy disguise, as I am very good looking and this Gingrich guy looks really ugly.
By coincidence (I assume) 'newt gingrich' in Rumanian is the name of a serious plague which aflicts mainly the poor peasants.

> "Bush is great! VIVA LA BUSH!"
lol !
- we Transylvanians regard you Americans as having little humor or sense of irony!
How wrong we must be!
 

Ge0rge Bush
Unregistered guest
Bush is great! VIVA LA BUSH!

Que?
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5627
Registered: May-04



Kegger - no one else needs to read this



Now that's one man's opinion!



Kegger, you're still not getting it. This isn't about shouting down anyone. This is not about waving the flag of any one party. This has nothing to do with left or right. No macho posturing is needed right now. No spin on what has gone wrong or what might go wrong. Just look at the facts and see where this Nation needs to head and what this Nation needs from a leader right now.


This is about a country that is in serious need of leadership that places party affiliation aside and does what is best for the entire country. This is about not staring unblinkingly at what is best for a very small segment of the wealthy and well off. I have watched your Mr. Bush for more than a dozen years now. I have seen an unwillingness to bend to the circumstances. When he was governor of Texas, he had Bob Bullock, a moderate Democrat as Lieutenant Governor. Mr. Bullock got things done in Texas and stood aside as Mr. Bush got the credit. That is what Lieutenant Governs do in Texas; that's the way our state government is organized. That's not to say moderate Democrats are great men. I find most of them here in Texas to be less than my ideal of a leader. I find even fewer in Congress, on either side, to be the sort of person able to take the reins of leadership. (Look at the poll numbers. Bush is down to 38% in one poll and Congress is even lower. What does that tell you? The majority of people polled believe this country is headed down the wrong path.) Mr. Bullock was a great man; as good as any Texas has had and that covers a lot of territory. My personal opinion of Mr. Bush is that he is far from a great man. You know that. That is not what is at hand. What is the issue amounts to is; can he become a great man when this country needs one? Some presidents have while others have been assigned to the hooverville trash can of history.

What this country needs right now - right now - is leadership. It is adrift with an ideological divide that is ripping this country apart. I watched CSPAN the other day as two women, one liberal and the other conservative, ripped off the ideologies that should prevail in the confirmation hearings of John Roberts. Neither understood that their ideologies were bankrupt in view of what America faces as a Nation. The liberal wanted Roberts rejected because he doesn't agree with her ideology. The conservative wanted him confirmed because Bush won the election. Neither side wanted to see the other's point of view.


We live in an equally divided country where the election was decided by the slimmest of per centage points. Yet, the "mandate" a man, or woman, sees should be what is best for the nation, not what is best for his base. Bush is a man who campaigned in 2000 as a uniter. He then campaigned in 2004 as us against them. You can't be both, Kegger. If you want to be a uniter, do what it takes to achieve that end. Mr. Bullock taught him how to reach out to both sides. He has sadly forgotten the lesson.

Do you seriously think this Nation is going to go forward with the approach that the other side must be defeated and beaten down? In the face of what could easily be the greatest disaster in America's recent history, do you think we need someone to take us further down the path of division? Mr. Bush and the extreme right wing have been unbending in their devotion to an ideology. Enough! It's time to look at what America needs. When Mr. Bush stands up and says just that, with an intent and actions to actually accomplish bringing both sides together, I'll consider saying he is worth admiring. It's not that I can't admire or agree with a conservative. I can't agree or admire someone who is elected to lead this country and then ignores half of the population.

Can you, Kegger?




 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2677
Registered: Dec-03
Sorry Jan read none of your last post!
(looked like to much to read) And I thought I wasn't suppose to read it!


Viva la bush!

(now back to football)
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5630
Registered: May-04


That's OK, Kegger. I understand completely.
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 292
Registered: Dec-03
Long live the Bush. Is Bush a noun? Kegger, are you talking about a shrub or beer?
 

nout
Unregistered guest
I'm a nature lover myself :-)
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2679
Registered: Dec-03
Actually it's an adjective!
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5645
Registered: May-04


Careful, Kegger, people got pissed at Whoopi Goldberg when she used it as an adjective.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3754
Registered: Dec-03
What, the word "bush"?
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5653
Registered: May-04


Yep! Use your imagination, John.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3755
Registered: Dec-03
I have, and can't see why anyone should get pissed. What, exactly, did she say...?
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5655
Registered: May-04


I'll send you an email later.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1633
Registered: Feb-05
Just a little something to chew on or get angry about depending on how you handle divergent views.

In case you aren?t familiar with how our government is SUPPOSED to work?

The chain of responsibility for the protection of the citizens in New
Orleans is:

1. The Mayor
2. The New Orleans director of Homeland Security (a political appointee
of the Governor who reports to the Governor)
3. The Governor
4. The Head of Homeland Security
5. The President

What did each do?

1. The mayor, with 5 days advance notice, waited until 2 days before he
announced a mandatory evacuation (at the behest of the President). The
he failed to provide transportation for those without transport even
though he had hundreds of buses at his disposal.

2. The New Orleans director of Homeland Security failed to have any
plan for a contingency that has been talked about for 50 years. Then he
blames the Feds for not doing what he should have done. (So much for
political appointees)

3. The Governor, despite a declaration of disaster by the President 2
DAYS BEFORE the storm hit, failed to take advantage of the offer of
Federal troops and aid until 2 DAYS AFTER the storm hit.

4. The Director of Homeland Security placed assets in the area to be
ready when the Governor called for them

5. The President urged a mandatory evacuation, and even declared a
disaster State of Emergency, freeing up millions of dollars of federal
assistance, should the Governor decide to use it.

Oh, and by the way, the levees that broke were the responsibility of
the local landowners and the local levee board to maintain, NOT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

The disaster in New Orleans is what you get after decades of corrupt
(democrat) government going all the way back to Huey Long.

Funds for disaster protection and relief have been flowing into this
city for decades, and where has it gone? Into the pockets of politicos
and their friends.

Decades of socialist government in New Orleans have sapped all
self-reliance from the community and made them dependent upon
government for every little thing.

Political correctness and a lack of will to fight crime have created
the single most corrupt police force in the country and have permitted
gang violence to flourish.

The sad thing is that there are many poor folks who have suffered and
died needlessly because those whom they voted into office failed them.

For those who missed item 5 (the President?s level of accountability),
it is made more clear in a New Orleans Times-Picayune article dated
August 28:

NEW ORLEANS (AP)

In the face of a catastrophic Hurricane Katrina, a mandatory evacuation
was ordered Sunday for New Orleans by Mayor Ray Nagin.

Acknowledging that large numbers of people, many of them stranded
tourists, would be unable to leave, the city set up 10 places of last
resort for people to go, including the Superdome. The mayor called the
order unprecedented and said anyone who could leave the city should.

Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference,
said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory
evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding. The
ball was placed in Mayor Nagin?s court to carry out the evacuation
order. With a 5-day heads-up, he had the authority to use any and all
services to evacuate all residents from the city, as documented in a
city emergency preparedness plan. By waiting until the last minute, and
failing to make full use of resources available within city limits,
Nagin and his administration screwed up. Big time.

Mayor Nagin and his emergency sidekick Terry Ebbert have displayed
lethal, mind-boggling incompetence before, during and after Katrina.

Mayor Nagin and his profile in pathetic leadership police chief should
resign. That city?s government is thoroughly incompetent. The people of
New Orleans deserve better than that crowd of clowns is capable of
giving them.

These b00bs let 569 buses, which could have carried 33,350 people out
of New Orleans in one trip, get ruined in the floods. Whatever plan
these guys had, it was a dud. Or it probably would have been if they?d
bothered to follow it.

As for all the race-baiting rhetoric and Bush-bashing coming from
prominent blacks on the left, don?t expect Ray Nagin to be called out
on the carpet for falling short.
It?s more convenient to blame a white president for what went wrong
than to hold a black mayor and his administration accountable for gross
negligence and failing to fully carry out an established emergency
preparedness plan.

To hold Nagin and his administration accountable for dropping the ball
amounts to letting loose the shouts and cries of "Racism!" It?s sad,
it?s wrong, but it?s standard operating procedure for the media and
left-wing black leadership.

Mark my words: you will not hear a word of criticism from Jesse Jackson
Sr., Randall Robinson, the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, the
Rev. Al Sharpton, or Kanye West being directed toward Clarence Ray
Nagin Jr.

Hindsight, always being 20-20 will always do its political aftermath --
inevitable!

I suppose that the "right" thing to do was to *guess* the track the
storm was going to finally take, and the feds formally declare martial
law, take over all state & local functions, run the entire show, and
totally control things. Since the law as currently written does not
allow for that, it will *NEVER* happen in the USA -- REGARDLESS of the
natural disaster!

If anyone honestly believes that this catastrophe could have been
averted by doing something differently within the last few years -- you
are really smoking some funny stuff!!
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1634
Registered: Feb-05
Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with it. It's just another point of view.

John S, you provacative soul you...lol!

Have a great evening guys.
 

Silver Member
Username: John_s

Columbus, Ohio US

Post Number: 444
Registered: Feb-04
Why Art, I'm surprised you're playing the "blame game" here, expressly against the wishes of your hero. I think everyone agrees there's plenty of blame to go around regarding the New Orleans tragedy. Let me cut and paste a pretty even-handed opinion about this.

"In less enlightened times, there was no catastrophe independent of human agency. When the plague or some other natural disaster struck, witches were burned, Jews were massacred and all felt better (except the witches and Jews).

A few centuries later, our progressive thinkers have progressed not an inch. No fall of a sparrow on this planet is not attributed to sin and human perfidy. The three current favorites are: (1) global warming, (2) the war in Iraq and (3) tax cuts. Katrina hits and the unholy trinity is immediately invoked to damn sinner-in-chief George W. Bush.

This kind of stupidity merits no attention whatsoever, but I'll give it a paragraph. There is no relationship between global warming and the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes. Period. The problem with the evacuation of New Orleans is not that National Guardsmen in Iraq could not get to New Orleans, but that National Guardsmen in Louisiana did not get to New Orleans. As for the Bush tax cuts, administration budget requests for New Orleans flood control during the five Bush years exceed that of the five preceding Clinton years. The notion that the allegedly missing revenues would have been spent wisely by Congress, targeted precisely to the levees of New Orleans, and reconstruction would have been completed in time, is a threefold fallacy. The argument ends when you realize that, as The Washington Post notes, ``the levees that failed were already completed projects."

Let's be clear. The author of this calamity was, first and foremost, Nature (or if you prefer, Nature's God). The suffering was augmented, aided and abetted in descending order of culpability by the following:

1. The mayor of New Orleans. He knows the city. He knows the danger. He knows that during Hurricane Georges in 1998, the use of the Superdome was a disaster and fully two-thirds of the residents never got out of the city. Nothing was done. He declared a mandatory evacuation only 24 hours before Hurricane Katrina hit. He did not even declare a voluntary evacuation until the day before that, at 5 p.m. At that time, he explained that he needed to study his legal authority to call a mandatory evacuation and was hesitating to do so lest the city be sued by hotels and other businesses.

2. The Louisiana governor. It's her job to call up the National Guard and get it to where it has to go. Where the Guard was in the first few days is a mystery. Indeed, she issued an authorization for the National Guard to commandeer school buses to evacuate people on Wednesday afternoon -- more than two days after the hurricane hit and after much of the fleet had already drowned in its parking lots.

3. The head of FEMA. Late, slow and in way over his head. On Thursday he says on national television that he didn't even know there were people in the Convention Center, when anybody watching television could see them there destitute and desperate. Maybe in his vast bureaucracy he can assign three 20-year-olds to watch cable news and give him updates every hour on what in hell is going on.

4. The president. Late, slow and simply out of tune with the urgency and magnitude of the disaster. The second he heard that the levees had been breached in New Orleans, he should have canceled his schedule and addressed the country on national television to mobilize it both emotionally and physically to assist in the disaster. His flyover on the way to Washington was the worst possible symbolism. And his Friday visit was so tone-deaf and politically disastrous that he had to fly back three days later.

5. Congress. Now as always playing holier-than-thou. Perhaps it might ask itself who created the Department of Homeland Security in the first place. The congressional response to all crises is the same -- rearrange the bureaucratic boxes, but be sure to add one extra layer. The last four years of DHS have been spent principally on bureaucratic reorganization (and real estate) instead of, say, a workable plan for as predictable a disaster as a Gulf Coast hurricane.

6. The American people. They have made it impossible for any politician to make any responsible energy policy over the last 30 years -- but that is a column for another day. Now is not the time for constructive suggestions. Now is the time for blame, recriminations and sheer astonishment. Mayor Nagin has announced that, as bodies are still being found and as a public health catastrophe descends upon the city, he is sending 60 percent of his cops on city funds for a little R&R, mostly to Vegas hotels. Asked if it was appropriate to party in these circumstances, he responded: "New Orleans is a party town. Get over it." (columnist Charles Krauthammer)

Of course he forgot to give Clinton the complete blame for this debacle....

Good evening to all.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5660
Registered: May-04


Since you neither agree nor disagree with what you have posted (which seems odd, why post something you disagree with), I can only assume this came from a page that is pro Bush and likely to be working to spin the damage his image has taken in the past few weeks.

It would be nice to have some reference for where this came from, Art. And, it would be nice to have some references for where the author got his information.

This article takes a swipe at political appointees which is quite interesting since it was Bush's political appointee hack serving as the head of FEMA who appears to deserve much of the actual blame for what happened in New Orleans. However, your article ignores the fact FEMA spent ten days in New Orleans in 2004 using a computer simulation called Hurricane Pam to discover more or less what has happened in the Big Easy - would actually happen as they predicted it.

http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=hurricane%20pam%20New%20Orleans

Almost everything that has been shown on TV is what FEMA predicted a year ago. But, I assume the author of the article either hoped no one would stumble across that information - or at least the republican base wouldn't seek it out - or at least the republican base wouldn't believe it. So your article really ignores the fact that when Bush said, "No one predicted the levees would be breached", he was either lying or admitting his own level of incompetence. It seems just too eerily similar to, "No one knew they would fly airplanes into the buildings". Both possibilites had been known for a long time before they happened, Art. Just not by this president.

I think saying "so much for political appointees" is now just a bit ironic, don't you, Art. Particularly now that we know the head of FEMA had no experience in disaster relief management and actually lied on his pretty meager resume when he got the job through political cronyism. Particularly now that we know five of the top eight administrators in FEMA who have been appointed by Bush have no disaster relief management experience but instead got their jobs through cronyism.

If this is what you have to fight back against the litany of abuses to the system which the Bush administration and the republican Congress have perpetrated on the poorest, weakest citizens and the environment over the last 4 1/2 years, you have barely begun to cover up their incompetence and corruption. Look back at my first post for a list of just a few of the things this bunch has done to this Nation.

Art, if you want to get into a propoganda battle, I'm all for it. Cause that's all this article amounts to. It's gratuitous remarks about who is a "to blame democrat" in the author's scenario, the "left wing" comment, the race baiting references to the poor and blacks really make this far less than honest. But what did I expect? I have to give the author credit for getting in several conservative Pavlovian icons. Bush bashers, socialists, political correctness, along with Jesse Jackson Sr., Randall Robinson, the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, the Rev. Al Sharpton, and Kanye West. That should get most republicans salivating. I can't believe the author left out Hillary Clinton, Jane Fonda and Ted Kennedy.

Come on, Art. This article totally white washes the federal government's actions. I thought the conservative spin was going to be this is an example of how inept the federal government is at handling these sort of problems. Of course, that ignores FEMA was built back up while Clinton was in office and then turned into a forgotten agency that was drowning in political hacks just as is the E.P.A., the F.D.A., the Treasury Department and a dozen other government agencies the Bush people want to have go away.


If you believe this article addressing the disaster in New Orleans absolves the Neo Cons of their actions to strip government down through tax cuts to the top 2% and benefit cuts to welfare, housing, education, Medicaid, child services and a group of other programs that aid the poor and infirm in any way removes their sins, I think you should think again. If you think this absolves the budget cuts to first responders made by this admintistration, I think you should reconsider what you are defending. If you think this will make anyone forget that as Bush stood on the ground in Louisianna and declared, "Great progress is being made", while we could see a split screen of dead bodies floating on the streets of New Orleans, I think you and the author are mistaken. Dead bodies that are still lying in the streets of New Orleans, Art. If you think this article provides cover for the fact a Navy hospital ship didn't leave Boston Harbor for New Orleans until four days after the hurricane, you are just plain wrong.

Sorry, Art, this is just another bit of Karl Rove/White House propoganda. It is not just another opinion, it is spin. And, I'm disappointed you want bring this back up on the forum. I thought you had decided you weren't going to participate in any more political discussion on the forum. Oh, well.


You have a great evening, Art. Read some more from Limbaugh and Hannity and watch some Fox News. They won't upset your system. Fox News has stopped asking why the disaster happened and are with you in trying to affix blame while avoiding pointing at their guy. Sleep tight, Art. Conceit always is a great sleeping pill.


Unlike your post, I do agree with everything I put in this post.


 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5661
Registered: May-04
What they said / what they meant
Will Durst - WorkingForChange.com

09.09.05 - Who: President George Bush, 2 days before Hurricane Katrina made landfall.
What He Said: "A State of Emergency exists in Louisiana beginning yesterday."
What He Meant: "But since I'm still on vacation, I need to stage a few photo-ops strumming a guitar and playing golf first."

Who: Dennis Hastert.
What He Said: "I don't know about that (rebuilding New Orleans.) That doesn't make sense to me."
What He Meant: "Its just poor people, right?"

Who: President Bush.
What He Said: "We want to make sure that we can respond properly if there's a WMD attack or another major storm."
What He Meant: "It was Al Qaeda again."

Who: Barbara Bush at the Houston Astrodome.
What She Said: "So many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them."
What She Meant: "Its just poor people, right?"

Who: President Bush: in Alabama 4 days after the Hurricane.
What He Said: "Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch."
What He Meant: "If you expect help, you better move to a state run by Republicans. Even better, a state run by my brother."

Who: Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff.
What He Said: "The conditions at the New Orleans SuperDome were nowhere near as bad as the TV images suggested."
What He Meant: "Lying next to dead people in toxic waste without food and water while terrorized by thugs ain't such a bad thing."

Who: President Bush, Sept. 1, 2005.
What He Said: "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."
What He Meant: "I don't think anyone imagined people would fly airplanes into buildings."

Who: Senator Rick Santorum
What He Said: "You have people who don't heed those warnings and then put people at risk... There may be a need to look at tougher penalties on those who decide to ride it out."
What He Meant: "And when I say tough penalties, I mean worse than drowning in your attic."

Who: President Bush speaking about FEMA chairman Michael Brown.
What He Said: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."
What He Meant: "For a former head of the Arabian Horse Association."

Who: Barbara Bush at the Houston Astrodome
What She Said: "What I am hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay here in Texas."
What She Meant: "For crum's sake, I live in Texas."

Who: President Bush.
What He Said: "What I intend to do is to lead an investigation to find out what went right and what went wrong."
What He Meant: "We will track down these evildoing Hurricanes. They can run but they can't hide. We will liberate the brave freedom loving Hurricanians."

Who: President Bush.
What He Said: "I remember New Orleans as a great town where I used to enjoy myself -- occasionally too much."
What He Meant: "I could use a drink."

Who: President Bush.
What He Said: "If things went wrong, we'll correct them, and when things went right, we'll duplicate them."
What He Meant: "One list is going to be longer than the other."

Like President Bush, political comic Will Durst could use a drink.

(c) 2005 WorkingForChange. All Rights Reserved


URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=19587
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5662
Registered: May-04
All the President's Friends
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The lethally inept response to Hurricane Katrina revealed to everyone that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which earned universal praise during the Clinton years, is a shell of its former self. The hapless Michael Brown - who is no longer overseeing relief efforts but still heads the agency - has become a symbol of cronyism.

But what we really should be asking is whether FEMA's decline and fall is unique, or part of a larger pattern. What other government functions have been crippled by politicization, cronyism and/or the departure of experienced professionals? How many FEMA's are there?

Unfortunately, it's easy to find other agencies suffering from some version of the FEMA syndrome.

The first example won't surprise you: the Environmental Protection Agency, which has a key role to play in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, but which has seen a major exodus of experienced officials over the past few years. In particular, senior officials have left in protest over what they say is the Bush administration's unwillingness to enforce environmental law.

Yesterday The Independent, the British newspaper, published an interview about the environmental aftermath of Katrina with Hugh Kaufman, a senior policy analyst in the agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, whom one suspects is planning to join the exodus. "The budget has been cut," he said, "and inept political hacks have been put in key positions." That sounds familiar, and given what we've learned over the last two weeks there's no reason to doubt that characterization - or to disregard his warning of an environmental cover-up in progress.

What about the Food and Drug Administration? Serious questions have been raised about the agency's coziness with drug companies, and the agency's top official in charge of women's health issues resigned over the delay in approving Plan B, the morning-after pill, accusing the agency's head of overruling the professional staff on political grounds.

Then there's the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, whose Republican chairman hired a consultant to identify liberal bias in its programs. The consultant apparently considered any criticism of the administration a sign of liberalism, even if it came from conservatives.

You could say that these are all cases in which the Bush administration hasn't worried about degrading the quality of a government agency because it doesn't really believe in the agency's mission. But you can't say that about my other two examples.

Even a conservative government needs an effective Treasury Department. Yet Treasury, which had high prestige and morale during the Clinton years, has fallen from grace.

The public symbol of that fall is the fact that John Snow, who was obviously picked for his loyalty rather than his qualifications, is still Treasury secretary. Less obvious to the public is the hollowing out of the department's expertise. Many experienced staff members have left since 2000, and a number of key positions are either empty or filled only on an acting basis. "There is no policy," an economist who was leaving the department after 22 years told The Washington Post, back in 2002. "If there are no pipes, why do you need a plumber?" So the best and brightest have been leaving.

And finally, what about the department of Homeland Security itself? FEMA was neglected, some people say, because it was folded into a large agency that was focused on terrorist threats, not natural disasters. But what, exactly, is the department doing to protect us from terrorists?

In 2004 Reuters reported a "steady exodus" of counterterrorism officials, who believed that the war in Iraq had taken precedence over the real terrorist threat. Why, then, should we believe that Homeland Security is being well run?

Let's not forget that the administration's first choice to head the department was Bernard Kerik, a crony of Rudy Giuliani. And Mr. Kerik's nomination would have gone through if enterprising reporters hadn't turned up problems in his background that the F.B.I. somehow missed, just as it somehow didn't turn up the little problems in Michael Brown's résumé. How many lesser Keriks made it into other positions?

The point is that Katrina should serve as a wakeup call, not just about FEMA, but about the executive branch as a whole. Everything I know suggests that it's in a sorry state - that an administration which doesn't treat governing seriously has created two, three, many FEMA's.

 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1635
Registered: Feb-05
"Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with it. It's just another point of view."

Is this a difficult read.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1636
Registered: Feb-05
"If you believe this article addressing the disaster in New Orleans absolves the Neo Cons of their actions to strip government down through tax cuts to the top 2% and benefit cuts to welfare, housing, education, Medicaid, child services and a group of other programs that aid the poor and infirm in any way removes their sins, I think you should think again."

I hope you are not silly enough to believe this BS. Everyone knows how little I make and the Bush tax cuts are the only ones in my memory to put money back in my pocket. That's important to me because income taxes in Oregon are very high. We need all the breaks we can get. As far as welfare money, medicaid, and other aid to the poor, you know the funds that I deal with everyday I haven't seen any cuts. I have seen cuts in the rate of growth, but no actual cuts.
The actual TANF grant (ADC or welfare grant) has not increased since 1991. I believe that the Clinton administration falls somewhere between 1991 and now.

"Conceit always is a great sleeping pill."

You ought to know.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1639
Registered: Feb-05
Actually my original post was an excerpt from an email sent to me by a friend and colleague who is an Employment Specialist with the local Community Action Agency. She teaches the Job Search class for my clients and also works with them one-on-one, coaching and teaching them the skills they need to be successful job seekers. She is a wonderful person who happens to be a conservative.

The Work Experience Coordinator from the local Community College helps my clients by placing some of them in sheltered workshops to learn workplace skills in something that approximates a real work environment. He is a great guy who happens to fall on the liberal side. We have a lot of laughs talking politics.

See Jan people who disagree can do so with some degree of civility. This contentiousness is not necessary.
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 293
Registered: Dec-03
For me Jr's tax cuts have been wiped away by a weakened dollar (due in part to Jr's record setting deficits...I thot the GOP was one of fiscal responsibility, what a myth), major health insurance/care costs (more money/less coverage), and increasts cost of living.
 

Anonymous
 
Not to mention education, literacy, and basic language skills! I see the problem Ben.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5667
Registered: May-04


I'll leave the contentiousness comment alone after you saw fit to post something with the typical right wing slams against Bush bashers, socialists, political correctness, and Jesse Jackson, etc. I hope you realize how those words are used by the right wing nut jobs on the talk shows, so please, don't try the "I am above all this" stuff. Take a look a the Paul Krugman article, Art. There's not a political slam in the whole thing other than to point out accepted failures of this administration. If you want to post someone else's point of view, do so with someone who can make their point without the red meat. I felt slimey after reading your post.



As to laughs, did you simply miss the post by Will Durst? Don't tell me you found nothing to laugh at in that post. There are some hysterical lines in there. Absolute knee slappers - if they weren't so true.




I'm not at all sure what "BS" you are referring to when I mention the Bush tax cuts going to the wealthiest and the assistance cuts affecting the poorest. Art? Those are once again facts. You can go to the Congressional Budget Office and find the numbers. Why don't you do that, Art? Or, try http://www.factcheck.org/article145.html or http://www.factcheck.org/article118.html. for some insight into the tax cuts. I'm not saying republicans are the only ones who use numbers to work to their advantage. I'm merely saying don't be fooled. Check the facts. They are available.

Whether you have a few hundred dollars more in your pockets is not the point here, Art, and if you believe it is, you have swallowed the republican koolaid. I agree with you on one point though. The few dollars given to the lower income classes are far more important to them than the larger per centages given back to the rich. In case you hadn't noticed "money back in your pocket" is another of those Pavlovian response terms the right wing have conjured up. It is not going in your pocket as fast as it is being taken out. There is still a valid argument that poor pay an increasing amount of the total taxes paid in this country. It is a fact. The American public has shown they do not want many social programs cut. They just don't want to be the one paying for the program. Yet, if you continue to cut taxes while running the highest deficits in our history, the programs have to be cut. Trickle down in this case means the services will simply trickle down to nothing. It is the republican strategy. That may be liberal clap trap to you. I can't prove what will happen in the future any more than anyone else. However, it is matter of logic that without funding, the programs cannot exist. It is also logical to assume the American people will sooner or later have to pay for what has been spent and given away in the last four years.


If there have been no cuts in the assistance programs I mentioned, then there is still a short fall since the number of people living in poverty, or living without full time employment or without health care has risen every year for the last four years. I believe the Bush administration falls somewhere between the last four years and now.


You cannot deny Bush cut funding for the Army Corp of Engineers projects and for first responders. You cannot deny he cut verteran's benefits in a time of war. And you certainly cannot deny he is the only US president to cut taxes while the country is fighting a war, let alone two wars. So what point do you have left, Art? That you have a few dollars more in your pockets while the rich have many more dollars in their pockets? The gap between the richest and the poorest is constantly widening and this president has done nothing to change that pattern. It's fact, Art, you can look it up. As I stated earlier, I am not blaming Bush alone. That would make me a "Bush Basher"; wouldn't it? That would make me easier to ignore. There is plenty of blame to go around.


Please tell your friend who sent the email she has ignored the many things I mentioned above. Particularly the FEMA response to Hurricane Pam. Tell her Bush lied when he said no one expected the levees to give way. Tell her cronyism has filled the Federal government with people who have no experience at their jobs to an extent not seen in this country for decades. Copy the Paul Krugman article for her to read. Better yet, copy the Will Durst article for her. Maybe she'll find the humor and have a good laugh. If she can't, tell her to switch to tea instead of koolaid.


 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5668
Registered: May-04



"Census Says Income is Down, but Some Republicans Claim it's Up"

http://www.factcheck.org/article109.html



http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19599





 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 294
Registered: Dec-03
On important issues like marriage the Jr felt they were too important to leave in the hands of a state. What did he do, he showed his strong leadership skills by pushing for a constitutaional amendment.

Could Jr have decided that maybe he could use those strong leadership skills and superscede the responsibilities of the Mayor & Governor like he tried to do on marriage?

States can't be trusted to define how their people will live but should be fully responsible for handling catastrophic events.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1641
Registered: Feb-05
Well Jan you and I agree on at least one thing. I believe that the tax cuts for the wealthy should be rolled back. That's why I voted for Kerry over Dean in the primary. Dean wanted to wipe out the entire tax cut. I feel that the middle class has been paying the bills too long, it's time that the wealthy pay their fair share.

I'll bet your shocked right now aren't you. Yep I voted for Kerry in the primary and the general election. See how little you actually know someone by their correspondence online. If you can't speak equally well from both sides you really have no understanding of an issue or set of issues.

When I said early on that I am actually moderate that is what I meant. Liberal on many environmental and social issues and conservative on other social issues and abortion rights. Pretty much in the middle on fiscal issues (except my own where I'm definitely a big spender)....lol.

We have closed primaries here so I change my party when I need to when it is important to vote on specific candidates. Frankly I'm not sure which party I am now I would have to look at my most recent voter registration which is at home and I'm at work enjoying lunch.

I get tired of either extreme pontificating as though their truth is the only truth. The answer usually lies somewhere in between.

Peace out!
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5673
Registered: May-04


Art, you too underestimate what I think of others. How you voted does not "shock" me.

As to what your party affiliation is at the moment, let me remind you:


Art Kyle

Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 11:45 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ben...nipplegate...that's funny. Please show us at the polls. Ya'll can't agree long enough to show yourselves let alone anyone else.

________________________________________________




Shall we call it quits?




 

Sicktodeathofit
Unregistered guest
PLEASE
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1644
Registered: Feb-05
What's your point Jan. I know what I wrote.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1645
Registered: Feb-05
You know what let's just stop this before we drive everyone else nuts. That means all of us, please stop. Thanks.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5678
Registered: May-04


My point is; shall we call it quits?
 

Sicktodeathofit
Unregistered guest
PLEASE
 

New member
Username: Van_jigne

Post Number: 1
Registered: Sep-05
You are a most interesting case study.

Why does everything on this forum have to be by your terms or rules?

 

Sicktodeathofit
Unregistered guest
"My point is; shall we call it quits?

But you just can't can you?
 

Rubbernecker
Unregistered guest
Why not simply ignore that sad old man? Obviously, he doesn't have a life, let alone friends.

Don't post any further, folks. Let's move on and leave this forum and that babbling idiot behind.

Get a life, Jan Vigne. You're pathetic.

 

Silver Member
Username: John_s

Columbus, Ohio US

Post Number: 445
Registered: Feb-04
Since Jan won't take PM's this is FOR HIM ONLY!!!!!
John's wife here.
I know John does not want to get involved in this discussion, and after reading the last few posts, I didn't want to add anything else to that hot thread or stir the pot.
But I must add a comment ot two.
I grew up in a staunch Republican family, and voted Republican until I was in my late 30's. I have to admit, I fell you were right on target here with your comments from today and earlier, (ie: emails to "Rick" & "Kegger" a week ago).
Your response, at least to me, did not seem acusatory to them. You backed your opinions with facts and actual proven data.
I emailed the enitre thread that day to the rest of my family and friends that are politically active and outspoken.
John & I have been blessed to have friends from all walks and incomes.
One couple flew us down to their $1,700,000 Marco Island condo last fall in their private jet. After dinner one evening, she shared with us the amount of the large check that they had recently received from the Government. It was for over $300,000. She said that they were informed that the check was the first of three, and to expect the others to follow within a few weeks.
She and her husband were appalled that they were receiving such a large tax rebate, when the country could be using the money for a myriad of other needs.
NO, she won't give it back.
She contributes more annually to The Columbus Cancer Clinic and other local and National causes than John & I earn collectively each year.

This was just one issue in which you touched on.
I admire your intelligence, your skill and fairness in the written word.
Jan,
There will always be a spot on John's & my couch for you!
Sincerely,
Mrs. S
 

Sicktothedeathofit
Unregistered guest
Mrs S

Now that was just lovely of you to show your your support for Mr Vigne. But, the thing is: this has nothing to do with intelligence, skill or fairness in the written word - and you may well be right in your assessment - this is all about egos.

This is an audio forum and yes, the old dogs thread was started by Mr vigne so he does have some sort of ownership regarding this thread, however politics has been brought up in this thread and others and has always resulted in the breakdown of forum friendship which is why Mr Vigne and others were asked to refrain from this practice. Egos would not tolerate such requests from other forum contributores and the result is the same as always. Mr Vigne obviously is not the only guilty party here, but he does tend to perpetuate the debates.

The polling booths, politcal forums and other means are available to makes one's point where politics is concerned. Not in audio forums, for heaven's sake.

When an interested party sees the arrow against a thread, that party clicks hopefully to find a matter of interest only to find that time has been wasted once again when another useless politcal post has been planted. This is not what the forum should be about.

PS - as for the invite to your couch, I'd ask for a photo first.



 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 295
Registered: Dec-03
Jan didn't start it. I think it may have been John A.
 

Observer
Unregistered guest
Actually Jan did start it right after Rick posted: " Many people in the area need help. I urge everyone to look beyond politics, nationalism, etc., and do the right thing."

To which Jan could not resist with: "Before you go, let me ask when is the right time to look at the politics of this disaster?"

And while the battle of assisting the devasted Delta areas began so too did the battle of the egos . . .


 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5682
Registered: May-04


John A.
Silver Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 801
Registered: Dec-03
Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 03:52 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On April 25, on the "Receivers" thread Frustrated with NAD T762, Jan Vigne made what was probably intended to be a throw-away remark.

"As an aside, am I the only one who thinks music almost always sounds better when you listen just in stereo. How old I feel."


 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5683
Registered: May-04


" the old dogs thread was started by Mr vigne"





"Actually Jan did start it right after Rick posted: " Many people in the area need help."








Some people just can't follow a conversation.




 

Observer
Unregistered guest
Yes Mr A began the thread. My apologies for the confusion.

Mr Vigne began this politcal debacle.
 

Observer
Unregistered guest
"Some people just can't follow a conversation."


Especially you Mr Vigne.

 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3756
Registered: Dec-03
Thanks, Ben, Jan, and Observer.

The mistake was that Sicktothedeathofit wrote "the old dogs thread was started by Mr vigne". Ben corrected this, and Observer wrote "Actually Jan did start it...." -- but he was referring to the discussion of responsibility for the catastrophe on the Gulf Coast, not the thread.

Sorry I cannot trace the misunderstanding between Jan and Art. If I knew what "nipplegate" was it might help. Jan quoted Art as if to demonstrate he was being inconsistent on his political support. I guess that's it. I don't understand the reference.

Nice, post, Mrs JOHN S. Best wishes to you and JOHN.

As I have said before, I don't think anyone owns a thread. The subject follows where people are interested enough to get involved in a discussion with each other. I am not qualified to get involved in this one. (I am still wondering what Ms Goldberg described as "bush". Never mind....)
 

Sicktodeathofit
Unregistered guest
Yes right you are Ben James, my mistake. John A did indeed begin the "Old Dogs" thread, though it was I believe, begun after a discussion between he and Mr Vigne.

Although this has nothing to do with the point being made that -

politics has no place on an audio forum!



 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 296
Registered: Dec-03
I don't know why an unregistered guest would care.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1649
Registered: Feb-05
Many other audio forums provide a "water cooler" if you will to discuss politics or any other non audio issues with members.

"Jan quoted Art as if to demonstrate he was being inconsistent on his political support. I guess that's it."

I think that is correct. I had already addressed that with this statement.

"If you can't speak equally well from both sides you really have no understanding of an issue or set of issues."

My Catholic grade school (I did not attend high school) debate coach taught us that to understand an issue you had to be equally inside of it from both sides. She also taught us to never be so interested in the outcome as to become angry. Anger is a formula for incoherent inarticulate speech.
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 297
Registered: Dec-03
Catholic school girls rule!

John A,

Nipplegate was from Janet Jackson's Superbowl incident.
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

New York USA

Post Number: 511
Registered: Mar-04

quote:

I don't know why an unregistered guest would care.


Exactly what I was thinking Ben.

Many threads on the ecoustics site, have often wandered away from audio topics, this thread in particular often has. Its often become an "Air It Out" thread. So what, it always comes back.

On the latest hurricane/U.S.political discussions - if you are truely 'sick to death of it' you can always stop reading it. Simple solution isn't it? There are certainly many other audio-centric topics around here that you can join in and contribute to. Also, to those unregistered friends, please consider registering.

Me? I find it interesting. Many of the points made here have prompted me to dig a bit deeper, look a little closer at decisions effecting US. I'd be willing to bet it's done the same for others. Is that a bad thing?

 

Sicktodeathofit
Unregistered guest
If the administrator allows unregistered guests then we have every right to post as unregistered guests. Who in the hell are you to tell us to register or what we should read?

Wandering away from audio topics is fine. Ignoring the wishes of contributors who believed they had built a level of friendship with certain individuals is not. It shows a total lack of respect and displays just how swollen their egos are to think their opinions should be accepted by others. And if you believe that's incorrect than look at what happens when someone disagrees.

If you feel the forum needs a political thread then why not ask admin to provide one - that way all the 'know-it-all's' can thrash it out and leave others who's interests lie in the audio world to read and/or contribute in the forum related topics.

 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5689
Registered: May-04


It is always a problem reading someone's comments on this forum and then applying your own interpretation. As when I mistakenly implied that Art's "us" and "y'all" meant he was looking at the issues from both sides. See how silly little mistakes can be blown all out of proportion? Another example would be that I would think you could actually neither agree nor disagree with something you post.



How foolish I feel now!











As to our uninvited, unregistered guest, I have a few comments.



"Since Jan won't take PM's this is FOR HIM ONLY!!!!!"


"Kegger - no one else needs to read this"


"diablo, anonymous, uncle fester, ben james, sem, John S., Jack Asscot - no one else needs to read this - "

It seems clear to me those messages were meant for specific individuals.

And yet you read them all; didn't you? That's somewhat like reading someone else's mail; but since this is an open forum I guess only you can decide how negligent you have been. Probably the better analogy would be like sticking your nose into a bag that you know contains dog crap.


I'm certain you've read where I have suggested to anyone who doesn't agree with my views or finds me bothersome they should just ignore my posts. My name is at the top of each of my posts. If you find them offensive, don't read them. I have a feeling I've been over this with you before under another user name though. And you didn't learn your lesson then either. Well, then I have no sympathy for anyone who sticks their nose where they know it's going to come out brown.

I'm confused as to why an unknown guest would find old Dogs an interesting thread at this point.

"When an interested party sees the arrow against a thread, that party clicks hopefully to find a matter of interest only to find that time has been wasted once again when another useless politcal post has been planted."


Out of 6,000 posts, this is when you decide to find Old Dogs interesting? Now I think I've really been through the bag of crap scenario with you at least once before.

As has been suggested, don't stick around where you are uncomfortable. There are other arguments happening on other threads.





I suppose it is once again easier to blame me for the continuation of this debate. Just as I assume it is impossible for anyone who wants to take another whack at me from going back to see who restarted, several times, the issues after I had let them die down.


When you have problems following a conversation this is what happens.








Finally, I did go to Catholic grade school and high school, as any of you who have run into "The Nun" can testify. One of the nice things about Catholic H.S.'s is they are not cookie cutter, teach to the test schools. Each one is different just because each nun is different. The diversity of education in Catholic Schools is enormous.






However ...




I am almost certain that in my grade school days, I was taught that when you debated someone, calling them an "arrogant pr!ck" was not a formula for coherent, articulate speech. Even if you did apologize later.


I could be wrong. It has happened on that rare occasion.



 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3757
Registered: Dec-03
Thanks, Ben! Though I still do not see what that incident has to do with US politics.... ( never mind; responding will take us even more off course!).

Art, thanks, too. Personally, I think those are wise words, and you had a good teacher. Perhaps you and Jan lock antlers because of your catholic educations....?! However, anger is sometimes an honest and moral response, too. And if people take some time and trouble to try to be clear, too, we should not condemn a strong opinion well articulated.

From over here, it looks to me as if party loyalties are getting in the way. Let me make the suggestion that there are probably good and bad people in both the Republican and Democratic parties. Then you have the added problem of what is a State and what is a Federal responsibility. I can't add much more. Other than to say, for what it's worth, that Katrina was on the front page of even UK newspapers, days before it hit. Yesterday, Bush was quoted as saying he was mistaken in hoping New Orleans would "dodge the bullet". Today he apologises, after a fashion.

Everyone hopes disasters won't happen. When they do, it is natural to look for someone to blame; someone who could have been paying more attention, and could have taken more responsibility. Those who do rarely get recognised. If the levees had been capable of withstanding the floods, would we now be looking for someone to congratulate?

Anyway, I agree with Sem, too. A personal discussion amongst you guys, and a good argument, helps me see things more clearly. Or so it seems.

Rick's original post on the topic of Katrina was a good one, I thought. And I don't see how it is defensible to go on debating audio formats, as if nothing else matters, while a major city is being destroyed.

So thanks to all. I really do not have much to contribute. But this thread is always interesting. Yes, Jan agreed to respond to my original post, so its instigation was really a joint effort. Then there were many constructive responses, from others, many of whom have now left, sadly.

Best regards.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5690
Registered: May-04


"Wandering away from audio topics is fine. Ignoring the wishes of contributors who believed they had built a level of friendship with certain individuals is not."


Uh, excuse me. Just when did you, as an unregistered guest that is, get ignored? Or develop a friendship with any of us? If not the latter, at least, you really don't have anything to say about what goes on between Old Dogs.


In my estimation, you've received an inordinate amount of attention since you got here.

Mostly because you want to continue to argue a point which you say shouldn't be argued. Is this not an audio forum? Why continue to harangue me?



Surely you have some audio something you want to discuss somewhere on this forum? Odd, though, I've not seen you anywhere else on the forum. I get it. You came just to harangue me some more. How sweet of you to care.









That's what happens when you can't follow a conversation!




 

nout
Unregistered guest
Why not simply ignore that sad old man? Obviously, he doesn't have a life, let alone friends.

Don't post any further, folks. Let's move on and leave this forum and that babbling idiot behind.


Only a brainless idiot can ignore this man, Rubbernecker (what's in a name).

I thought it to be obvious that everyone agreed with Jan regarding Bush and Katrina...the facts were all there...it thought it to be impossible to disagree, but look at all the reactions...????

I didn't comment on it, I'm not from the US (and not a registered member), it's not my place to give my opinions, but I can tell you that I fully agree with Jan and his points made.

Politics do not belong on an audio forum?
Speak audio or nothing?

What a crap, it's only natural to discuss a tragedy and to think about who or what is responsible.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5691
Registered: May-04


September 14, 2005

President Says He's Responsible in Storm Lapses

By ELISABETH BUMILLER and RICHARD W. STEVENSON
WASHINGTON, Sept. 13

"President Bush said on Tuesday that he bore responsibility for any failures of the federal government in its response to Hurricane Katrina and suggested that he was unsure whether the country was adequately prepared for another catastrophic storm or terrorist attack."

"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government, and to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Mr. Bush said ... "







Now, y'all were saying?




 

Sicktodeathofit
Unregistered guest
"Probably the better analogy would be like sticking your nose into a bag that you know contains dog crap."

Naturally, that would be the superior dog crap piled so plentifully here by you, Mr Vigne?

And now you are an expert on how long some people have maintained an interest in this thread. My you really are brilliant Mr Vigne.

And since you want to get back into the gutter, as far as 'brown noses' go, only those colored so from keeping them warm between your cheeks aid and abet in your obsession to be the forum sage.

 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5692
Registered: May-04



"My offer still stands. Tell me where I'm wrong. Don't come after me again. No slurs and, "yeah, buts." You tell me where I'm wrong in my facts."




Sound familiar, my small minded, long time fan? If you've been on this thread for a while, you must have seen that post.


Of course I can't tell how long you've been following this in your current guise. None the less, how effective do you believe your position to be when all you do is get mad at me? And me alone! Have you not seen the others posting here?


If you've been on this forum as long as you imply, you must realize you are hardly the first to consider me less than your ideal. You must also realize, I don't give a crap about the words of someone who hides behind a nom de plume and has nothing but vitriol in their posts.



"My offer still stands. Tell me where I'm wrong. Don't come after me again. No slurs and, "yeah, buts." You tell me where I'm wrong in my facts."






 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5693
Registered: May-04


If you disagree with my poisiton, or would prefer not to see any facts or opinions which differ from your own, please ignore the next few posts with my name at the top. These are provided for those who have taken an interest in what I have said and that is all I intend.


 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5694
Registered: May-04


F.A.A. Alerted on Qaeda in '98, 9/11 Panel Said

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 - American aviation officials were warned as early as 1998 that Al Qaeda could "seek to hijack a commercial jet and slam it into a U.S. landmark," according to previously secret portions of a report prepared last year by the Sept. 11 commission. The officials also realized months before the Sept. 11 attacks that two of the three airports used in the hijackings had suffered repeated security lapses.

Federal Aviation Administration officials were also warned in 2001 in a report prepared for the agency that airport screeners' ability to detect possible weapons had "declined significantly" in recent years, but little was done to remedy the problem, the Sept. 11 commission found.

The White House and many members of the commission, which has completed its official work, have been battling for more than a year over the release of the commission's report on aviation failures, which was completed in August 2004.

A heavily redacted version was released by the Bush administration in January, but commission members complained that the deleted material contained information critical to the public's understanding of what went wrong on Sept. 11. In response, the administration prepared a new public version of the report, which was posted Tuesday on the National Archives Web site.

While the new version still blacks out numerous references to particular shortcomings in aviation security, it restores dozens of other portions of the report that the administration had been considered too sensitive for public release.

The newly disclosed material follows the basic outline of what was already known about aviation failings, namely that the F.A.A. had ample reason to suspect that Al Qaeda might try to hijack a plane yet did little to deter it. But it also adds significant details about the nature and specificity of aviation warnings over the years, security lapses by the government and the airlines, and turf battles between federal agencies.

Some of the details were in confidential bulletins circulated by the agency to airports and airlines, and some were in its internal reports.

"While we still believe that the entire document could be made available to the public without damaging national security, we welcome this step forward," the former leaders of the commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, said in a joint statement. "The additional detail provided in this version of the monograph will make a further contribution to the public record of the facts and circumstances of the 9/11 attacks established by the final report of the 9/11 commission."

Bush administration officials said they had worked at the commission's request to restore much of the material that had been blacked out in the original report. "Out of an abundance of caution, there are a variety of reasons why the U.S. government would not want to disclose certain security measures and not make them available in the public domain for terrorists to exploit," said Russ Knocke, spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security.

Commission officials said they were perplexed by the administration's original attempts to black out material they said struck them as trivial or mundane.

One previously deleted section showed, for instance, that flights carrying the author Salman Rushdie were subjected to heightened security in the summer of 2001 because of a fatwa of violence against him, while a previously deleted footnote showed that "sewing scissors" would be allowed in the hands of a woman with sewing equipment, but prohibited "in the possession of a man who possessed no other sewing equipment."

Other deletions, however, highlighted more serious security concerns. A footnote that was originally deleted from the report showed that a quarter of the security screeners used in 2001 by Argenbright Security for United Airlines flights at Dulles Airport had not completed required criminal background checks, the commission report said. Another previously deleted footnote, related to the lack of security for cockpit doors, criticized American Airlines for security lapses.

Much of the material now restored in the public version of the commission's report centered on the warnings the F.A.A. received about the threat of hijackings, including 52 intelligence documents in the months before the Sept. 11 attacks that mentioned Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden.

A 1995 National Intelligence Estimate, a report prepared by intelligence officials, "highlighted the growing domestic threat of terrorist attack, including a risk to civil aviation," the commission found in a blacked-out portion of the report.

And in 1998 and 1999, the commission report said, the F.A.A.'s intelligence unit produced reports about the hijacking threat posed by Al Qaeda, "including the possibility that the terrorist group might try to hijack a commercial jet and slam it into a U.S. landmark."

The unit considered this prospect "unlikely" and a "last resort," with a greater threat of a hijacking overseas, the commission found.

Still, in 2000, the commission said, the F.A.A. warned carriers and airports that while political conditions in the 1990's had made a terrorist seizure of an airliner less likely, "we believe that the situation has changed."

"We assess that the prospect for terrorist hijacking has increased and that U.S. airliners could be targeted in an attempt to obtain the release of indicted or convicted terrorists imprisoned in the United States."

It concluded, however, that such a hijacking was more likely outside the United States.

By September 2001 the F.A.A. was receiving some 200 pieces a day of intelligence from other agencies about possible threats, and it had opened more than 1,200 files to track possible threats, the commission found.

The commission found that F.A.A. officials were repeatedly warned about security lapses before Sept. 11 and, despite their increased concerns about a hijacking, allowed screening performance to decline significantly.

While box cutters like those used by the hijackers were not necessarily a banned item before Sept. 11, some security experts have said that tougher screening and security could have detected the threat the hijackers posed. But screening measures at two of the three airports used by the hijackers - Logan in Boston and Dulles near Washington - were known to be inadequate, the commission found. Reviews at Newark airport also found some security violations, but it was the only one of the three airports used on Sept. 11 that met or exceeded national norms.

Richard Ben-Veniste, a former member of the Sept. 11 commission, said the release of the material more than a year after it was completed underscored the over-classification of federal material. "It's outrageous that it has taken the administration a year since this monograph was submitted for it to be released," he said. "There's no reason it could not have been released earlier."



No one knew?


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Facebook

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us