They either have more lucrative interests in Iraq or are just bent on ridding it of Saddam or all of the above (too much history there), and we all know good and well there were no jihadist extremist there before America invaded that country, so this so-called War on Terror in Iraq was INVENTED.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database what "obama disaster"
Obama has not even started yet! What could you possibly mean? Fartface is supposed to still be in charge - what a joke.
What "Obama disaster"?
I do keep up with the news, and you didn't answer the question.
FOR the second time in four years, the United States has been changed utterly by a previously unthinkable event. And just as was the case after 9/11, how this nation responds to the deluge that is sweeping New Orleans away will help define the nature of its character for decades.
Just as Rudy Giuliani said that the death toll from 9/11 would be more than any of us can bear, the same is already true of Katrina. Who can begin to take in the notion that in the United States in the 21st century, a storm could kill in staggering numbers?
At the beginning of the 20th century, something like 8,000 people perished when Galveston, Texas — unprotected from storm swells at the time — was hit by a hurricane. But when Hurricane Andrew leveled the entire town of Homestead, Fla., 13 years ago and became the most financially deadly storm in American history, it took only 15 lives.
Now we're talking about several hundred times that number in the literal swamping of one of the world's great cities.
There can be no doubt that the immediate response will be one of breathtaking generosity — financial, spiritual and personal. That's what we saw in the wake of 9/11, it's what happened after the tsunami in December, and it's what we will begin to see as the next few days pass.
But what we don't yet know is this: Are we going to try to look forward, to figure out how to save New Orleans and prevent another calamity of this sort there and elsewhere? Or are we going to begin finger-pointing, searching for villains among the debris?
Some of that villain-hunting has already begun, in the typically vulgar, unwisely speedy efforts made by overly assured ideologues certain that they can connect a cataclysm to a pet issue — whether it be the American failure to pass the Kyoto global warming treaty or making the claim that spending on the war in Iraq squeezed out the possibility of shoring up the New Orleans levees.
Here we see the stirrings of a spiritual divisiveness taking hold — in the form of a know-nothing populism that sweeps everything in its wake and brings everything into the courtroom.
What happened here was a natural disaster. But there will be the temptation to turn it into a human conspiracy of greed and selfishness on the part of oil companies, concrete companies, politicians, insurers, re-insurers, goonish cops and the like.
If the recriminations become the story of the next months, everybody will simply go to the usual battle stations. The tort reformers will take on the trial lawyers. The global-warming crowd will face off against American business. The politicians will scream at each other, scoff at each other, and try to find some cheap advantage that will turn the tide against one party or the other.
The good that will be done —person by person, donation by donation, community by community — will be in danger of getting swamped by the bitterness and divisiveness that characterizes contemporary elite politics. Rather than finding common ground, there will be ugly partisanship and a cold standoff.
The horror of a flood is literally, very nearly the oldest story in the Book. There have always been times that the water will rise higher than the walls men can build to contain it. The New Orleans system survived the battering of nature for more than 200 years — but it met its match and was overwhelmed by it.
The best we can do is comfort the afflicted, mourn the lost, and try to rebuild. The worst we can do is turn on each other.
So what shall it be? E-mail:
podhoretz@nypost.com
What do you mean "what Obama disaster"
Haven't you been keeping up with the news. He doesn't need to take office for all the disasters that are heading our way. Unfortunately this is not going to be taken care of before he gets in the office and if you think things are bad now, just wait.
US MTSO's better start re-thinking their pay scales, because hopefully their 'sacred' cash-cow (India) is about to run out o' milk.
Palin's pending pastor disaster. As requested,
Thanks to Fox's Rev Wright feeding frenzy/orgy, the media now spotlights SP's religious upbringing. Here are some "legitimate" sources of info on the newest area of inquiry into SP's views, mentors, influences, etc., as we become more acquainted with JM's VP pick. A nutshell description might be politics based on the concept of manifest destiny. Most of these sources have often been cited by right-singers on this site. Keep in mind, these are only the early returns on this inquiry. Stay tuned.
http://www.wasillaag.net/
Due to the avalanche of inquiries, the Wasilla Assembly of God Q&A link has crashed and burned for the time being. Their Official Statement on Sarah Palin is posted here.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/sarah-palins-je.html
Statement from Senior Pastor Ed Kalnins on war, including "I believe that Jesus himself operated from that position of war mode."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09032008/news/nationalnews/church_prayer_for_iraq_war_127206.htm
"Church Prayer for Iraq War." US soldiers battling terrorists in Iraq are "striving to do what's right" and are part of "a task . . . from God," Sarah Palin told worshippers at a conservative Pentecostal church earlier this year.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13098.html
"Jewish voters may be wary of Palin." After growing up in Wasilla Assembly of God, she switched to Wasilla Bible Church. This article deals with their views of Jews and Jews views of them. Visitors to the pulpit: David Brickner, of Jews for Jesus, who according to the Anti-Defamation League is “targeting Jews for conversion with subterfuge and deception,” asserts in essence that it's okay to bulldoze Palestinians. He goes on to say, "…terrorist attacks on Israelis as God's "judgment of unbelief" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity."
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2008/09/02/palin-said-war-in-iraq-gas-pipeline-are-gods-will/
"Palin said war in Iraq, gas pipeline are God’s will."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/by_juliet_eilperin_when_alaska.html
Palin Asks for Prayers That War Be "Task That Is From God"
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/palins_past_pastor_bushfoes_he.html Tribunes Washington Bureau
"Palin's Past Pastor: Bush foes Hell-bound"
Former FEMA Director Michael Brown, heavily criticized for his agency's slow response to Hurricane Katrina, is starting a disaster preparedness consulting firm to help clients avoid the sort of errors that cost him his job.
If I can help people focus on preparedness, how to be better prepared in their homes and better prepared in their businesses — because that goes straight to the bottom line — then I hope I can help the country in some way, Brown told the Rocky Mountain News for its Thursday editions.
Brown said officials need to take inventory of what's going on in a disaster to be able to answer questions to avoid appearing unaware of how serious a situation is.
In the aftermath of the hurricane, critics complained about Brown's lack of formal emergency management experience and e-mails that later surfaced showed him as out of touch with the extent of the devastation.
The lawyer admits that while he was head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency mistakes were made in the response to Katrina. He also said he had been planning to quit before the hurricane hit.
Hurricane Katrina showed how bad disasters can be, and there's an incredible need for individuals and businesses to understand how important preparedness is, he said.
Brown said companies already have expressed interested in his consulting business, Michael D. Brown LLC. He plans to run it from the Boulder area, where he lived before joining the Bush administration in 2001.
I'm doing a lot of good work with some great clients, Brown said. My wife, children and my grandchild still love me. My parents are still proud of me.
What is a little definition? And how is your definition a big definition. Can you provide sources for this categorization?
I am still waiting for the sources of the claim that a liberal poster(s) has stalked a conservative poster(s) at some point. I find this very very intriguing and eagerly await the details!!!
If you are interested, there is more...
on this on the America's Most Wanted website with some more detail. It does not appear to be biased one way or the other...and there is some food for thought there. They seem to be leaning more toward what I said...that the agents should have been reprimanded but the sentence appears pretty harsh. One of the agents has since been beaten up in prison, AMW contends, by other inmates who recognized him from the show (Hispanics yelling kill the border agent) while they beat him up. I did not try to confirm that part of it. At any rate...I do not think, after reading all of this, it would be wrong for the White House to pardon these two men, even if that pardon included removing them as border patrol agents, if that is what it took. Point being...at most border situations, it is going to be the guards and the illegals and no one else...so there does need to be accountability for border patrol agents...and frankly, illegals, I still say, should have NO legal standing in this country and should understand that if they cross illegally. That does not mean that border patrol should have carte blanche to shoot people, that is not what I am saying. THEY need to be accountable to our legal system. However, the illegals should have no standing and should realize that when they come here illegaly. I know that there are many on the liberal side, and perhaps even on the RINO side but I have not heard of any... who disagree with that and think they should have the same rights as US citizens. I disagree with that strongly.
Ok....certainly your right! Was interested...
in what the kinda judgmental poster who was horrified that she was pregnant and saying that the family had no values because of that...if that poster thought abortion would have been better. Frankly, the fact that the girl elected to marry the father and have the child shows me that her family values are in place. To save the child is also a choice, and I think she made the right one.
That is my true feeling on the matter. I am absolutely zero vested in conspiracy theories or ascribing blame. Blame will not bring back anyone and at the same time, I feel there was a long long line of failures leading up to 9/11 that started way before President Bush and continued through many presidencies. I hope, no matter what, in the end they can have peace of mind. I am sure it has to be hard for them.
It's just a device used by the neocons to keep the attention of the stifled. They know that the repressed loonies in the county slobber over anything pertaining to sex. Just look at O'Reilly. Nearly every night he has some story about prostitutes, strip clubs, girls gone wild -- he is complaining how horrible it is, yet they always have tapes behind him of half-naked coeds grinding away. If it is so horrible, must we see the tapes over and over?
I'm sure you would have missed it since all you are interested in sm
is your own agenda. You can't even listen to anyone else's point of view and all you can respond with is sarcasm.
For those interested.....here is the blog
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obamas-college.html
I am learning too but interested in
even-sided with obama and dodd's names all over the place?
Not really interested in talking to you. nm
x
What it tells me is that you are interested in
naysaying, innuendo, division, polarization and the like. Sam, what matters to most of us savoring this incredible moment in our history is not what happened in the past. In this way, even the shrub gets a get out of jail card. My interest lies in the future and I see nothing suspicious or scary about Obama despite your best efforts after all these months. I also am not interested in preaching to the choir from either side. What I think matters now is that we try our best to get past this election and on with the business of uniting ourselves behind our leadership and start tackling the very difficult challenges we face on so many fronts. The economy is an equal opportunity crisis. Addressing global warming, the environment and alternative energy offers the promise of benefit for us all, and peace on earth is a goal that we share with the peoples of the world. Those matter to me. Not the implied, possible nefarious ties Rahm Emanuel may or may not have with the boogey man.
but she did not say she is not - I am not worried - just interested - nm
x
The world is interested because -
America has always been a leader in the world and looked up to until the last few years. I don't believe there is anything sinister going on because the world is excited. So much of what goes on in the world revolved around the US for so long. Nobody used to care that everyone looked to us for guidance - what is the problem with it now? I for one am glad that people are beginning to look at us as leaders again and not with the contempt and disdain that they have been feeling!
Another one I would be interested in vetting is
Tom Tancredo of Colorado.
Here's something interested we heard
Last night we were watching the movie Demolition Man. Don't know if you've ever seen it. Sylvester Stallone goes in cryostasis and 70 or so years later he's brought out to hunt down a killer (Wesley Snipes). Anyway...here's what's interesting. He's riding in the car with Sandra Bullock and she tells him Schwartenneger was president. He said something about him being foreign born and she made mention that because he was so popular they changed the ammendment.
DH & I looked at each other and said isn't that interesting.
So pretty much you are interested in
throwing out smears that you are not willing to back up with facts, citations or examples and baiting other posters. You also don't seem to care how ignorant you sound, given the fact that it is patently clear you don't have a clue as to the meaning of racism or bigotry. You also seem quite unwilling to engage in any meaningful debate on the so-called pot-shot issues you fire off in your drive-bys. To top it all off, so far you have shown yourself to have a fairly juvenile, shallow, superficial and limited form of thinking.
Should you decide to step up to the plate and actually post something of substance you are willing to exercise some intellect over, I'll be more than happy to accommodate. In the meantime, I'd rather use my time more productively reading up on the latest news.
So pretty much you are interested in
throwing out smears that you are not willing to back up with facts, citations or examples and baiting other posters. You also don't seem to care how ignorant you sound, given the fact that it is patently clear you don't have a clue as to the meaning of racism or bigotry. You also seem quite unwilling to engage in any meaningful debate on the so-called pot-shot issues you fire off in your drive-bys. To top it all off, so far you have shown yourself to have a fairly juvenile, shallow, superficial and limited form of thinking.
I understand being upset about Studd and even Clinton if you feel that strongly about it, but don't expect business as usual when a scandal like this hits the fan. People are going to talk about it. 23 years ago when Studd was having his affair I was in grade school so excuse me for first not knowing what you were talking about (until I researched it) and second not seeing the relevance of it in the case of Foley. I'm sure there was outrage for what Studd did too. Now upon learning about Studd and his (I can't say that here), I even said I do not know how or why the people continued to vote him in and yeah he should have had the decency to step down. Sorry you think I'm being partisan - NO far from it. I am always disgusted with people who prey on children, birth to the day before they turn 18, sexually.
Oh and don't expect me or anyone else to think Foley is some stand up type of guy because he stepped down AFTER GETTING CAUGHT, mind you. Had he not been caught he would still be IM'ing children.
Yeah Clinton was wrong for lying under oath. He should have told the truth and apologized *to his wife*. It's not like it is illegal to have an extramarital affair.
Like you said, they are all morally wrong, but I tend to be more disgusted with child predators. It doesn't matter if you agree with me (there are plenty of people who do). We'll just have to agree to disagree.
One point you didn't bring up was Foley's job responsibility. That makes it a little more eerie. Are people not supposed to be disappointed that this is who we have in charge of protecting our children?
Anyone interested in the candidates houses? SM
On the www.apartmentherapy website, they feature the candidates homes. I love that site. Anway...spoiler alert, if anyone cares.
________________________________
What I found interesting is Mitt Romney lives in a comptemporary home on the water, which is pictured next to Barack Obama's conservative georgian style home.
OK, not of vital interest, I just love looking at homes.
MasonD, If you are really interested in the truth...
and not bash posting, take a little look at the internet...google Clinton Iraq WMD and see what you get. Clinton thought there were WMD during his administration too. Don't you remember him getting on the TV and telling us all how Iraq had WMD and if they did not comply with the UN and let the inspectors in we might have to use force? I bet I could find that on You Tube or someplace. The CIA director at that time was George Tenet. When Bush was elected, he did not fire Tenet, he kept him on (BAD mistake in hindsight I would say). Tenet told the Congress and everyone else (now this is the head of the CIA mind you, left over from Clinton's Administration) that it was a slam dunk that Iraq had WMD. Soooo...if it is a lie it was one that started during the Clinton administration. So St. Bill believed it too. Even though he seems to have amnesia regarding that fact until a news show confronted him with it. And then it was the stuttering and stammering and "yes I believed it then...but I don't believe it now." Yeah right. Nothing changed between now and then...sheesh. Had that deer in the headlights I did not have sex with that woman MS Lewinsky look.
It really is just amazing to me that you folks cannot see any of the faults in Democrats but EVERY fault in Republicans...lol.
Here are ALL the figures in case anyone is interested...
First---100% of southern Republicans...consisted of ONE senator. When one senator votes against something, yeah, that is 100%. Sheesh. Take a look at ALL the figures.
Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X at the United States Capitol on March 26, 1964. Both men had come to hear the Senate debate on the bill.Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, from Mississippi. Under Eastland's care, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate. Although this parliamentary move led to a brief filibuster, the senators eventually let it pass, preferring to concentrate their resistance on passage of the bill itself. The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964.
Shortly thereafter, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73-27, and quickly passed through the House-Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, We have lost the South for a generation.[2]
[edit] Vote totals
Totals are in "Yes-No" format:
The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)
[edit] By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)
Yes, I agree that things change. And the Democratic party got interested in African Americans AFTER they got the vote. Coincidence? I think not.
marks the location of current message within thread
