|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/31/2005 12:28:14 PM · #51 |
|
|
|
08/31/2005 12:42:52 PM · #52 |
Agreed - DanSig's statment was overly harsh: not a question of building better (though possibly a question of building elsewhere, or taking more precautionary steps earlier, as I recall reading years ago about the risk of the Mississippi overrunning the levees that were not being properly addressed). And certainly given the apparently widescale loss of life and property, despair is not "whining".
Though the overall point, perspective, is one to consider in terms of having greater regard for the value of life regardless of the nationality or ethnicity. 1,000 dead in Baghdad today alone (disregarding 100,000+ Iraqi deaths in the last 2 years). More than 1,000 killed in Mumbai as the country's financial district is wrecked by flooding a month ago. Every one of those people as valuable as each other in human terms. It is far too easy to disregard the scale of these disasters until one arrives on your doorstep.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2005 12:49:01 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by theSaj:
elderell...
it's people like you that will be the death of this nation.
|
Why can't you just disagree with him, why does he have to be the 'death of this nation'?
I am in complete, 100% agreeance with elderell...and in my opinion YOU are the death of this nation. We are in a deficit...we need money for here...why are we wasting it at other places when we need OUR OWN MONEY HERE!?!?!?
And your response is to just spend 6 times the amount of money we're already spending elsewhere? ABSURB |
Because, the consequences of not dealing with the situations abroad are much more costly. The loss of a single major city such as New York would exceed our deficit in cost.
Our domestic deficit is due purely to mismanagement. Much of it on the local municipal and state levels. We expend more money than probably most of Europe combined but receive very little return on our investment. If we were to add into the budget $250 billion. We would still be equally deficit. It would simply be pushed to more pork-barrel projects.
Originally posted by "elderell":
There will be many,many offers of assistance from ALL OVER THE WORLD, when the time is right... |
When, I do not believe there has been any serious aid or assistance given to America during any of it's crisis' by most of the world. Whether it's the San Franscisco earthquake, hurricane Katrina, or something else. Perhaps a bit of sympathy but I never see a rush of aid.
But whenever something happens in the world - America, the United States is there...
Even when it's nations we're in opposition with us..we still sent aide to Iran during their earthquake.
When the tsunami hit asia everyone griped about America needing to give more $$$. We didn't come out with a pledge of $$$. $$$ does very little in such crisis. $$$ is not needed until rebuilding begins - emergency services are needed. Instead...we sent our war machines to the area. We waged military action against the region. Our planes and helicopters dropped bombs of food, medicine, water and supplies. We sent hospital and support ships. Mind you it cost millions of $$$ in fuel to get those ships to the area and fly the aircraft in support.
You pledged... we did! That's the American way.
But when events strike America...it's "oh what a tragedy"...but America is big, they don't need our help, they can carry the burden themselves.
Originally posted by "riponlady":
Considering our size and the numbers concerned, that is the same relative disaster. England sorting it out was like one state of the USA sorting out the problem |
Funny, when I mention that the U.S. is 50 nations in one. I am told how Great Britain itself is several nations. But when you want to downplay...it's little ol' England. Don't count the fact that Canada, Australia and other commonwealth nations also have resources for England to draw upon.
Originally posted by "DanSig":
clean up your mess and stop whining about it. |
Should I remember this the day Iceland is hit by a crisis?
I THINK THE ISSUE AMERICANS HAVE is that we aid and assist throughout the world over. Dedicating billions of dollars to such events.
Originally posted by "RiponLady":
The Russians were in no position to move any further forward in 1947 . Would we all be speaking Arabic if the USA hadn't invaded Iraq? Will we all be speaking Arabic if they don't stay there? " |
Bologne... and you say that only after Poland, Czech, Yugoslavia and numerous other countries had already been taken over by Soviet Union as satellite states.
The only reason the stopped there was because the United States forces were there. Britain was in no position to hold off the Russian forces. Nor France. Nor any Western European power.
Had we not been there, the Soviet Union's influence would have easily expanded to include Greece, Italy, and maybe even France.
And in truth, yes, I do believe if things are done now that many area of Europe will be speaking Arabic. It would not be the first time...
Is our being in Iraq going to prevent it...don't know...but doing nothing would likely have only guaranteed such.
Go read the words of extremist who want to take over southern Europe and make it Muslim once again. Or ignore them...and find yourself at their sword. |
|
|
|
08/31/2005 12:49:25 PM · #54 |
agreed -- in the context of world events, this hurricane is a relatively minor blip.
HOWEVER, the devastation of a large city (and of a wide swath of the area in total) is quite relevant to me as an American citizen. i'm not going to get into the "my disaster is better than your disaster" game. it's not fair to judge them against each other.
i would hazard a guess that if it were not for the TOTAL evacuation of a MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREA, the hurricane story would die down after a few days. the subsequent events in new orleans are going to keep this in the forefront of american minds for a while.
but, soon the new tv season will start and we'll all forget about it like everything else while we drive back and forth to the Gap in our cadillac escalades. |
|
|
|
08/31/2005 12:51:20 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
When, I do not believe there has been any serious aid or assistance given to America during any of it's crisis' by most of the world. Whether it's the San Franscisco earthquake, hurricane Katrina, or something else. Perhaps a bit of sympathy but I never see a rush of aid. |
when was the last time we asked? i don't remember ever asking. |
|
|
|
08/31/2005 12:53:12 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
In 1995 Congress passed the Southeast Louisana Urban Flood Control project for the purpose of shoring up levees and building pumping stations for events such as this catastrophe. The Times-Picayune newspaper reported that 250 million dollars more work needed to be done on the project, but all the federal funds dried up in 2003, leaving the project uncompleted. Numerous articles since have cited the war in Iraq as the reason for hurricane and flood control funding drying up. President Bush earlier this year proposed funding only 10 million dollars worth of the remaining money needed for completion of the project, a mere fraction. |
Somehow, it doesn't surprise me at all that someone would come up with a way to blame the entire disaster on BUSH. They've already envisioned a way to blame the RESPONSE on BUSH. I'm surprised that it took this long to come up with a way to blame the ENTIRE DISASTER on BUSH. Tell me, though, just HOW did BUSH start that Hurricane? OH, Wait. That's his fault, too - for not signing on to the Kyoto Agreement. The Hurricane was caused by Global Warming - and that's BUSH's fault, too.
Oh, and in addition to spending a lot of time figuring out how to blame BUSH, one must also continue in the relentless push to make communism the national cure-all. Yes, rather than make those who build in a flood plain pay for their OWN levees, we should force the taxpayers ( but only the evil, RICH taxpayers, of course ) in Idaho, and Ohio, and Connecticut, and every OTHER state, to pay for levees to protect the property of the fine folks who DO build in New Orleans, KNOWING but choosing to IGNORE the risk, and by not carrying sufficient INSURANCE, knowingly putting those very ( evil, rich ) taxpayers at risk by their actions.
And when all else fails, and disaster DOES strike, then we need to make those same ( evil, rich ) taxpayers pay for the efforts to rescue those who refused to leave, and for food, shelter, clothing, etc. for those affected, and, through FEMA, to eventually compensate everyone for their ( uninsured ) losses. Mind you, I have no problem with paying for essential relief efforts, including rescuing those who did not heed the mandatory evacuation order - I'm as compassionate as the next guy. But can someone explain to me what the difference is between a family that loses a house in a hurricane and one that loses a house in a sinkhole? Yet, FEMA pays for one, but not the other. What's the difference? Why the difference? Isn't "spreading the risk" what INSURANCE companies are for? Isn't that why ( some of us, at least ) pay for our own car INSURANCE, property/casualty INSURANCE, life INSURANCE, business interruption INSURANCE, etc? |
|
|
|
08/31/2005 01:02:43 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Oh, and in addition to spending a lot of time figuring out how to blame BUSH, one must also continue in the relentless push to make communism the national cure-all. Yes, rather than make those who build in a flood plain pay for their OWN levees, we should force the taxpayers ( but only the evil, RICH taxpayers, of course ) in Idaho, and Ohio, and Connecticut, and every OTHER state, to pay for levees to protect the property of the fine folks who DO build in New Orleans, KNOWING but choosing to IGNORE the risk, and by not carrying sufficient INSURANCE, knowingly putting those very ( evil, rich ) taxpayers at risk by their actions. |
actually, the levees were made a necessity by all of the other states up the river also building levees and a canal system that forces a large amount of runoff into the mississippi river without ever giving it a place to release pressure naturally (i.e. via a flood or in wetlands). instead of letting land upriver absorb excess water as intended, it's all funnelled south through the mouth of the river at such a rate that sediment is never allowed to settle and the force itself is eating away at what marshland is left there.
who put all of these wonderful flood controls in place? the u.s. army corps of engineers. and every state that funnels water into the mississippi's drainage basin (which is something like, oh.... 28 of them) is contributing to the damage.
so it really IS a federal problem in a large part. and while i don't blame BUSH for the the hurricane, the administration's lack of foresight did cause them to greatly reduce the amount of funding for flood prevention for new orleans.
there's a really great book called "Rising tide : the great Mississippi flood of 1927 and how it changed America" by John Barry that examines the federal goverments "management" of the mississippi drainage basin and the problems that it has caused. it was a fascinating read.
oh, and by the way, i find it repugnant for you to sit in here and yell in all caps about how an entire major metropolitan area that was basically just destroyed is taking away from your precious tax dollars.
Message edited by author 2005-08-31 13:03:08. |
|
|
|
08/31/2005 01:10:54 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "elderell":
There will be many,many offers of assistance from ALL OVER THE WORLD, when the time is right... |
When, I do not believe there has been any serious aid or assistance given to America during any of it's crisis' by most of the world. Whether it's the San Franscisco earthquake, hurricane Katrina, or something else. Perhaps a bit of sympathy but I never see a rush of aid.
But whenever something happens in the world - America, the United States is there...
Even when it's nations we're in opposition with us..we still sent aide to Iran during their earthquake.
When the tsunami hit asia everyone griped about America needing to give more $$$. We didn't come out with a pledge of $$$. $$$ does very little in such crisis. $$$ is not needed until rebuilding begins - emergency services are needed. Instead...we sent our war machines to the area. We waged military action against the region. Our planes and helicopters dropped bombs of food, medicine, water and supplies. We sent hospital and support ships. Mind you it cost millions of $$$ in fuel to get those ships to the area and fly the aircraft in support.
You pledged... we did! That's the American way.
But when events strike America...it's "oh what a tragedy"...but America is big, they don't need our help, they can carry the burden themselves.
Originally posted by "riponlady":
Considering our size and the numbers concerned, that is the same relative disaster. England sorting it out was like one state of the USA sorting out the problem |
Funny, when I mention that the U.S. is 50 nations in one. I am told how Great Britain itself is several nations. But when you want to downplay...it's little ol' England. Don't count the fact that Canada, Australia and other commonwealth nations also have resources for England to draw upon.
Originally posted by "RiponLady":
The Russians were in no position to move any further forward in 1947 . Would we all be speaking Arabic if the USA hadn't invaded Iraq? Will we all be speaking Arabic if they don't stay there? " |
Bologne... and you say that only after Poland, Czech, Yugoslavia and numerous other countries had already been taken over by Soviet Union as satellite states.
The only reason the stopped there was because the United States forces were there. Britain was in no position to hold off the Russian forces. Nor France. Nor any Western European power.
Had we not been there, the Soviet Union's influence would have easily expanded to include Greece, Italy, and maybe even France.
And in truth, yes, I do believe if things are done now that many area of Europe will be speaking Arabic. It would not be the first time...
Is our being in Iraq going to prevent it...don't know...but doing nothing would likely have only guaranteed such.
Go read the words of extremist who want to take over southern Europe and make it Muslim once again. Or ignore them...and find yourself at their sword. |
Rubbish! (equivalent of your baloney)
Funny, when I mention that the U.S. is 50 nations in one. I am told how Great Britain itself is several nations. But when you want to downplay...it's little ol' England. Don't count the fact that Canada, Australia and other commonwealth nations also have resources for England to draw upon.
Do you know what the word "spin" means in this context? You try to "spin" the posts everytime you just want to get back at the peson who doesn't agree 100% with you.
I was pointing out the relative size of our country, physically compared with the USA, the relative size of the disaster in this context, and the fact that the USA has sufficient resources to not require outside aid in this event. Now are you saying any of that is untrue? Answer me straight!
And if you think the UK draws on resources from the Commonwealth in this day and age you have no understanding of this very tenuous link which I have explained to you before is based only on trade and historical nostalgia.
Sorry, I used words of more than one syllable but I hope this is clear.
To hear you say that you think the Muslim countries are hell bent on invading most of Western Europe gives me insight into just how far detached you are from what is really going in real life not in the news or from the mouths of right wing politicians. or extremists.
P.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2005 01:20:46 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
And if you think the UK draws on resources from the Commonwealth in this day and age you have no understanding of this very tenuous link which I have explained to you before is based only on trade and historical nostalgia. |
Is our Prime Minister still sending you resources? I hate it when you do that, you United Kingdom of Commonwealth-Moochers!!
Hehe...
My Dad just got hauled to jail the other day for hunting on the Queen's land...won't be seeing him for a while. |
|
|
|
08/31/2005 01:26:20 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "elderell":
There will be many,many offers of assistance from ALL OVER THE WORLD, when the time is right... |
When, I do not believe there has been any serious aid or assistance given to America during any of it's crisis' by most of the world. Whether it's the San Franscisco earthquake, hurricane Katrina, or something else. Perhaps a bit of sympathy but I never see a rush of aid.
But whenever something happens in the world - America, the United States is there...
Even when it's nations we're in opposition with us..we still sent aide to Iran during their earthquake.
When the tsunami hit asia everyone griped about America needing to give more $$$. We didn't come out with a pledge of $$$. $$$ does very little in such crisis. $$$ is not needed until rebuilding begins - emergency services are needed. Instead...we sent our war machines to the area. We waged military action against the region. Our planes and helicopters dropped bombs of food, medicine, water and supplies. We sent hospital and support ships. Mind you it cost millions of $$$ in fuel to get those ships to the area and fly the aircraft in support.
You pledged... we did! That's the American way.
But when events strike America...it's "oh what a tragedy"...but America is big, they don't need our help, they can carry the burden themselves.
|
Erm - every wealthy Western nation gives aid when there are disasters of an international nature, not just the US. The US gives comparatively little in terms of GDP (though that is still a lot - and people are grateful). Please do not belittle the contribution of every other nation.
As for receiving aid, the International Red Cross is the focus of a lot of international contributions (and the focus of the current aid campaign). The clue is in the title. The International Red Cross is also the main aid agency in places such as Mumbai (100 dead, financial district flooded) - where other international aid is limited, as India has resources.
Rich Western states, benefiting from widescale insurance support and social security protection can expect less aid than poor developing states without financial resources - IMO, that is appropriate and proportionate. I have not seen France, Switzerland, Germany etc request international assistance nor specific aid despite recent and catastrophic floods, as the resources are available internally. Where specific equipment is required, it will be made available (Russian subs).
Originally posted by theSaj:
Don't count the fact that Canada, Australia and other commonwealth nations also have resources for England to draw upon.[quote]
If only...! Don't think you will find many commonwealth resources are "available" to the UK nowadays!
[quote=theSaj]
Had we not been there, the Soviet Union's influence would have easily expanded to include Greece, Italy, and maybe even France. |
Thanks goodness the UK and the Commonwealth were there in 1941-45 to fight the Japanese threat in huge numbers, or you might be speaking Japanese... (two can play at that game, but usually choose not to).
|
|
|
|
08/31/2005 01:28:40 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
And if you think the UK draws on resources from the Commonwealth in this day and age you have no understanding of this very tenuous link which I have explained to you before is based only on trade and historical nostalgia. |
Is our Prime Minister still sending you resources? I hate it when you do that, you United Kingdom of Commonwealth-Moochers!!
Hehe...
My Dad just got hauled to jail the other day for hunting on the Queen's land...won't be seeing him for a while. |
You can probably bail him out with about 50 wolf skins !
P
:)
|
|
|
|
08/31/2005 01:41:05 PM · #62 |
Thanks goodness the UK and the Commonwealth were there in 1941-45 to fight the Japanese threat in huge numbers, or you might be speaking Japanese... (two can play at that game, but usually choose not to).
LOL
|
|
|
|
08/31/2005 01:47:29 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
i would hazard a guess that if it were not for the TOTAL evacuation of a MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREA, the hurricane story would die down |
IMHO, if not for that total evacuation we would have had thousands upon thousands dead. If not hundred thousand or more. And it would indeed have been a tragedy near on par as the Tsunami.
The only real difference between Katrina and the Tsunami was that with a hurricane you have warning and can prepare. With a Tsunami it is akin to an earthquake....quite spontaneous. |
|
|
|
08/31/2005 02:14:15 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by "muckpond":
when was the last time we asked? i don't remember ever asking. |
Perhaps we haven't....but likewise, I don't think it should be demanded of us...
Originally posted by "muckpond":
oh, and by the way, i find it repugnant for you to sit in here and yell in all caps about how an entire major metropolitan area that was basically just destroyed is taking away from your precious tax dollars. |
I agree, I am willing to expend my tax dollars to ensure safety. I am just frustrated by how poorly managed our tax dollars are with such projects. I've watched simple river bridges take 9 yrs to build. When it should have been done in a year or two.
Problem...it goes through 10 yrs of lawyers and environmental review. Then it goes thru 5 yrs of legal issues for dealing with the unions. Then the union construction begins which essentially give a .25 cent return on every dollar spent. Project runs way over estimated budget and then has to go thru all the harangling of additional funding requisition.
Originally posted by "riponlady":
Do you know what the word "spin" means in this context? You try to "spin" the posts everytime you just want to get back at the peson who doesn't agree 100% with you." |
Fully aware. And we're all pretty good at doing it here in these threads.
As for size and resources. I see the U.K. along with the associated commonwealths as only slightly less capable than the U.S. I'd give the U.S. a 93% and the U.K. probably an 87%.
Size is very poor rule of thumb. For instance, I live in one of the smallest states in all of America. But we are actually one of the highest tax generation states as well.
Originally posted by "riponlady":
And if you think the UK draws on resources from the Commonwealth in this day and age you have no understanding of this very tenuous link which I have explained to you before is based only on trade and historical nostalgia. |
Than that's truly a shame on them. Cause I know that most Americans are ready to lend a hand to Britain should she need it. In part, because of the long-standing connection. And even if we disagree or are tenuous we still come to help. (Iran, Russia, etc.) You could be our worse enemy and we'll still offer aid and assistance in need. It's the American way...
Originally posted by "riponlady":
To hear you say that you think the Muslim countries are hell bent on invading most of Western Europe gives me insight into just how far detached you are from what is really going in real life not in the news or from the mouths of right wing politicians. or extremists. |
Oh patooey on you. I never said that and you bloody well know I never said that. And for anyone else reading, I stated such was the goal of the extremists.
Get off your politically correct horse RL. If you don't believe the extremist muslims want that...then you're flat in denial. This is why there is such polarization. Because NO TERM that I ever use will be good enough for liberals such as yourself.
*sheesh*
So your own words demostrate why I have such disdain for bloody leftist liberals. You state "To hear you say that you think the Muslim countries..."
Well you never heard me say that. And this time you can't say I left it open for question by not being clear. I was clear and specific and stated simply "extremists". And typical of leftist liberals you make a whole judgement of my character to justify yourself, and you make that entire judgment on something that doesn't exist that you created for yourself. Than you wonder why people like me butt heads so hard against people like you in these debates and discussions and why we cease caring about being PC or uncouth. There's no point in trying. You'll simply make up words we never said, based on views you have of us. Then you'll state that your view is based on words we said (which we never said) so that you interpret all our other words in like fashion. It's a whole circle of self- justification.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
The US gives comparatively little in terms of GDP (though that is still a lot - and people are grateful). Please do not belittle the contribution of every other nation. |
I didn't I belittled the belittling of the U.S. on it's aid given. Also, GDP is not something you can just convert into actions. And much of the aid that America gives is not counted. For instance....all the fuel we expended to get the naval support ships is seldom counted in the tally of aid provided. In fact, that fuel use will be quoted back to us in regards to how much $$$ we spend on our military.
Regarding whether it is appropriate or proportionate, or necessary. I am in agreement. I am simply tired of "America never contributes it's fair share of aid." No, it only contributes more than any other nation. "But not as much of it's GDP." Sure....you want us to send you over that GDP. How about I ship Hollywood over too the next crisis. See what good they do. Not all of GDP is applicable or usable for such situations. Much of it is a virtual number. Statistical analysis. A measurement of man-power and productivity. But it's not something that is liquid and fluid. It's more akin to equity in a house than a charge card.
"Thanks goodness the UK and the Commonwealth were there in 1941-45 to fight the Japanese threat in huge numbers, or you might be speaking Japanese... (two can play at that game, but usually choose not to). "
I am curious to know how many British troops were fighting the Japanese in comparison to U.S. forces. (And how many of those forces were devoted to protecting British interests and land holdings from India and coastal provinces?)
Message edited by author 2005-08-31 14:16:13. |
|
|
|
08/31/2005 02:15:42 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
oh, and by the way, i find it repugnant for you to sit in here and yell in all caps about how an entire major metropolitan area that was basically just destroyed is taking away from your precious tax dollars. |
First, I did not yell in ALL CAPS. I used SOME caps for emphasis. I could just as easily used bold or italic text for emphasis. Would that have been better? If so, I shall in the future use that technique instead.
Oh, and by the way, I find it inconsiderate, at best, to ignore that which I explicitly stated in the same post, so that there should be no misunderstanding - namely: "I have no problem with paying for essential relief efforts, including rescuing those who did not heed the mandatory evacuation order - I'm as compassionate as the next guy." You may STILL find it repugnant that I DO and WILL be upset at having my tax money spent to compensate folks for their loss only because their loss was due to a hurricane and not some OTHER disaster that wasn't their fault.
Just like I remain upset that my tax money went went to the families of those who died in the collapse of the World Trade Center. Did any of them suffer any more than the families of those who died in a building collapse the week before, in Chicago, or a train derailment the week after, in Des Moines? NO. So why should THEY be singled out for government money? Is THAT what they mean by "equal protection under the law"? Oh, yeah, that's right, I nearly forgot - it's because the collapse of the World Trade Center was BUSH's fault ( and he IS the Government ).
Message edited by author 2005-08-31 14:16:46. |
|
|
|
08/31/2005 02:51:00 PM · #66 |
| I know it's a morbid thought,but I can't help wondering how many soldiers stationed in Iraq don't have homes or,God forbid,families to come home to....Fighting for a cause is one thing;not being able to comfort your loved ones in their time of need is entirely different... |
|
|
|
08/31/2005 02:57:38 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
As for size and resources. I see the U.K. along with the associated commonwealths as only slightly less capable than the U.S. I\'d give the U.S. a 93% and the U.K. probably an 87%.
Size is very poor rule of thumb. For instance, I live in one of the smallest states in all of America. But we are actually one of the highest tax generation states as well.
Originally posted by \"riponlady\":
And if you think the UK draws on resources from the Commonwealth in this day and age you have no understanding of this very tenuous link which I have explained to you before is based only on trade and historical nostalgia. |
Than that\'s truly a shame on them. Cause I know that most Americans are ready to lend a hand to Britain should she need it. In part, because of the long-standing connection. And even if we disagree or are tenuous we still come to help. (Iran, Russia, etc.) You could be our worse enemy and we\'ll still offer aid and assistance in need. It\'s the American way...
Originally posted by \"riponlady\":
To hear you say that you think the Muslim countries are hell bent on invading most of Western Europe gives me insight into just how far detached you are from what is really going in real life not in the news or from the mouths of right wing politicians. or extremists. |
Oh patooey on you. I never said that and you bloody well know I never said that. And for anyone else reading, I stated such was the goal of the extremists.
Get off your politically correct horse RL. If you don\'t believe the extremist muslims want that...then you\'re flat in denial. This is why there is such polarization. Because NO TERM that I ever use will be good enough for liberals such as yourself.
*sheesh*
So your own words demostrate why I have such disdain for bloody leftist liberals. You state \"To hear you say that you think the Muslim countries...\"
Well you never heard me say that. And this time you can\'t say I left it open for question by not being clear. I was clear and specific and stated simply \"extremists\". And typical of leftist liberals you make a whole judgement of my character to justify yourself, and you make that entire judgment on something that doesn\'t exist that you created for yourself. Than you wonder why people like me butt heads so hard against people like you in these debates and discussions and why we cease caring about being PC or uncouth. There\'s no point in trying. You\'ll simply make up words we never said, based on views you have of us. Then you\'ll state that your view is based on words we said (which we never said) so that you interpret all our other words in like fashion. It\'s a whole circle of self- justification.
|
Here we go yet again!
I don\'t understand what you mean by \"UK and associated Commonwealths\" in your last post re size. Please clarify.
Your response to my reply about the commonwealth and our links demonstrates just how far apart we are culturally! You make it sound like Australia or Canada wouldn\'t offer aid to us if we needed it ( but of course good old USA would do it even if they hated us!)! That really made me laugh. Of course they would offer aid, just as we would offer aid to them if they needed it but in just the same way we and they, would to any country or area that needed our help. It\'s not just \"the American way\" as you seem to think! But unless we requested it they wouldn\'t come flying to our help. Going back to the Falkland wars, we fought alone and asked for no help and certainly wouldn\'t have expected Commonwealth countries to help us. That\'s what I mean about not having access to resources. Or we wouldn\'t get their oil cheap, or even agree politically on treaties etc.
Now the one where you yet again accuse me of being \"leftist,\" \"liberal\"and PC and then have the cheek to say I have formed an opinion of you! I am careful to only respond to what you write. If you think I have a certain view, where do you think it came from!!! I haven\'t called you anything as far as I remember.
What does \"patooey\" mean? Did you change it because I gave you back the word baloney? If I\'m being sworn at I like to know what it means so I can add it to my vocabulary!
I quoted your full post so everyone was able to read what you said.In your post you did mention \"extremist\" (singular but I assume you made typo and don't think one extremist can change a country's language) .
I was presuming, obviously wrongly, that you were not so naive as to believe that the extremists were in great enough number and had sufficient weaponary to invade western Europe and change the language to Arabic, because this is what we were discussing, and therefore you must mean countries. My mistake!
Whoops called you a name - naive!
I still want to know where you get your current information (not history) from if it is not the news, extremist propaganda or right wing politicians?
P
|
|
|
|
08/31/2005 03:26:54 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by "riponlady":
I don\'t understand what you mean by \"UK and associated Commonwealths\" in your last post re size. Please clarify. |
Even alone, without Canada or Australia, I believe you're the one who mentioned that the U.K. was several nations. (England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales). Land territory means very little.
Connecticut, one of the smallest states in the country has much more resources and production than Alaska, the largest state in the U.S.
Population of U.K. 60,441,457 which is approx. 1/4 the U.S. population. G.B. has a high technology level and infrastructure. Very comparable to the U.S. So I really do not see G.B. being too far distant in means for handling such situations as the U.S.
So all I am saying is I did not agree with your assessment that the U.S. was so much more capable
Originally posted by "riponlady":
I am careful to only respond to what you write. If you think I have a certain view, where do you think it came from!!! |
Hogwash.... that you have the gumption to actually state that...worse to actually believe it of yourself is unfathomable to me.
I mention "extremists" and you quote me as saying "Muslim countries"....please tell me how you were only responding to what I said. Bullcrap....you responded to something I did not say. And made it into a completely different statement. And in this case there was no ambuiguity of intention for you to mis-interpret by taking the most offensive possible case. This one came right out of your imagination...
But go on a believe what you want to think of yourself. But realize when you defend yourself and take offense at me terming you a leftist liberal. It's actions like that for which I have labelled you such. And rightly so...
patooey = phooey = hogwash = bologne = ....
Originally posted by "riponlady":
I was presuming, obviously wrongly, that you were not so naive as to believe that the extremists were in great enough number and had sufficient weaponary to invade western Europe and change the language to Arabic, because this is what we were discussing, and therefore you must mean countries. My mistake! Whoops called you a name - naive! |
This is exactly what I am talking about. Okay, yes, to assume there was supposed to be a "s" on the end is one thing. But to go and say, well he must not mean a single person. So I will attack him for something as far as I can imagine to stretch it too.
No, I don't mean countries. I believe it's been thoroughly discussed that extremists are not tied to countries they are in and throughout countries to varying extents. (A country may be controlled by and act out as extremists as well.) But extremists is a general term.
And if you don't believe extemists have the means to attack...please visit NYC.
Thank you...and good day!
Oh yes, my information... comes from numerous sources. Including those in direct opposition of my views. And you may comment that it is information not history. Likewise, i perceive much of your viewpoints. History is subject to much interpretation thanks largely in part to the finiteness of man's understanding.
I admit we disagree, and we see things differently. We draw upon different understandings. I believe we can both look at the same facts and come to two very differing opinions and understandings both with their own basis.
You simply assume that the person thinking different than you is completely wrong and an extremists. I got tired of being discounted and simply labeled "right ring extremist conservative" so yes, I began labelling you guys likewise as "extremist left wing liberals"
See unlike you, I don't give a damn about the judgment. I just like equality. Everyone thinks they're a moderate. The truth, very few are and moderate is dependent on context and time period and relevance. I am wise enough to understand such a principle and to accept that I am on one pendulum of certain issues. You are not. I find very few leftist liberals who are.
Moderate...let's deal with the term statistically. It's a reference to the MODE (the most frequent occuring) often used along with AVG/MEAN usually an association of the center/middle of a statistical range.
In the U.S. if more Republican officials were elected (not just Bush but governors, and congressmen). That would mean 50% or greater voted in such fashion. You can not refer to 50% as far right and then refer to the other 50% as simply moderates.
In truth, if more voted in one way then that is in fact the majority. If you were to determine the MODE it would actually be more toward the right than toward the left. But naw...not a fact the left actually wants to hear.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2005 03:34:02 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
In the U.S. if more Republican officials were elected (not just Bush but governors, and congressmen). That would mean 50% or greater voted in such fashion. You can not refer to 50% as far right and then refer to the other 50% as simply moderates.
In truth, if more voted in one way then that is in fact the majority. If you were to determine the MODE it would actually be more toward the right than toward the left. But naw...not a fact the left actually wants to hear. |
Being a moderate Canadian (neither extreme left nor right) I see this as a very interesting point. I view the polarization of the USA as a sad thing from an outsider's perspective and am interested in the dynamic of this fascinating phenomenon...Saj's point here is very observable in every day life (at least in my opinion). |
|
|
|
08/31/2005 04:25:49 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by \"riponlady\":
I don\\\'t understand what you mean by \\\"UK and associated Commonwealths\\\" in your last post re size. Please clarify. |
Even alone, without Canada or Australia, I believe you\'re the one who mentioned that the U.K. was several nations. (England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales). Land territory means very little.
Connecticut, one of the smallest states in the country has much more resources and production than Alaska, the largest state in the U.S.
Population of U.K. 60,441,457 which is approx. 1/4 the U.S. population. G.B. has a high technology level and infrastructure. Very comparable to the U.S. So I really do not see G.B. being too far distant in means for handling such situations as the U.S.
So all I am saying is I did not agree with your assessment that the U.S. was so much more capable
Originally posted by \"riponlady\":
I am careful to only respond to what you write. If you think I have a certain view, where do you think it came from!!! |
Hogwash.... that you have the gumption to actually state that...worse to actually believe it of yourself is unfathomable to me.
I mention \"extremists\" and you quote me as saying \"Muslim countries\"....please tell me how you were only responding to what I said. Bullcrap....you responded to something I did not say. And made it into a completely different statement. And in this case there was no ambuiguity of intention for you to mis-interpret by taking the most offensive possible case. This one came right out of your imagination...
But go on a believe what you want to think of yourself. But realize when you defend yourself and take offense at me terming you a leftist liberal. It\'s actions like that for which I have labelled you such. And rightly so...
patooey = phooey = hogwash = bologne = ....
Originally posted by \"riponlady\":
I was presuming, obviously wrongly, that you were not so naive as to believe that the extremists were in great enough number and had sufficient weaponary to invade western Europe and change the language to Arabic, because this is what we were discussing, and therefore you must mean countries. My mistake! Whoops called you a name - naive! |
This is exactly what I am talking about. Okay, yes, to assume there was supposed to be a \"s\" on the end is one thing. But to go and say, well he must not mean a single person. So I will attack him for something as far as I can imagine to stretch it too.
No, I don\'t mean countries. I believe it\'s been thoroughly discussed that extremists are not tied to countries they are in and throughout countries to varying extents. (A country may be controlled by and act out as extremists as well.) But extremists is a general term.
And if you don\'t believe extemists have the means to attack...please visit NYC.
Thank you...and good day!
Oh yes, my information... comes from numerous sources. Including those in direct opposition of my views. And you may comment that it is information not history. Likewise, i perceive much of your viewpoints. History is subject to much interpretation thanks largely in part to the finiteness of man\'s understanding.
I admit we disagree, and we see things differently. We draw upon different understandings. I believe we can both look at the same facts and come to two very differing opinions and understandings both with their own basis.
You simply assume that the person thinking different than you is completely wrong and an extremists. I got tired of being discounted and simply labeled \"right ring extremist conservative\" so yes, I began labelling you guys likewise as \"extremist left wing liberals\"
See unlike you, I don\'t give a damn about the judgment. I just like equality. Everyone thinks they\'re a moderate. The truth, very few are and moderate is dependent on context and time period and relevance. I am wise enough to understand such a principle and to accept that I am on one pendulum of certain issues. You are not. I find very few leftist liberals who are.
Moderate...let\'s deal with the term statistically. It\'s a reference to the MODE (the most frequent occuring) often used along with AVG/MEAN usually an association of the center/middle of a statistical range.
In the U.S. if more Republican officials were elected (not just Bush but governors, and congressmen). That would mean 50% or greater voted in such fashion. You can not refer to 50% as far right and then refer to the other 50% as simply moderates.
In truth, if more voted in one way then that is in fact the majority. If you were to determine the MODE it would actually be more toward the right than toward the left. But naw...not a fact the left actually wants to hear. |
Ok understand what you mean by the ability to cope with disaster - agreed we probably are as capable as US. Just needed to clarify you weren\'t including the other Commonwealth countries in this.
I didn\'t quote you as saying \"muslim countries\". If I had it would have been in quote marks.I have explained that I thought you were referring to countries because surely you didn\'t believe the extremists were able to invade a country and I couldn\'t see how we would all be speaking arabic without that happening. Seems I was wrong twice - you do believe they can do this!
so \"This is exactly what I am talking about. Okay, yes, to assume there was supposed to be a \"s\" on the end is one thing. But to go and say, well he must not mean a single person. So I will attack him for something as far as I can imagine to stretch it too. \"
If you think this was an attack to the limit I can imagine to stretch it you are paranoid (whoops name, sorry). I was trying to make sense of a statement I obviously misunderstood ( and apologised for). If I wanted to attack you I could do it with a hell of a lot more style than trying to alter what everyone else is capable of reading and understanding. Why bother to try to misquote someone when it is written in black and white on thousands of computers around the world?
How dare you try to throw NYC at me as if I am an idiot! Do you really not understand that the rest of the world has been suffering such attacks for years? We more than the USA know what it means to be attacked on our own doorstep from terrorists. We in England are not speaking Gaelic becaause of the years of terrorist Irish bombs and attacks on the mainland. Keep to the point of the discussion; we were debating whether Arabic would become the language of Western Europe - look back at the posts!
You have this wonderful ability to think that no-one but you can have a different opinion without being quote\"leftist\" quote \"liberal\" quote \"extremist\" unquote. I haven\'t labelled you anything at any time ( bar naive) yet you continue to label me ( quite wrongly in fact if UK leftist is the same as USA leftist) and say I am judging you? I don\'t know you - I only know what you write and I have seen your pics and I have seen your photo. So IF I make a judgement on you then that is where it comes from. I respond to what you write which is exactly what I said! What else could I use?
So could you please stop stereotying me and try just saying what you think of my points without going into a personal rant? I know we are on different sides of the pendulum( again you presume I don\'t understand this or the principle)
( By the way since I studied Economics and Statistcs, I do understand the word MODE which you obviously assumed I didn\'t) -judging me again??
P
|
|
|
|
08/31/2005 04:33:46 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by "Riponlady":
because surely you didn't believe the extremists were able to invade a country |
You made an assumption, (IMHO i believe you make a lot)....I am an American. I live an hour from NYC. You bet I believe the extremists can invade and attack a country.
I even actually believe the extremists can invade and take over a country. I believe they've done it before. I believe the extremists intend to do so anywhere and everywhere they can. And I believe that unless checked they will do so again. Most such cases have occurred within the middle east.
Now, I do not believe they have the means to do so in Europe at this time. Nor do I know when they might. But I believe that given time, and unchecked, they would indeed.
Originally posted by "Riponlady":
so "This is exactly what I am talking about. Okay, yes, to assume there was supposed to be a \"s\" on the end is one thing. But to go and say, well he must not mean a single person. So I will attack him for something as far as I can imagine to stretch it too." |
Originally posted by "Riponlady":
Do you really not understand that the rest of the world has been suffering such attacks for years? |
See, this to me, is exactly an example of the "envy" that I mentioned prior. "We've been attacked...so now it's only fair it's your turn." Comments like this are the attitude that Americans perceive from you.
Originally posted by "Riponlady":
I only know what you write and I have seen your pics and I have seen your photo. |
You see, I don't believe you know what I write. Because I believe you see what you want to see. No, there are lots of people who I can disagree with and would not label. I began tossing the label around after the insinuated insults and labels I kept seeing people who thought differently use toward all the people who thought more akin to me.
I am very open and blunt...I don't like inflections (except in photos). And I'm sorry...no one is innoncent on the use of condenscation and insult here. I've stated that and my own guilt on numerous occasions. Seldom seen admission of it elsewhere. (No, that's right those no need because it was done as a round-a-bout backhanded insult. To me back handed is no less insulting than front handed.)
"So IF I make a judgement on you then that is where it comes from. I respond to what you write which is exactly what I said! What else could I use?"
Any interpretation that comes to mind.
I spent too much of my childhood trying to constrain to rules others tried to impose or stated were proper but did not follow themselves. I see no point to it. Yes...I am an anarchist (actually the truest description of my views is a "Communist Libertarian"
Originally posted by "riponlady":
By the way since I studied Economics and Statistcs, I do understand the word MODE which you obviously assumed I didn\'t) -judging me again?? |
Once again you show your assumptions so clearly. In fact, I posted it after confirming the definitions to ensure proper usage by myself. And I was right but the fact that I checked it to confirm and it's a long time since i've done any statistics and it's probably been a while for many others. I thought it best to include an explanation. Understanding that many read and for some statistics may not be in their day to day or recent use. Not all our members may even have had statistics yet. So no...there was no thought of a slam on you whatsoever....
"So could you please stop stereotying me and try just saying what you think of my points without going into a personal rant?"
Can we agree to do this likewise (and please don't say you don't - cause we all have) - if so, than yes....otherwise..."nope".
Message edited by author 2005-08-31 16:59:07. |
|
|
|
08/31/2005 04:59:20 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Being a moderate Canadian (neither extreme left nor right) I see this as a very interesting point. I view the polarization of the USA as a sad thing from an outsider's perspective and am interested in the dynamic of this fascinating phenomenon...Saj's point here is very observable in every day life (at least in my opinion). |
I think a lot of our concept of "moderate" depends on location. For example: if you look at a city in the U.S., it will tend to be more liberal. Thus many city dwellers will determine themselves to be moderate. And for that environment they are.
But bring that city-dweller into the mid-west working country and they are no longer the moderate. Then endeavor to find the MODE between both regions.
Some would call me a far right zealot. What do you call people who IMHO are truly far right-wing fascists refusing to pay taxes and or believing a certain elite should have power over all. What do you call the even extremer views of people like Timothy McVeigh?
Likewise, how far left is "RiponLady" as compared to say "Greenpeace" activits? And how much farther the members of the enviro terrorist group E.L.F. who go around comitting arson and burning SUVS (actually, their foolish acts tend to release more carcinogens then those SUVS would have released in their lifespans).
To some, as I said, I am right-wing. Put me in Iraq and I'd be a progressive liberal to most. Put me in Iran and I'd be a left wing radical.
Not only does this get determined by location but also by time frame reference. I with many of my views would have been considered a liberal leftist 50 yrs. Now, to many I am a right wing moron.
Whenever I toss the titles around it's usually me trying to point out "hey...look...this is what you're doing to me and others because of our viewpoints...if it's okay to do it us then it must be okay to do it to you"
You see, I'm an equalitist. And take issues with injustice and double-sided rules. Now, that does not mean I believe we need an eye for an eye. But, I will raise a fit if you tell me "Group A" can take an eye but "Group B" cannot. Then I become very indignant.
It's one of the reasons I hate PC lingo. Because too much gets wrapped up with terminology, symantics, mis-interpretation (ie: the accidentally leaving off of an "S" can change the meaning of the word "extremists" to "Muslim Countries" the failure to quantify every aspect against mis-interpretation becomes required. Attacks for symantics instead of the issues becomes the game. However, the most frustrating aspect is that the use of the same term by two different people can be acceptable for one and not the other. Based on the opposer's interpretation that because "subject 'x' is liberal they are a good person so i'll take it one way" and because "subject 'y' is conservative they are inherently evil and i must interpret their statement to the most extreme interpretation i can possibly understand it to be". Thus I will attack them for their extreme view (of which I've interpreted based on who they are of which I've labelled them because the simple point of the matter is they differ in viewpoint from what I do).
Second aspect I despise... "Oh, I didn't call them a name or anything...I just insinuated such in front of others. So as long as I don't do an action - I am in the right." Sorry....to most down to earth people it doesn't matter if you call some one an "arse" or simply state they "behave like an arse". Or in another fashion how much difference is their between saying "you're ugly" and you "look ugly". There could be, for instance if I said "you look ugly but you have the potential to appear beautiful" ...sure that's fine. But to simply try to differentiate from "you are ugly" and "you look ugly" one can't do such. And to change symantics to try to make one feel as if you have not insulted someone because you did so in a round-a-bout or intellectually stylized way.
Ie: Only an idiotic brainwashed moron would sky-dive! To tell that to someone who expressed that they sky-dive and then declare that you did not call them an idiotic moron is bull. You did...you're just justifying your actions with false garb.
The last part....we're all failures...we're all emotional...we all react.
I'll be the first to condemn myself for getting out of line, for ad-hominens, etc. Only so much push and pull on someone's emotions can be withstood...and yes...I got tired of all the righ-wing, evil conservative, brainwashed christian comments. So after a while I decided to wantanly throw out extremist liberal, leftist fanatic, etc. in response. Is it right, is it true, .... in truth, it's probably irrelevant. And also not so beneficial...leading to more heated tensions and more divisions. It's the typical human response...after being pushed enough times...push back.
*shrug*
On the flip side, I do endeavor to learn. Some of "LegalBeagle"'s recent posts lead me to research why we don't have 55mpg diesel minivans. And I discovered there were in deed reasons. Two main reasons...
1) Said vehicles do not pass the stringent emission regulations of many states, California in particular.
2) U.S. diesel has a higher sulfur content, which adds to the above failure.
The good news, I discovered that both issues are being improved. Come 2006 diesel sulfur levels are supposed to be reduced. They're already being phased in. Furthermore, several companies have improved emissions to meet today's and more importantly upcoming emissions (which are requiring 70-80+% reductions on certain emissions.
So it gets frustrated when you're condemned and made to be some sort of evil person (or a part of a larger evil whole) because you don't drive a 55 mpg car that's not available in your country because your country is endeavoring to reduce emissions of pollutants.
And when this seems to be going on unceasingly...and thread upon thread upon thread....it becomes very hard in the face of such unrelenting and condemning judgment NOT to lose grip on one's decency and simply retaliate with attitude in kind.
So...just sharing on why some of us get heatedly defensive. We're aware of problems. Many of them we're trying to fix or improve. But we know the problem is not us alone. And in truth, a lot of times it just comes across as "envy" on your parts. Especially when you don't show any shred of understanding toward us.
Sincerely,
Jason "The Saj" |
|
|
|
08/31/2005 09:43:29 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Are you saying that the US is the only country in the world to give disaster aid to foreign countries? Many countries give aid, and at times, give even more than the US. If you are measuring aid in money, then the average American spends $0.13 cents a day in government aid, where as some Scandanavian countries spend over $1.00 a day in aid.
|
Of course an entire country will give more money in aid than an individual person. |
|
|
|
08/31/2005 10:59:56 PM · #74 |
NDIANAPOLIS, Ind., Aug 31, 2005 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE: LLY) today announced that it will provide cash and medicines to assist in the recovery efforts underway in the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. The company will make a direct cash contribution of $1 million, and in addition will match dollar-for-dollar all contributions made by its U.S. employees to the American Red Cross.
Lilly also will donate $1 million in insulin to those in need in the affected areas, and will assess the appropriateness of donations of other medicines as the specific needs become clearer. All of the company's product donations will be coordinated through Heart to Heart and the American Red Cross.
"We have seen the pictures of devastation and we grieve for the victims of this disaster," said Sidney Taurel, Lilly's chairman, president and chief executive officer. "Starting today, with these donations of cash and life- saving insulin, Lilly will do whatever we can to ease the suffering of survivors and help the affected communities rebuild."
Taurel added that the company recognizes that this disaster will require a long-term commitment and therefore will continue to monitor the situation to determine how Lilly can best provide aid to survivors of this natural disaster.
Lilly, a leading innovation-driven corporation, is developing a growing portfolio of first-in-class and best-in-class pharmaceutical products by applying the latest research from its own worldwide laboratories and from collaborations with eminent scientific organizations. Headquartered in Indianapolis, Ind., Lilly provides answers -- through medicines and information -- for some of the world's most urgent medical needs. Additional information about Lilly is available at //www.lilly.com
I am positive more major corporations will be stepping up to the plate as well in the next few days and weeks.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2005 11:10:06 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by deapee:
I guarantee it's bush's fault. If Kerry was president, I wouldn't agree with a lot of things, but at least our soldiers would be here, safe...doing something for their own country instead of helping people that just hate us and suicide bomb us. |
our troops would not be home if kerry was president, not yet at least. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/22/2025 01:45:20 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/22/2025 01:45:20 PM EDT.
|
