Katrina

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:34 am

A genuine, if unintentionally hilarious, TV news graphic:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/katrina/disaster.asp

RedShoes · Post by **RedShoes** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 1:59 am

Thanks for that, Noise.

so lacklustre · Post by **so lacklustre** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 4:21 am

Great shot, even if it ain't real.

Why do you go on about the gay thing? Does it bother you? Do your original comments bother you? Would you do the same to a gay poster who posted that they fancied a celeb who you suspected of being heterosexual?

Mr. Average · Post by **Mr. Average** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 10:48 pm

Thank you, MBA and BlueChair for the references and for setting straight my misquided remarks in response to a message from Thomasso.

Clearly, I sometimes react to quickly to the flood of anti-US sentiment that has become so easy to register. I love my country, recognize that it is far from perfect, but thank God that I am a citizen and that I am working hard to make this a better place. My comments about the Canadian response, while reactionary to yet another post from Thomasso that frustrated me, were naive.

Again, thanks for the reference articles. I stand corrected.

Extreme Honey · Post by **Extreme Honey** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 11:01 pm

It's Extreme Honey. And I'm happy they aggrivated you.

Post by **BlueChair** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:17 pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9311876/

Post by **spooky girlfriend** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:14 pm

Brownie's outta there. . . . .

From CNN:

BREAKING NEWS

AP: Mike Brown says he has resigned as director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Details soon

Mr. Average · Post by **Mr. Average** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:26 pm

It should be a package deal with the putz heading Homeland Security. Is it not amazing that there are so few quality candidates for these important jobs, or are there quality candidates, but we just don't knw who they are.

Would it not make sense that someone who was once involved in Special Forces prepparedness and training would be a good candidate? They are trained to handle a situation with speed, stealth, and see it thtrough to its defined conclusion.

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:27 pm

so lacklustre wrote:Great shot, even if it ain't real.

Why do you go on about the gay thing? Does it bother you? Do your original comments bother you? Would you do the same to a gay poster who posted that they fancied a celeb who you suspected of being heterosexual?

1. It is real. That's why it's funny. It was paraphrasing Bush's quote about the hurricane. But the way it's done is very very funny. Look again at the Sno[pes page, and it will explain the veracity of the picture.

2. Yes, I'd let a gay board member know that the object of their affection was straight. I figure they might like to know. Does that bother you? if so, see #3.

3. My comments don't bother me at all.

Who Shot Sam? · Post by **Who Shot Sam?** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:28 pm

Mr. Average wrote:Would it not make sense that someone who was once involved in Special Forces prepparedness and training would be a good candidate? They are trained to handle a situation with speed, stealth, and see it thtrough to its defined conclusion.

You would think that they would have chosen someone like that, but instead political cronyism came back to bite Bush in the ass.

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:30 pm

Political cronyism bites every president in the butt because they all do it. They may not all get bitten as spectacularly as Bush is right now, but most Cabinet members in any administration are unqualified for their jobs.

Who Shot Sam? · Post by **Who Shot Sam?** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:33 pm

noiseradio wrote:Political cronyism bites every president in the butt because they all do it. They may not all get bitten as spectacularly as Bush is right now, but most Cabinet members in any administration are unqualified for their jobs.

Yes, but Bush appears to have made an art form out of it. Brown was spectacularly unqualified. James Lee Witt was a terrific FEMA director, and he was a Clinton appointee. Leave the cronyism for ambassadorships in Liechtenstein and the like, where the morons can't hurt anyone.

The Dems are at fault here too IMO. Someone in the Bush administration probably said he would support some highway project if the Dems allowed Brownie to slip through no questions asked. The whole system's rotten to the core.

Am I starting to sound like Ralph Nader?

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:44 pm

You and me both.

verena · Post by **verena** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:42 pm

I also think that the above mentionned appointment was the dumbest of rotten decisions. We all know that appointment are rarely fair, but at least power people are expected (for others' sake and their own) to choose decently competent guys.

More generally I think that in a certain way the U.S.A. system got what it deserved (not saying that I find it all bad).The good news is that the people are taking a hard look at it now.
(As if the hardest of blows had the brightest of sides).

Please kindly what means IMO ?

Extreme Honey · Post by **Extreme Honey** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:41 pm

verena wrote:I also think that the above mentionned appointment was the dumbest of rotten decisions. We all know that appointment are rarely fair, but at least power people are expected (for others' sake and their own) to choose decently competent guys.

More generally I think that in a certain way the U.S.A. system got what it deserved (not saying that I find it all bad).The good news is that the people are taking a hard look at it now.
(As if the hardest of blows had the brightest of sides).

Please kindly what means IMO ?

What do you mean? This is Bush's dream. Free Oil from 3rd world nation+ Higher oil costs due to damage + Oil needed to reconstruct city + Charities already doing the job for him = Bush with a hell of a lot more cash.

Who Shot Sam? · Post by **Who Shot Sam?** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:07 pm

verena wrote:(As if the hardest of blows had the brightest of sides).

Talk about mixed metaphors!

IMO = in my opinion

Mr. Average · Post by **Mr. Average** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:10 pm

Extreme Honey wrote:
What do you mean? This is Bush's dream. Free Oil from 3rd world nation+ Higher oil costs due to damage + Oil needed to reconstruct city + Charities already doing the job for him = Bush with a hell of a lot more cash.

Well, without expending too much energy debunking your silly equation, Extreme Humpty, the first variable in the equation is false. There is no free oil flowing from a third world nation. This is one of the most amazing distortions that the simple-minded love to hold to. If you argue that the war is positioned in IRAQ because of the proximity to major oil sources, I might be able to accept that as a plausible argument, but I wouldn't buy it (no pun intended). There may be a motive to ensure that access to some of the largest oil reserves in the world is not hindered by the whims of a mad dictator (I almost expect that you defend Saddam as a victim). Oil as an energy source is ALREADY beginning to diminish as a reliable source for the long term. We've already crested the peak. Alternative energy sources are the only solution for the future needs of our children.

Funny thing about ex Presidents. They never ever ever need to worry about money for them or their family for he rest of their lifes. So the motive for Bush to try to amass a greater fortune while under intense public scrutiny is just too much for me to buy into. It goes back to that same old argument: either Bush is a shrewd, calculated, evil man whose greed sets the cadence for everything he does, or he is a bit less sharp, a bit challenged, and genuinely has a big heart that competes with any ability to critically think things through.

Which is he? An idiot or a shrewd businessman who will do anything to increase his net worth. Pick one, then stick with it.

Who Shot Sam? · Post by **Who Shot Sam?** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:12 pm

Mr. Average wrote:Which is he? An idiot or a shrewd businessman who will do anything to increase his net worth. Pick one, then stick with it.

I'll pick the first one!

alexv · Post by **alexv** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:31 pm

So Lack and Noise: on the gay identifying debate, do we really have to hold noise to the same standard of disclosure if a lesbian board member pointed out that she found Krall to be a "hottie"? Since even today, a very small percentage of our population is gay, wouldn't Noise rightfully conclude that the saphic poster would know (without much digging) that she of the large jaw has no lesbian leanings, and therefore there would be no need for him to point out to her that the object of her affections would not reciprocate. The saphic admirer could by the way still find a femme Krall to be "hot" and satisfy herself with imagining what would happen if.... There is no reason why persons with one sexual orientation can't find persons of other sexual orientation(s) attractive. In the case of Gloria's baby boy, the fact that he may be gay, puts him in the definite minority, one about which information is sometimes hard to come by, and often hidden, and it might be appropriate for Noise to let the hetero poster know that, hey, by the way your boy is gay (not that there's anything wrong with that). This fact may still not deter the admirer from lusting after Mr. Cooper, but Noise could still feel that he provided useful information to the hetero poster,not otherwise commonly known, and that he did not need to be as helpful to the lesbian counterpart.

so lacklustre · Post by **so lacklustre** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:07 am

If it doesn't matter, why mention it at all?

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:26 am

So lack,

Are you just picking fights for the hell of it? It's information in the public domain. I mentioned it because I thought it might be of interest. And in fact, Little Martinet responded with "can we get confirmation on this," which may indicate the factoid was in point of fact interesting to her. The only one making a big deal out of this is you.

miss buenos aires · Post by **miss buenos aires** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:24 am

so lacklustre wrote:If it doesn't matter, why mention it at all?

Because gossiping releases opiates in the brain. Which is as good a reason as any.

so lacklustre · Post by **so lacklustre** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:35 am

I'm not picking fights with anyone. My last post was in response to alexv. My original questions were answered, The reason I asked them was because I thought your comment an odd one to make. You have answered, who's picking a fight big nose!

Goody2Shoes · Post by **Goody2Shoes** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:41 am

miss buenos aires wrote:
Because gossiping releases opiates in the brain. Which is as good a reason as any.

Really? Is there proof of this? 'Cause I'm looking for a way to kick my heroin habit, and I think I could really go in for this.

mood swung · Post by **mood swung** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:50 am

then you come sit by me.