pics you wont see on TV

[jochhejaam]

BTW JOCK FU and pardon the spelling I can't type when I'm pissed

The spelling doesn't bother me nor does the FU.

Profanity directed at someone who disagrees with your position is indication of a lack of intelligence.

[hussker]

I think it would be refreshing if people would be willing to concede just a little when they turn this into a political debate. For example, I'm not a fan of the President, but I don't think he's racist and I don't think he took a callous toward New Orleans because it's mostly poor and black and I don't think he was disappointed about having to end (yet another) vacation to step in and try to get a handle on this.

By the same token if those of you who do like Bush would admit, just once in a while, that he's human and fallible, it would make it easier for people like me to admit that he possesses some positive qualities, like compassion and intelligence.

Here's what I'm getting at. One of the big revelations of this whole thing is that Michael Brown, who Bush appointed to head FEMA as a political favor, is wholly, woefully unqualified. Can you at least admit that it was terribly short-sighted of the President to appoint a man who had zero emergency management experience to head up an agency that might, in case a hurricane hit the Gulf coast, need to be expertly run? Are you willing to admit that if the right person had been in that position, things might have turned out a little bit differently?

I absolutely agree with that. And I am non-partisan, indeed. Best man/woman for the job. I just think it is a travesty when people begin finger pointing and blaming govt agencies for lack of action. I do give credit to the Mayor for the proactivity... he was proactive.

BUT...proactivity by one demands reactivity by others. Once there is no reactivity, then the proactive forces must FOLLOW UP. Most often left out step in any leadership role, regardless of the level, is the FOLLOW UP.

As far as bringing in Judeo-Christian ethics and morality, Jesus not only led, was not only proactive as God incarnate, but also followed up. He and the Father also hold people accountable for action/lack of action. I understand that certainly. Loving unconditionally does not mean ignoring lack of action or accountability. I will leave it at that.

Remember, God loves the Sinner but He hates the sin. Perhaps when some of us see what is going on and the behavior patterns of the refusees, we get locked into a "projection" mode.

Government is corrupt at nearly every level. Since the 1920's, Government has tried to play "Big Brother" and has left millions helpless.

If your parents hold your hand to cross the street everyday (figuratively speaking) until you are 21, you don't magically wake up as an adult and become able to do it yourself.

Government has created a vast amount of helpless people. BUT, this did not begin with this administration. It has festered for decades. Too much handholding indeed.

They can claim "no child left behind" but there are generations left way back.

As an aside, when debating, keep control of the emotions. Emotions are liars. They certainly block objectivity.

On these boards, we also miss the non verbals which make up most of the communicative process as we know it. I may write something in one tone and you may take it in another. I can do nothing about that. If there is a hint of sarcasm, you will miss it, as I will with you in your typed words.

Be healthy!

Hussker

[NiNi]

I I want people that have never seen bodies
like these to see them, maybe then they will help create so much H
that the next time a hurrican hits, people will get thier together.

EXACTLY. Alot of people are blaming the refugees poor choice not to evacuate for the number dead, I do hate that so many people lost their lives but pictures like these help us learn from past mistakes. Hopefully, people who might later be asked to evacuate will suddenly see flash backs of these horrible pictures and get the out. No one wants to end up like these people did.

[RandomGuy]

As far as bringing in Judeo-Christian ethics and morality, Jesus not only led, was not only proactive as God incarnate, but also followed up. He and the Father also hold people accountable for action/lack of action. I understand that certainly. Loving unconditionally does not mean ignoring lack of action or accountability. I will leave it at that.

Actually, loving unconditionally means ignoring lack of action or accountability. It is not your place to judge. Jesus would have extended a hand to the most depraved of looters, because it was the right thing to do. He basically said as much on numerous occasions.

Perhaps if you are ever on a ship and are "stupid" enough to refuse to fall into the ocean, you would prefer the ship not stop for you?

[RandomGuy]

Government is corrupt at nearly every level. Since the 1920's, Government has tried to play "Big Brother" and has left millions helpless.

If your parents hold your hand to cross the street everyday (figuratively speaking) until you are 21, you don't magically wake up as an adult and become able to do it yourself.

Government has created a vast amount of helpless people. BUT, this did not begin with this administration. It has festered for decades. Too much handholding indeed.

Hussker

Not sure I can argue with unsubstantiated dogma, but I can give it a whack.

Define "helpless".

I would put forth that government run programs have helped hundreds of millions of people at one point or another. It is simple investment in the most basic economic infrastructure: people.

Did the GI bill make all those veterans "helpless"? I didn't feel that way when I was taking advantage of it.

Does unemployment insurance make people helpless? Or does it keep people from being evicted if they lose a job and can't make the rent? The cost to society of NOT helping is FAR greater than ANY cheating of the system.

Pfft.

Your assertions of "helplessness" have no basis in fact, and I challenge you to find any.

[RandomGuy]

On these boards, we also miss the non verbals which make up most of the communicative process as we know it. I may write something in one tone and you may take it in another. I can do nothing about that. If there is a hint of sarcasm, you will miss it, as I will with you in your typed words.

Be healthy!

Hussker

Yup. I try to add in an occasional elipse and an emoticon or two. Reading things outloud to one's self usually helps. Not recommended for internet cafes...
Proof-reading something once through catches most of it.

[Sense]

WTF is up with that website.

[The Ressurrected One]

More pictures you won't see on T.V.

[Nbadan]

Here are some more pictures you won't see on TV







You won't see these pictures on TV because the people in the pics aren't looters, or snipers, or rapists or anything else but hard working Americans, and if there is anything the GOP leadership fears most is the day it can no longer divide the populous low-class with fear of each other.

[Jelly]

Those were nice pictures Dan. Why do you have to spoil everything by injecting your partisan cynicism and hatred? Seriously.
And, by the way, the kind of people that would never want those pictures to be shown are the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

[hussker]

Those were nice pictures Dan. Why do you have to spoil everything by injecting your partisan cynicism and hatred? Seriously.
And, by the way, the kind of people that would never want those pictures to be shown are the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

[hussker]

Actually, loving unconditionally means ignoring lack of action or accountability. It is not your place to judge. Jesus would have extended a hand to the most depraved of looters, because it was the right thing to do. He basically said as much on numerous occasions.

Perhaps if you are ever on a ship and are "stupid" enough to refuse to fall into the ocean, you would prefer the ship not stop for you?

Sure...So what you are saying is that Jesus never held anyone accountable? Read your scriptures and I think you will find that is far from true, specifically in the gospels. Check out the behavior in the temples! That is what I call tough love and holding folks accountable.

And I have not "judged", as that is not my place to do so. If you find that I have, then call me on that. I have the right and obligation to judge situations, but no right to judge "people" for their choices. I do, however, believe in acknowledging accountability for those in leadership positions when they are charged to act. Why? I vote and exercise my voice that way (which many on here probably do not, due to age or complacency). As a voter, I hold elected officials to the highest of standards, whether I live in their precincts/parishes/counties/states...whatever you wish to call it. It insults us as cons uents when they fail to act in our best interests.

Again, another example of taking things out of context and trying to apply different points of view sans the whole. Another reason why boards like this do not really breed intellectual conversation. It is all typically one-way with no agreement to disagree, as is the typical "in-person" debate during retorts.
You can use your own intellect to discern what you think to be true and follow your ideology. I will likewise. That is the inalienable freedom of choice we have as humans. Whether or not we agree or disagree, we should agree that it is fine to do so. I will likely never change minds and mine will likely remain unchanged by you.

God Bless,
Hussker

[jochhejaam]

Actually, loving unconditionally means ignoring lack of action or accountability. It is not your place to judge. Jesus would have extended a hand to the most depraved of looters, because it was the right thing to do. He basically said as much on numerous occasions.

Actually loving unconditionally and ignoring lack of action/accountability have nothing in common. I love my children unconditionally but that certainly doesn't mean I'm going to ignore their lack of accountability. How would that be beneficial? In life I am accountable to God for what I say and what I do. He doesn't ignore what i say or do and I wouldn't want him to. At work I am accountable for the same thing. Always, every day, I am doing and saying things for which I am accountable.

[ObiwanGinobili]

But it's just plain wrong (and quite frankly, pointless) to blame the victims themselves, as Hussker has done. It's also crudely elitist to suggest the average hurricane victim is so stupid he or she will spend his or her FEMA money on high-end electronics rather than food, clothing, and other necessities.

i couldn't agree with you more.
Infact all the interviews with debit card recipients on the local and national news that I have seen would go along with that.
I can rember specificaly 2 interviews - #1 was a single mom here in SA who said that she was going to get some interview clothing for herslef, a via bus pass, and a small tv from a pawn store to keep her son occupied at the shelter while she was out looking for a job. SHe said she was going to sock the rest away for "really bad times"
#2 was a man who said he would use it to get some work/interview clothes , a littel food and basicly hold onto the rest while he tried to set up a new life for himself. Whne asked by the reporter if he felt tempted at all to buy a few "comfort" items the man quickly responded "no". Saying that there was no practical need or that right now seeing as how that debit card was all he had to his name. "there will be time for that kinda stuff later on..."

[2centsworth]

Actually, loving unconditionally means ignoring lack of action or accountability. It is not your place to judge. Jesus would have extended a hand to the most depraved of looters, because it was the right thing to do. He basically said as much on numerous occasions.

Perhaps if you are ever on a ship and are "stupid" enough to refuse to fall into the ocean, you would prefer the ship not stop for you?

At least support your argument with scripture.

[RandomGuy]

And I have not "judged", as that is not my place to do so. If you find that I have, then call me on that. I have the right and obligation to judge situations, but no right to judge "people" for their choices. I do, however, believe in acknowledging accountability for those in leadership positions when they are charged to act.
God Bless,
Hussker

I love it when people ask me to hoist them by their own pe ...

Let me see if I understand...'what?". I am assuming you are not my age, so, my friend, that is your tax bill as well. Remember to ask the refusees you see toting their new plasma tv's they purchased from Best Buy with their new debit cards if you can help give a hand. Sorry, but there should have been a quick financial responsibility class before handing out 2K, more than some of these folks paid in taxes themselves last yr.

Your implication is that they should not be helped. What they do with the money is not your concern. They are adults and should be treated as such. Some will always make poor choices, and that is out of our hands.

BUT

They should be helped nonetheless.


I am not talking about not holding people accountable for their actions, on that I agree.

I AM talking about providing assistance if asked for or needed. Sure, any system can and is cheated, but far and away the money spent is well spent on those who need it.

I am all about cost to benefit. If it costs an extra 10% for those who cheat, so be it. I can hang with helping people. Again, not that we shouldn't hold cheaters accountable or try to mimimize such, but let's not let the actions of a few stop us from helping the mul ude.

We are closer than you might think on this...

[RandomGuy]

Sure...So what you are saying is that Jesus never held anyone accountable? Read your scriptures and I think you will find that is far from true, specifically in the gospels. Check out the behavior in the temples! That is what I call tough love and holding folks accountable.

Again, I agree.

But to transfer that to the present event, we can both agree that the looters should be held accountable for the looting. This is consistant with what Jesus did in the temple, and is pretty much common sense.

What I see you as saying is that we shouldn't help them if they were refused or were unable through no fault of their own to leave. I think this is a fair assertion.

I say that we should help them, and that it is only moral that we do so. You don't want to admit that unconditional help is the moral thing, because you want to feel somehow superior to them. I can understand that very common human failing, and it is one we all fall into at one time or another.

BUT

The life preservers on ships are there for a reason.

I would go further to quote from the Quran on this:
The prophet Mohammed was asked after a battle by one of his lieutenants (Mohammed was a general, by the way) "What is the greatest war you have ever fought in?" His reply: "The greatest war is the war against one's lower self."

Money is only money and a material thing. Helping people is beyond materiality and a moral duty.

[RandomGuy]

At least support your argument with scripture.

Heh, I am the type of liberal that doesn't get a lot of press. ;^)

I have clear rational or moral reasoning for favoring liberalism over conservatism, and that makes people on both ends of the spectrum nervous...

In all honesty, I am more of a centrist, but the radicals that have taken over conservatism these days make me seem like a card-carrying member of the communist party. More information than y'all probably wanted, but there it is.

(edited a spelling error)

[RandomGuy]

(note: RG was an intel analyst for the army during the first gulf war, and knows a *bit* about Islam and Iraq as well, not trying to brag, merely to clarify what the heck I am about)

[The Ressurrected One]

(note: RG was an intel analyst for the army during the first gulf war, and knows a *bit* about Islam and Iraq as well, not trying to brag, merely to clarify what the heck I am about)

Intel analysts are a dime a dozen; and, you guys disagree with one another too. Doesn't mean much...

Not trying to burst your bubble of self-importance, merely clarifying.

[RandomGuy]

Intel analysts are a dime a dozen; and, you guys disagree with one another too. Doesn't mean much...

Not trying to burst your bubble of self-importance, merely clarifying.

(shrugs)

It means that I have studied middle eastern politics, culture, and religion. I personally like to keep current on these topics even though I am out of the service 12 years now.

You are 100% right that it doesn't make me infallible.

As for not meaning much, it means that I likely know more than you do.

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her cir stances, or her actions is made (or the character, cir stances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, cir stances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

[The Ressurrected One]

(shrugs)

It means that I have studied middle eastern politics, culture, and religion. I personally like to keep
current on these topics even though I am out of the service 12 years now.

You are 100% right that it doesn't make me infallible.

As for not meaning much, it means that I likely know more than you do.

Use of the word "likely" is the only thing that saves your statement from being totally refutable. But, as has already been shown in another thread (thinking we only discovered Schumacher-Levy 9 moments before it struck Jupiter), your ability to "keep current" on the topics of your interest is, at best, dubious.

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of
some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this
fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her
cir stances, or her actions is made (or the character, cir stances, or actions of the person reporting
the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in
question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, cir stances, or actions
of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made
(or the quality of the argument being made).

Okay, again, nice googling. But, you fail to concede that it is not an Ad Hominem attack if the argument follows this template:

1. Person A makes a completely unsubstantiated claim X.
2. Person B disproves or, adequately calls into question, the veracity and legitimacy of claim X, and then calls person A and idiot for forwarding such nonsense.
3. Therefore, person A's claim X is false and they are still an idiot.

[xrayzebra]

Did the GI bill make all those veterans "helpless"? I didn't feel that way when I was taking advantage of it.

Does unemployment insurance make people helpless?

In both instances cited above, the person earned his benefit and had to work to obtain both the education and unemployment insurance. Both were only temporary, limited benefits, with a time limit in drawing the benefit. Welfare is not earned and has no time limits. Hence, generations of families have drawn benefits and continue to draw them and clamor for more.

[RandomGuy]

Use of the word "likely" is the only thing that saves your statement from being totally refutable. But, as has already been shown in another thread (thinking we only discovered Schumacher-Levy 9 moments before it struck Jupiter), your ability to "keep current" on the topics of your interest is, at best, dubious.

You mean the thread where you completely didn't understand plain english, tried for a "gotcha" on me, and simply ended up looking like an idiot?

[RandomGuy]

In both instances cited above, the person earned his benefit and had to work to obtain both the education and unemployment insurance. Both were only temporary, limited benefits, with a time limit in drawing the benefit. Welfare is not earned and has no time limits. Hence, generations of families have drawn benefits and continue to draw them and clamor for more.

Unsubstantiated bullpuckey, and factually incorrect.

The "welfare" you are talking about ended under Bill Clinton's welfare reform bill.
It and and what was known as "food stamps" changed markedly. "Welfare" became "Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)". It has a limited total lifetime benefit, and a limited length of benefit at any one time. Almost all states require some form of job training or counseling to qualify for receiving it, and in a good number of states the amount of monthly benefit is only a FRACTION of the federal poverty level. Food stamps changed in very similar ways as well.

I would also ask: Find a statistical study that says that the majority (or even a sizable minority) of recipients of this aid are "helpless" to any degree.

I suppose those who fall off boats need to "earn" a lifepreserver before you would throw them one?