Crap Throwing Monkey

I think you're the first to ever say that about anything in the history of this board.

Unless you want to talk about the federal governments failure over a decades-long span, it's irrelevent. Somebody, anybody...please tell me how the federal government was supposed to address the possibility of the levees being topped or breached 48 hours before the storm hit. And please do so keeping in mind that the federal government does not - can not, even - usurp the authority of local governments in these situations.

My sources at TBD told me that Alaska Darin has agreed to restructure his posts so he only has 11,000 of them. They also told me SDS is hiring Mike Sherman to run the board.

Just wondering...have any clowns balanced on beach balls or salmon proactively spawned in this argument yet? Give up, Coli. You're teaching a pig to sing here.

Hardly matters. The bottom line in this whole thing is: Americans are !@#$ing idiots.

Neither one's hotter. They're both equally nasty.

What's more...this "smoking gun" briefing, from everything I've heard, discusses the potential for the levees to be breached (and as a point of engineering: when earthen levees are topped, there's a reasonable expectation they'll also be breached. Water flowing down the backside of the levee makes quick work of it.) That's not "knowing" the levees would be breached; you can't know a possible future event will occur. And anyway...let's even assume the federal government "knew". They're supposed to do what, precisely? Order a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans? Oh, wait...THAT WAS DONE. Maybe order Nagin to cease the "evacuation in place" and literally evacuate the city...except the federal government doesn't have the authority to do that, as far as I know. Maybe they were supposed to rebuild the levees in the 48 hours before the hurricane hit? Little mention is made of any of the news reports the night after the storm passed, where reporters in New Orleans are saying "New Orleans dodged a bullet." Or of Nagin telling people going to the Superdome to bring supplies for 3-5 days, since that's how long it would take for relief to reach them.

I'll take door #3 please. Yeech. If that's what passes for "beauty" these days...

Then why did you say: What, you don't think he equates the two, you just say he does?

No, Ditka did that. New Orleans collectively went "What the !@#$?"

I'd do it. And it has nothing to do with my opinion of Losman. Hell, I'd trade my mother for that kind of deal...

...and one of Musharraf's beef's as president was with the Islamic militants in the ISI, which I understand is NOT happy about his attitude. And regardless, they're still a major domestic power broker.

I'm awesome for a marmot, too.

Wow. Way to completely miss his point. You're not related to Newbie, are you?

Not quite two years. Maybe 18 months or so. And Enron couldn't be pinned on Bush for the same reason Whitewater couldn't be pinned on the Clintons: neither actually did anything wrong. (Or at least Clinton didn't until he banged a fat broad...and lied about it...and got caught...and got impeached for it...which somehow fell under the Whitewater investigation. "Vast right wing conspiracy" my ass, that farce was a bad Monty Python skit.) Thus, the key difference. Clinton didn't have a 9/11. Bush did. American nature is to rally to support the office of the President regardless of the idiot occupying it in such times. And for all the Bush-bashing from the Democrats (and just considering the legitimate bashing - Bush is such a fool, I don't see why the Democrats insist on embellishing), it doesn't say a hell of a lot that they couldn't find a candidate to beat him. Bush and Kerry made Carter and Ford look appealing.

Wonder what's in his Room 101? Chinese clowns in parkas?

What, too proactive for you? It felt like a "dude" moment...

That would be flattering if it weren't for the fact that "awe" is not necessarily a positive thing...

Now see...ludicrous or not, you were at least holding yourself up with a measure of respectability. Then you had to go and post this. Now I have no choice but to laugh in your general direction.

Dude, while I truly respect and admire your dedication, courage, and even comportment in insisting on making these predictions in the face of adversity that is quite honestly largely of your own making...I also can't help but wonder if it's a sign of some deeper disturbances for which you might consider seeking help...

I can't start new topics. For me to do that would be proactive, and we all know now that the concept of "proactive" is just a fiction.

As I recall, with the exception of 9/11 and the immediate afterward, they were all over him. I hasten to add, though, that the press goes after everyone. The press went after Clinton with wild abandon, too. They'll no doubt go after Bush's successor. It has nothing to do with liberalism (and the press is generally liberal, I beleive), but ratings. I fail to see how those are mutually exclusive, frankly.

Interesting essay. I'll withhold comment (save to observe that more than a few people are going to take some of his statements as linking neo-conservatism with Zionism ) until I digest it more thoroughly.

I just want to say, for the record, that I dislike both Stern and Miller, and it's because I'm better than everyone.

Actually, my next response would be: do you make up math as you go along too? Of course, we already know you do. We've seen your geometry skills.