Contrary to popular left – wing belief, not all conservatives are knuckle – draggers, and are just as capable of nuance and subtlety, as Kerry and other liberals.

Why don t we try that system? Then, if anybody complains about how it s being handled, they ll get thrown into a dungeon, or get decapitated.

I’m sure you won’t get any argument from the crowd in Washington.

Political

09/07/2005 2 [...]

So the basic argument here appears to be that the Dems have posited a plan of action and the conservatives on this site are objecting to it on the basis that it’s too expensive (Frank) and that the Federal government shouldn’t have to pay for it since New Orleans is a high-risk town (Dugger).

Duggie, no one here has said that the Federal government should do everything. You suggested that New Orleans fend for itself since lack of Federal support may be insufficient to support funded housing for everyone. The housing issue came up when Frank objected to the Dems’ relief plan (the subject of this post, lest we forget) due to the fact that it would cause the aformentioned funded housing shortages.

I’m not objecting to New Orleans participating in and providing funding for its own recovery. I was objecting to the basis for your position that the government should not subsidize risks taken by others by pointing out that the government often does exactly that.

Now you are changing tack and implying that I am supporting unlimited Federal support when in fact, I have said no such thing. I simply disagree that the entire cost of providing for the victims of the flood should be borne by the people of New Orleans as you have suggested.

I agree with Sadie that the government has already spent billions in reconstructing a country in which it fought a foolish war for ever-shifting reasons; I also agree that it seems only fair that a fraction of that amount be spent on providing for Americans and reconstructing a formerly great American city. Do you disagree with that Duggie?

And Mousie, no one here has said that the Federal government should do nothing. Federalism permits a role for the Feds, states and local governemnts. But resources are limited and there must be some reasonable limit on the moral obligation of governments t sustain risky behaviour. Or do you disagree? Can a person do anything, no matter how costly and risky, and rely on the Federal (or state or local) governments to take money and resources from workers to bail him/her out – no matter the price. Keep in mind its fine for the Feds provide help but thats not the same as bottomless obligation to sustain risky behaviour – as was known well ahead of time. Thats why its up to the city of New Orleans to sustain themselve as far as making the city a safe, decent place to live. And that includes protection fro natural disater. After all, I have to buy flood insurance for my house. The US government nor the canadian governemnt gives me the money.

Dugger, Still UNCOMFORTABLE due to Mousie’s Vicious Hate Speech Attack

Calling Dugger,  Bugger ? How adult of you, Mouse& Way to gain rhetorical points!

Take a pill, avenging angel, and simmer down. Dug has taken to misspelling or changing my name for the past few days, Herr Mouse, Fraulein Mouse, Maus, Mouse Brown etc…I assume it’s all in good fun and playing along (Duggie, Duggie Poo etc). It doesn’t appear to be bothering him, and it certainly hasn’t been bothering me. If I’m wrong about this, I’m sure that Dugger has the wherewithal to defend himself ably.

As for rhetorical points, I wasn’t trying to make any. I was making an actual point based on actual facts.

Seriously, get over yourself.

Does this mean that anyone living in areas prone to hurricanes, droughts or earthquakes should simply fend for themselves as well?

And are you saying that the people of New Orleans should figure out a way to take care of themselves now?

Now, if you have a real question, which requires a real answer, ask it…
However, I have to go out in a few minutes and will not return until 5:00 PM (EST). I have no time for foolishness…

Calling Dugger, “Bugger”? How adult of you, Mouse… Way to gain rhetorical points!

By the way, I guess your idea of fair is that since Bush’s administration knew the hurricane was coming, he’s criminally incompetent, but the Louisiana state officials and the City of New Orleans officials, possessing the same information, were helpless, and get a pass…

You can’t get past your religious hate can you. What does my religious faith have to do with anything? BTW Bush is THE LEADER of the country. Don’t you hate democracy? Sorry if that impels you to Landrieu-like violence – the typical liberal response.

And Maus, you missed the point completely. The question could just as easily apply to farmers or busboys or donut makers. Why should we force our citizens to work harder (at the point of a gun) to subsidize somebody living in a city that has been conclusively demonstrated as risky? Why not say that if YOU CHOOSE to live in this risky place, we will not bail you out when the trouble that we are telling you WILL come, comes? Why? Why? Work harder farmer. Work harder mechanic. Work harder roofer. People want to live in the Big Easy.

Dugger

We have a disaster in New Orleans. It would be better for the responsible government activity to be in (A) New Orleans (on site) or (B) Wash DC? (1,000 miles away)?

The answer is actually (C) a coordinated response involving the city, the state and federal government.

As there was advance notice about Katrina, all branches of government had time to prepare. And because of Katrina’s severity, it was necessary that all levels of government coordinate emergency preparedness and response.

The plan PDF is now available to view. Go google it and see what the federal government was responsible for after all. (I’ll find my link later and post it if time permits).

Only please please don’t tell me Bush is a “leader.” Please don’t tell me he is a person who is “keeping our country safe.” Because if you can say that after everything that’s happened, I’m gonna hafta reach through this computer screen and throttle you.

No just order the stationery.

So you ignoreed the point about federalism. Pretended it doesn’t exist. Pretend there is no such thing as delegation of powers. Its all Bush. Well how about this plain common sense question? Which makes more sense. We have a disaster in New Orleans. It would be better for the responsible government activity to be in (A) New Orleans (on site) or (B) Wash DC? (1,000 miles away)?

That clock is ticking.

BRRRRRNT. Thats Beulah the buzzer. If you answered New Orleans, you are correct!

Dugger Trebek

Why should a poor farmer in Iowa or a busboy in New York City have to work even harder to subsidize somebody who chooses to live in a more risky city?

Oh Duggie, you’re so cute when you’re so wrong.

As we near the end of the costliest decade in the 70-year history of government farm subsidies…taxpayers have spent more than $131 billion on federal farm programs over the past nine years. The total includes $16.4 billion spent during 2003, the fourth highest amount over the nine years and a 27 percent increase over 2002.

Guess what primarily drove the increase. C’mon, just a quick guess off the top of your pretty little head.

Surges in disaster payments.

It appears that it’s the rest of America that’s working harder to subsidize farmers. (But your busboy example still stands though. No one appears to be subsidizing busboys experiencing natural disasters.)

So, by your logic, people should be free to live on farms but if they choose to do so, they should be required to look after themselves, pay their own way- via their own state government.

While we’re at it, how about eliminating oil subsidies. Recently, oil companies received billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies in the recent energy bill (at a time when oil executives received the largest pay increases of any group of executives).

So it seems that in America today, it is commonplace to subsidize risks taken by others. So if your suggestion is that all subsidies should stop then you’re not actually arguing this thread. You’re arguing for a libertarian approach to government and that is an entirely different discussion.

Now go back and copy those letters again; this time, make sure you’re writing from left to right, OK? That’s a good human!

Dugger, Bad Christian or Hater of the Poor? Or both?

Dugger, I just wanted to clear things up because I have always heard this place referred to as the United States of America. If you think the name ought to be changed to the Every-man-for-himself States of America, we need to talk about this because someone is going to have to order some new letterhead.

The reason I wanted to know about your religious identification is because I am a Christian, and I carry a special grudge for those who defile the name of that faith. If you don’t advertise yourself as a Christian you have nothing to worry about from me on that count.

And BTW what in the wide wide world of sports would my religion or lack thereof have to do with anything? Do you have something against Christians? Are you a Christian -o-phobe? A Christian hater? My arguments are what they are regardless of faith, color or creed. I thought liberals and progressives were supposed to be inclusive and open minded. Sheesh.

Dugger, who copied all the letters in a big round hand

Explain, please, why the burden should fall on New Orleans alone and not the nation as a whole.

(And by the way do you happen to consider yourself a Christian? Because I have a special place in my heart for wingnuts who think they are Christian.)