Off Topic Messages

Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:30 pm

I care very much what they think.

If only they didn't think or lacked the ability to do so .....

Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:22 pm

Hey Steve_M did you catch my apology to you?

I was thinking since you request me to give an apology to the Doc, I was wondering...why hasn't he even bothered to ask?

I am not above apologizing, if he asks me to do so. Up to this point, he hasn't even menitioned that he feels offended by me personally. I wonder if he would return in kind.

Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:59 pm

Oh not really Genesim, I didn't recognise it as such.

That's why I said perhaps. It wasn't a request for you to apologise either to me the Doc or anyone for that matter. An apology has to come from within because you want to not because anyone else thinks you should or wants you to.
I don't say you should apologise i just felt that it was right, or rather maybe what I would have done. But that doesn't mean I think right or correctly and you don't, it's just our individual perspective and how we feel and how we both have an opinion on what we think deserves an apology and what doesn't.

The Doc doesn't need to ask for you to apologise. The Doc doesn't need not to ask either.

It's down to you and whether you feel you want to or should.

Thu Sep 08, 2005 1:53 am

I don't agree with that at all. If the person doesn't feel offended...then how could I possibly know it warranted the action?

Now you accuse me of not meaning what I said. Well I mean in all sincerity that I wasn't trying to put you down as a person. I acted out of anger because you dismissed all the thoughts that I tried to communicate to you. The rest of it was me playing the symantics game...which did get quite boring. Rainman I am not.

So yes, if you didn't take my apology, I don't know what else I can possibly say. I truly didn't mean that you were a condescending fool and I am apologizing for it.

Thu Sep 08, 2005 6:13 am

I'm a-staying apolitical on this board.

But I'd like to point out that the National Geographic had an amazing article on what was going to happen - published in its October 2004!!! issue!!!


And Popular Mechanics published an article on September 11, 2001!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ... 82151.html


I'm sure there are more similar magazine articles and newspaper features which may surface.

All the Powers That Be knew this was going to happen. It was not a question of "if" but "when". I think there is plenty of blame for every level of government AND the people who lived there.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:21 pm

Gregory Nolan Jr wrote:
I just hope we realize that we are still vulnerable to attack even now.
And the way the Gulf response went, I hope you've all got a full
tank of gas (if you can spring for it), extra water, guns :shock: , non-perishable food, etc. etc.

Time for full-scale Survivalist Mode! :shock:

Seriously, I'm going to get ready. 2008 is a long way off anyway.

We can't vote that bum out the way we would in say, the U.K. :wink:

Given the above comments Greg I'd suggest the candidate you support in '08 be a second amendment proponent.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:26 pm

You might be right on that Pete. At the same time, New Orleans
was arguably a basket case because you had so many "gang
bangers" running around locked and loaded.

I'm sure the New Orleans debacle has "black helicoptor" /
survialist folks in places like Iowa stocked to the nines, if they
aren't already.

Living in a city seems like an especially bad bet.

I read a funny line (I forget it) somewhere from a guy in San Francisco
who's already plotting his survival because he knows the government
reaction to the inevitable earthquake ain't going to be that

P.S. Good articles, Ohnono!

Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:37 pm

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:You might be right on that Pete. At the same time, New Orleans
was arguably a basket case because you had so many "gang
bangers" running around locked and loaded.

Yeah, but the alternative (banning firearms) wouldn't necessarily prevent the gang-bangers from having them. It would only take away from law-abiding citizens the means to protect themselves and defend their property from these vermin.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:52 pm

Yeah, that's true.

But I still think the US is way over-armed.
It's a pity we let that happen. It's astounding how violent
we are say, compared to U.S.- comparable states in Europe.

It's not even news anymore for someone to be shot in the
street, at least not nationally.

Things that would have been settled with a fist fight sometimes
result in a gun-slaying.

A good middle-ground is gun registration. Let the cops (who largely
endorse this) go after the illegally-armed thugs.

I also don't need mental cases getting guns.
Last edited by Gregory Nolan Jr. on Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 7:07 pm

Let the cops (who largely endorse this) go after the illegally-armed thugs.

Amen to that. I believe in giving cops the once over on a daily basis about cracking down on armed thugs. You gotta gun in your holster..use it. Instead of running to Vegas like the local Cops in New Orleans did. I remember they showed one day of the supposed "enforcement" then zip...they went home.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 7:11 pm

I completely agree with you Greg. I'm not an NRA zealot, and think that gun registration, waiting periods, and close scrutiny of gun dealerships are good things.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 7:13 pm

Wow, a sane 2nd Amendment advocate. Great, Pete!

Well, Genesim, in fairness to the New Orleans cops, i read they were overwhelmed (and outgunned);
had nowhere to put criminals, and also lost their own homes and
suddenly thought about their families, too.

Still, all around, a pure all-American debacle. :oops:

Fri Sep 09, 2005 7:50 pm

Right...too bad that we you are sworn to protect and serve that it should also include when it isn't just romper room time.

The reason they were "outgunned" was because the right phone calls were not being made. As it stands there could have been a number of things done, without them cowering back home. The citizens needed their help and that is their it or not!

Fri Sep 09, 2005 8:01 pm

Some have tried to compare it to New York's police and fire departments
(putting aside their own power stuggles) in terms of going head on
into the burning buildings, etc on September 11, 2001, but then Brooklyn,Queens, the Bronx, Staten Island and the rest of Manhattan,
let alone New Jersey was not hit. That's a huge difference.

Interesting front page article in today's New York Times : ... r=homepage

Political Issues Snarled Plans for Military Help After Hurricane
Last edited by Gregory Nolan Jr. on Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 8:27 pm

Dude that is old news. Governer Blanco herself has stated that she refused help from George Bush and to this day will not let him take over command of the National in short.

Bush could not make any decisions about the National Guard or the Active duty millitary when it came to the states safety. He is at the mercy of the governer.

After all these posts you still don't seem to get that the State Governer is in charge..not the president. It is in the constitution.

If she wanted more troops then it is up to her to get them. There was never a refusal on the part of the president. There have been more then enough National Guard across the country but the pleas were simply never sent out for many states. Furthermore with 14.4 thousand daily troops coming in since Bush had landed, I just don't see how he can even be criticized.

Actually the problem now is that there is too much help causing conflict. It is sad because now they are just bumbing into each other. Someone should have coordinated instead of polliticizing which is basically due to the ineptness of local government.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:17 pm

How is that old news? This is today's New York Times front page.

Maybe they should hire you.

As the story indicates, many factors were in play and Bush
could have done more. To reduce it to just being Governor
Blanco's problem by this time seems really partisan. By the
way, "Brownie," the inexperienced head of FEMA, was just removed from the New Orleans effort and sent back to D.C. Here's to his firing
along with that of "Homeland Security" honcho Chertoff.

Here's the full story, since you clearly haven't read it. When your
done, read Paul Krugman's op-ed about "pointing fingers." ... oref=login

Again, I"m not going to reargue this. But I thought you might have
come around to realizing the federal government didn't do a bang-up

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana's governor asked for 40,000 soldiers, President Bush's senior advisers debated whether the president should speed the arrival of active-duty troops by seizing control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor.

For reasons of practicality and politics, officials at the Justice Department and the Pentagon, and then at the White House, decided not to urge Mr. Bush to take command of the effort. Instead, the Washington officials decided to rely on the growing number of National Guard personnel flowing into Louisiana, who were under Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's control.

The debate began after officials realized that Hurricane Katrina had exposed a critical flaw in the national disaster response plans created after the Sept. 11 attacks. According to the administration's senior domestic security officials, the plan failed to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated.

As criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina has mounted, one of the most pointed questions has been why more troops were not available more quickly to restore order and offer aid. Interviews with officials in Washington and Louisiana show that as the situation grew worse, they were wrangling with questions of federal/state authority, weighing the realities of military logistics and perhaps talking past each other in the crisis.

To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms. Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established.

While combat troops can conduct relief missions without the legal authority of the Insurrection Act, Pentagon and military officials say that no active-duty forces could have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans on Wednesday or Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.

But just as important to the administration were worries about the message that would have been sent by a president ousting a Southern governor of another party from command of her National Guard, according to administration, Pentagon and Justice Department officials.

"Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?" asked one senior administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks were confidential.

Officials in Louisiana agree that the governor would not have given up control over National Guard troops in her state as would have been required to send large numbers of active-duty soldiers into the area. But they also say they were desperate and would have welcomed assistance by active-duty soldiers.

"I need everything you have got," Ms. Blanco said she told Mr. Bush last Monday, after the storm hit.

In an interview, she acknowledged that she did not specify what sorts of soldiers. "Nobody told me that I had to request that," Ms. Blanco said. "I thought that I had requested everything they had. We were living in a war zone by then."

By Wednesday, she had asked for 40,000 soldiers.

In the discussions in Washington, also at issue was whether active-duty troops could respond faster and in larger numbers than the Guard.

By last Wednesday, Pentagon officials said even the 82nd Airborne, which has a brigade on standby to move out within 18 hours, could not arrive any faster than 7,000 National Guard troops, which are specially trained and equipped for civilian law enforcement duties.

In the end, the flow of thousands of National Guard soldiers, especially military police, was accelerated from other states.

"I was there. I saw what needed to be done," Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said in an interview. "They were the fastest, best-capable, most appropriate force to get there in the time allowed. And that's what it's all about."

But one senior Army officer expressed puzzlement that active-duty troops were not summoned sooner, saying 82nd Airborne troops were ready to move out from Fort Bragg, N.C., on Sunday, the day before the hurricane hit.

The call never came, administration officials said, in part because military officials believed Guard troops would get to the stricken region faster and because administration civilians worried that there could be political fallout if federal troops were forced to shoot looters.

Louisiana officials were furious that there was not more of a show of force, in terms of relief supplies and troops, from the federal government in the middle of last week. As the water was rising in New Orleans, the governor repeatedly questioned whether Washington had started its promised surge of federal resources.

"We needed equipment," Ms. Blanco said in an interview. "Helicopters. We got isolated."

Aides to Ms. Blanco said she was prepared to accept the deployment of active-duty military officials in her state. But she and other state officials balked at giving up control of the Guard as Justice Department officials said would have been required by the Insurrection Act if those combat troops were to be sent in before order was restored.

In a separate discussion last weekend, the governor also rejected a more modest proposal for a hybrid command structure in which both the Guard and active-duty troops would be under the command of an active-duty, three-star general - but only after he had been sworn into the Louisiana National Guard.

Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, director of operations for the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the Pentagon in August streamlined a rigid, decades-old system of deployment orders to allow the military's Northern Command to dispatch liaisons to work with local officials before an approaching hurricane.

The Pentagon is reviewing events from the time Hurricane Katrina reached full strength and bore down on New Orleans and five days later when Mr. Bush ordered 7,200 active-duty soldiers and marines to the scene.

After the hurricane passed New Orleans and the levees broke, flooding the city, it became increasingly evident that disaster-response efforts were badly bogged down.

Justice Department lawyers, who were receiving harrowing reports from the area, considered whether active-duty military units could be brought into relief operations even if state authorities gave their consent - or even if they refused.

The issue of federalizing the response was one of several legal issues considered in a flurry of meetings at the Justice Department, the White House and other agencies, administration officials said.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales urged Justice Department lawyers to interpret the federal law creatively to help local authorities, those officials said. For example, federal prosecutors prepared to expand their enforcement of some criminal statutes like anti-carjacking laws that can be prosecuted by either state or federal authorities.

On the issue of whether the military could be deployed without the invitation of state officials, the Office of Legal Counsel, the unit within the Justice Department that provides legal advice to federal agencies, concluded that the federal government had authority to move in even over the objection of local officials.

This act was last invoked in 1992 for the Los Angeles riots, but at the request of Gov. Pete Wilson of California, and has not been invoked over a governor's objections since the civil rights era - and before that, to the time of the Civil War, administration officials said. Bush administration, Pentagon and senior military officials warned that such an extreme measure would have serious legal and political implications.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said deployment of National Guard soldiers to Iraq, including a brigade from Louisiana, did not affect the relief mission, but Ms. Blanco disagreed.

"Over the last year, we have had about 5,000 out, at one time," she said. "They are on active duty, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That certainly is a factor."

By Friday, National Guard reinforcements had arrived, and a truck convoy of 1,000 Guard soldiers brought relief supplies - and order - to the convention center area.

Officials from the Department of Homeland Security say the experience with Hurricane Katrina has demonstrated flaws in the nation's plans to handle disaster.

"This event has exposed, perhaps ultimately to our benefit, a deficiency in terms of replacing first responders who tragically may be the first casualties," Paul McHale, the assistant secretary of defense for domestic security, said.

Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, has suggested that active-duty troops be trained and equipped to intervene if front-line emergency personnel are stricken. But the Pentagon's leadership remains unconvinced that this plan is sound, suggesting instead that the national emergency response plans be revised to draw reinforcements initially from civilian police, firefighters, medical personnel and hazardous-waste experts in other states not affected by a disaster.

The federal government rewrote its national emergency response plan after the Sept. 11 attacks, but it relied on local officials to manage any crisis in its opening days. But Hurricane Katrina overwhelmed local "first responders," including civilian police and the National Guard.

At a news conference on Saturday, Mr. Chertoff said, "The unusual set of challenges of conducting a massive evacuation in the context of a still dangerous flood requires us to basically break the traditional model and create a new model, one for what you might call kind of an ultra-catastrophe.""

Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker reported from Washington for this article, and Eric Lipton from Baton Rouge, La. David Johnston contributed reporting.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:53 pm

John Travolta, Kelly Preston and Lisa Marie Presley were part of the Scientology Disaster Response Team that hit Baton Rouge and New Orleans this week. :shock:

The controversial sci-fi sect doesn't always attach its name to relief activities. But this time, hundreds of "volunteer ministers" proudly wore church T-shirts as they visited a shelter. Travolta personally gave hurricane victims massages - or, as the church calls them, "assists"
... :?

From the NY Daily News...9/9/05

Fri Sep 09, 2005 11:59 pm

genesim wrote:Bush could not make any decisions about the National Guard or the Active duty millitary when it came to the states [sic] safety. He is at the mercy of the governer [sic].

Your constant, hysterical defense of Bush JR is getting very old.

Do you know who carries the title Commander-in-Chief?

Hint: not one of the fifty US "governers."

It isn't an honorary title, either, at least not until last week.


Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:07 am

Greg I could further repeat what I just said...or I could revert you to the last post. You choose to ignore everything.

Lets face it, you aren't going to listen to facts, you are just gonna keep pasting the same dreck over and over again.

Like most liberals..why be bothered with the facts, why understand the law of the land. Why do anything resembling fairness when you can just make it up as you go.

Even the idiots that you posted keep on with the same...why weren't there more National Guard....why didn't Bush respond.....Why is this just like Iraq(which is f*cking laughable at best)?

And all I can do is simply tell you to re-read my posts for the answers.

Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:18 am

Talking about a Stumpy :roll: :roll:

Hey Doc, that is right...Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces...contianing the national guard ONLY when called into service.

They answer directly to the State FIRST unless it is a matter of National Security which a flood is NOT.

Go back and read the constitution, you obviously you need to brush up. Despite what you think, the laws aren't meant to be bent toward your liking. The President must follow the laws of the land first.

From Wikipedia:

Because the National Guard remains under the authority of the states (unless called into federal service), it should not be confused with the reserves of the various services which serve primarily as training units for replacements to active component forces.

I other words Doc, unless Blanco gives up control, the president has no power to call them into service. Her rights must be first taken away in which several Democrat Senators have already opposed and have tried to stop this from happening.

Talk about my hysterics getting old...gee DOC how many anti-Bush posts you gonna START this year? Me and Clinton Posts ZERO....Doc X number and counting.

Lets face it, it wouldn't matter what I said Doc. You would break every law to make Bush look bad, you are the prime example of someone hailing the "ends justifying the mean". It doesn't matter that deep in your heart you know I am right, it doesn't matter if the constitution should be upheld, you hate the man that much to attack him....whatever the cost. If that included upholding a Democrat Governer and Mayor and their obvious f*ck up....then you would do that to.

Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:34 am

As usual, when faced with the choice to be a wise man or a fool, you choose the latter.


Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:42 am

As usual, when faced with the facts you come up empty.

Sun Sep 11, 2005 7:22 am

Don't pull that Rush Limbaugh tactic of calling anyone
who disagrees with you a "liberal." It doesn't apply to me, Genesim,
and remains a weak tactic to begin with.

Why not join conservatives like Charles Krauthammer and Robert Novak
in condemning Bush's bumbling response? Hell, even the Germans
did a better job - and were turned away. How freaking pathetic. And I say
this as someone who at least acknowledges Bush's strong points, although
lately I'm wondering what was so good about him. There's enough
to think he got perversely lucky with the horrible 9/11 attacks, as
he was able to capitalize on these in ways even he could not expect.

His rallying cry to the firefighters at Ground Zero was great
leadership and most definitely sincere. His more complicated (?)
venture of taking charge in New Orleans was a blown moment
for leadership. I can't explain it otherway. Foreign invaders
oddly enough, can be easier to tackle than poverty, lack of planning
(all around) cut budgets, bureaucracy, politics (still not acknowledged
despite the evidence above) and a lack of convenient photo-ops.

Your continued defense of GWB is simply embarrassing.

Sun Sep 11, 2005 9:03 pm

Hell, even the Germans did a better job - and were turned away.

And you are saying I am embarrasing??? Buddy what Lous. needs is coordination not supplies and "help" from other countries. One company like Annheiser could produce enough water to last the next hundred years. We do not need "help" we need support.

Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:05 am

Pete Dube wrote:I completely agree with you Greg. I'm not an NRA zealot, and think that gun registration, waiting periods, and close scrutiny of gun dealerships are good things.

I think Archie Bunker said it best when he said that if we just gave a gun to everyone boarding an airplane, we'd never have any more hijackings. :lol: