home

The federal government morally must pay for NOLA recovery and rebuilding

By Last Night in Little Rock, Section Huricanes Katrina and Rita
Posted on Tue Sep 06, 2005 at 05:07:04 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by Last Night in Little Rock

Prof. Podgor's comments about the criminal responsibility for politicians' and bureaucrats' lies about Katrina are thought provoking. I previously used the phrase "disregard for human life" because I was thinking in terms of a negligent homicide prosecution (L.S.A.-R.S. § 14:32 "Negligent homicide is the killing of a human being by criminal negligence."), or at least putting the looting of NOLA's levee projects for the rich within "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" under Art. II, § 4 of the U.S. Constitution. More about that later.

How about the basic tort law?

Regretfully, the political judgment defense could keep the federal government from having to pay a dime under the Federal Tort Claims Act. How about the personal and moral responsibility of our "leaders" in their ill-advised or just plain stupid games of playing politics with money that was intended to save lives and property?

Having taken the money away to have prevented, or at least mitigated, the flooding of New Orleans, Congress should step up and admit the federal government's responsibility and pay for it all. But, Congress is dominated by Republicans and the President is a Republican. Republicans have no words in their vocabulary for "I'm sorry" or "I was wrong."

But, they are simply going to have to bite the bullet, recognize the folly of letting George Bush loot the federal Treasury, and pay for New Orleans. Bush's father got Congress to bail out the Savings and Loan industry because the fat cats looted banks. That protected banks, but it became a political precedent where Congress paid for the folly of S&L deregulation done at Reagan's behest for his fat cat friends.

Now, what about American citizens?

< Life going on in NOLA | Brown Stays >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The federal government morally must pay for NOLA recovery and rebuilding | 47 comments (47 topical)
    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#20)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:08 PM EST
    Oh I got distracted. Hurricane Katrina Sorry to got OT.

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    don't forget, gw sr. had personal motives for bailing out the S&L's, a bush was involved in the silverado S&L failure, neil(sp), i believe. wouldn't have been prudent to not bail them out, especially with other people's money.

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    The tax cut? Last Night, what do you think has powered the economic recovery we have? I mean really. Sometimes the Left is just so, funny.

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    I have been hearing comments by FEMA people that the people of NO should leave as there are no jobs. Are these people crazy? I have unemployed friends here in Mich who have loaded up their chainsaws in their pickup trucks and headed south for the big cleanup. This will be a repeat of Iraq where the locals are frozen out of rebuilding their city, and big contracters will make a fortune. The governor of Louisiana should intervene and reserve jobs at every level for Louisiana residents particularily from areas hit by hurricane.

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    The tax cut? Last Night, what do you think has powered the economic recovery we have? I mean really. Sometimes the Left is just so, funny.
    jim, are you completely delusional, or are on drugs? provide proof of your assertion, since no one else seems to agree with that, at least not any reputable economist. what has "powered the economy" is a combination of real estate sales/refinancing, and the ballooning of unsecured (credit card/revolving charge) debt. neither of these was in any way, shape or form affected by the bush tax cuts. those went primarily to wealthy people, who didn't spend it. what i find most interesting about the current state of the economy, is the concurrence of record bankruptcy filings, with record corp. profits. i'm not sure what, if anything, this portends, but i suspect it isn't good. i had thought ronald reagan would be the all-time champ for increasing the national debt. it appears that one of gw's goals has been to trump mr. reagan, and he's well on his way to accomplishing that.

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    cpinva:
    jim, are you completely delusional, or are on drugs?
    Neither... He has nothing left to contribute in any constructive way to these discussions, as long as he continues to cling so desperately to a sinking ship... he's half underwater, having a hard time breathing, and suffering oxygen deprivation... Makes it difficult to think clearly... No one on the left hates you, Jim... On the contrary, the left has been trying for a long time to throw you a life preserver. Come on man... grab it before you go under with that rotting, sinking ship. I mean really. Sometimes the Right is just so, funny

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#6)
    by Paralegal on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    I have unemployed friends here in Mich who have loaded up their chainsaws in their pickup trucks and headed south for the big cleanup.
    Halliburton will put a stop to that...that is their territory.

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    Paralegal: Touche!

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#8)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    Jim is correct about one thing- putting morality and W in the same sentence is pretty darn funny!

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    TalkLeft, I love you but the people will pay not the government, Our we not the government? where is the money coming from?..but yes all that area must be rebuilt for the economy system to work, but understand that it will not come from the cowardly politicians but from the working poor who have less and less each year, the fact is because of this mass-destruction that city will become a new place but not for the poor, it will have many new homes, but not for the jobless or homeless but for the rich who can buy proprerty for all-most nothing now the mass number of black are outside that city, but the system will build it only for the ideals of making a-lot of money for the few and the powerful.

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#18)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    The tax cut? Last Night, what do you think has powered the economic recovery we have? I mean really. Sometimes the Left is just so, funny. This is wrong in so many ways. In the first place, the tax cuts came in the form of refunds and modifications of the progressive rates. I received the refunds due to any individual HOH, which was about $300 each time. I'm sure many lawyer types here, as well as I myself, regard that as chump change even though Faux reports that the Govt. says we can put it towards the downpayment on a house (no lie, they really said that). In addition, the vast majority of the CHANGES in the Tax RATES are at the higher income brackets by a huge margin. After 10 years, people making over 1mill/year will have had their taxes (not tax rate) reduced by 50%. That may only be about 10% of the population, as regressive investor class types would like you to believe. But it's nearly 60% of the income in this country! That hurts the whole country. Meanwhile people earning from $18K (the poverty level) up to say (how much should we say?) $100K for a family of three to four are still paying proportionately way more than the share Richy Rich has to pay. It's not a matter of how many people are affected. Look at the income distribution as a way of interpreting you-know-who's grand tax gift. As far as the recovery is concerned, I'd say "What recovery?". The market is flat. Jobless numbers are deflated (who counts those who fall off the EDD roles?). The MAIN (not the only) thing keeping us afloat (if you will) is the megacorps' huge war profits. Then there's China...

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    cpinva:
    What i find most interesting about the current state of the economy, is the concurrence of record bankruptcy filings, with record corp. profits. i'm not sure what, if anything, this portends, but i suspect it isn't good.
    New Orleans was, in many ways, the pivot of the American economy.... Nature took out New Orleans almost as surely as a nuclear strike. Katrina's geopolitical effect was not, in many ways, distinguishable from a mushroom cloud.... A simple way to think about the New Orleans port complex is that it is where the bulk commodities of agriculture go out to the world and the bulk commodities of industrialism come in. The commodity chain of the global food industry starts here, as does that of American industrialism. If these facilities are gone, more than the price of goods shifts: The very physical structure of the global economy would have to be reshaped. Consider the impact to the U.S. auto industry if steel doesn't come up the river, or the effect on global food supplies if U.S. corn and soybeans don't get to the markets.

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#11)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    NO will be rebuilt, but how? I spent Sat night at a party with a bunch of real estate developers, they cant wait to put luxury high rises in NO. Some of the evacuees may never be able to afford to go back.

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    "Someone must step forward. Someone must say stop. Someone must say, America must take a new direction. Someone must say that it is time for a fundamental change..."
    ...Dennis Kucinich, June 22, 2003 Katrina will swamp the Bush administration and leave it wrecked beyond repair

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#13)
    by killer on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    If there had been a massive WMD strike, the DHS response may have been appropriate (don't come near the disaster area for a week). This disaster was well anticipated and there is no excuse for not reacting immdiatly. Chertoff and Brown, at the least, should resign in disgrace after begging Gov. Blanco for help from Witt.

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#14)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    ...what do you think has powered the economic recovery we have?
    In his NYT column on Katrina, Nicholas Kristoff blasts the Bush administration for its poor record on poverty—the number of U.S. poor, he says, has risen 17 percent under Bush, after having "declined sharply" under Bill Clinton. The U.S. infant-mortality rate has also risen for the first time since 1958—placing the nation at a pitiful 48th in the world. Kristoff hopes that Katrina's legacy might be "a serious national effort to address the poverty that afflicts the entire country."
    There's no "economic recovery." There's only a rise in corporate profits.

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    Chertoff was on the Today Show for a few seconds this morning and the first words he said were "We are doing a terrific job".

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#16)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    ...what do you think has powered the economic recovery we have?
    Even if we accepted your delusional view, you would need to change that to had in view of some 800,000 jobs wiped out in the Gulf. They can't all be put to work at reconstruction.

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    Chertoff was on the Today Show for a few seconds this morning and the first words he said were "We are doing a terrific job." Hey... that's wonderful! Best news I've heard all week. I was getting a bit concerned there for a moment...

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#19)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    I forgot credit debt.

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    Fred Dawes said:
    because of this mass-destruction that city will become a new place but not for the poor, it will have many new homes, but not for the jobless or homeless but for the rich who can buy proprerty for all-most nothing
    Fred, you make a very good point here, and one that I haven't yet seen discussed much on TalkLeft, or anywhere else for that matter. Sadly, you're probably right Fred. It won't be the people who are jobless, or the people who were homeless in New Orleans and are now displaced and likely still homeless because of Katrina, who will invest money in rebuilding the city. If New Orleans can be rebuilt, and that is by no means a certainty, it will be done with investment by wealthy individuals and corporations whose main motivation will be to make a profit. That is the nature of our society, and our economy. Profit is the driver. Social conscience is not. How can we, as a society, reconcile these, so that people are valued and cared for? Fred, you have raised a question that philosophers, thinkers, politicians, and humanity in general has wrestled with for most of our history... I wish I had a helpful response for your questions... but it seems that all I can offer are more questions... That is not adequate, to use Bush's words in another context than he used them. I'm sorry, Fred... I don't know... and that worries me also...

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#22)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    If New Orleans can be rebuilt ... it will be done with investment by wealthy individuals and corporations whose main motivation will be to make a profit.
    So those who foot the bill get the benefit?

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    Developers build luxury residences, because that's where the money is. Affordable housing doesn't get built because it is less profitable, not unprofitable mind you, just less profitable. People and families who have lived in NO all their lives will be priced out if the city is rebuilt. I see it here in NY, young people and working people priced out of their native neighborhoods because of the development of luxury residences and the death of rent-control. I don't know whether that is right or wrong, I just know it is sad.

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    Roy:
    So those who foot the bill get the benefit?
    That's usually the idea... yes... Not a happy situation for everyone...

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    killer writes:
    This disaster was well anticipated and there is no excuse for not reacting immdiatly.
    I agree, and the Bush administration offered to take over the evacuation around midnight of 8/26. But Governor Blanco turned them down because she was worried about martial law… You might want to ask her about excuses… desertswine writes;
    There's no "economic recovery." There's only a rise in corporate profits.
    Really? My stock portfolio is doing well and I average one call per week from head hunters. Maybe the problem is personal. BTW – The unemployment rate hit 4.9% in August. aw – So we should not have cut the tax rates because we knew we were going to have Katrina???? My guess is that the economy will boom with new construction. Che A family of four pays no FIT on income of up to around 38,200. Cpivna writes:
    those went primarily to wealthy people, who didn't spend it.
    cp – The RATES were cut, so everyone received a reduction. edger – I prefer to row my own boat, thank you. And I am old enough to know that the economy boomed when JFK cut taxes, Reagan cut taxes and W cut taxes. But tell me Edger, if you don’t pay taxes, why worry about it? BTW – I think the auto companies will be able to get steel. And I think the ports of Vicksburg, Memphis and St Louis are getting ready for a boom. But then again I don’t think the world will end tomorrow, either. Roger – True. Some may not because no one will want to spend money building under performing residential buildings. But it happens to all of us. I can't afford to buy the home I owned in Seattle, either. So the answer will be subsidies. I just hope there isn’t too much graft and corruption.

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#26)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    My stock portfolio is doing well and I average one call per week from head hunters.
    That's real swell. Well, if you're akaJim, what else matters?

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    nd the Bush administration offered to take over the evacuation around midnight of 8/26. But Governor Blanco turned them down because she was worried about martial law… You might want to ask her about excuses…
    Man, Jim, you tell that same lie so many times, I bet you're touch-typing on your keyboard with your extremely long nose! Same song, second verse... The article that you yourself linked to, datelined Saturday, September 3, and published Sunday, September 4, discussed that takeover bid which happened Friday, September 2. Four days after the hurricane. Four days of FEMA f**ups. Why would anybody trust them to manage anything then?
    About 42,000 people had been evacuated from the city by Saturday afternoon, with roughly the same number remaining, city officials said. Search-and-rescue efforts continued in flooded areas of the city, where an unknown number of people wait in their homes, on rooftops or in makeshift shelters. Hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced by the flooding -- 250,000 have been absorbed by Texas alone, and local radio reported that Baton Rouge will have doubled in population by Monday. Federal officials said they have begun to collect corpses but could not guess the total toll. Behind the scenes, a power struggle emerged, as federal officials tried to wrest authority from Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans, a source within the state's emergency operations center said Saturday.
    Again. Clearly AFTER the hurricane had struck. Not before. You have repeated this lie four times now. I keep showing you that it's a lie. You just ignore it and move to another thread and repeat it, hoping nobody will notice. You want to criticize the governor? Go ahead. You think President Bush did a better job than he's given credit for? Make your case. But if your only evidence is that which you made up, then your case is weak. I think you know you don't have a case. I don't hold with all the jokes about your senility or drinking... I think somebody is paying you to be a troll. How much are they paying you? How do you sleep at night? You should be ashamed of yourself. You're a disgrace.

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    Talkleft should just go thru the archives and delete every false reference PPJ cites and all our refutations thereof. The bandwidth saved would be enough to raise New Orleans above sea level.

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    "I agree, and the Bush administration offered to take over the evacuation around midnight of 8/26" You keep repeating yourself PPJ. Everyone keeps telling you that the evacuation offer was blackmail. You keep ignoring the blackmail aspect of the offer. I guess in your world blackmail is an acceptable way to go about getting what you want. So why don't you tell us how many times the Bush administration has attempted to usurp Brother Jeb's power days before a hurricane hit Florida? Tell us how many times they attempted to flash their vast resources in his face in an attempt to make him out to be an incompetent? Convince us all that Bush's strongarm tactics weren't politically motivated. And then why don't justify for all of us the morality of Bush's actions. But then again morality probably isn't one of your priorities or strengths, being that you said whatever you said about Katrina's casualties purifying the gene pool.

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    Ernesto: sorry. Maybe I should just shorten my response to "Liar, liar, pants on fire"? (Or LLPOF?) gentlyweepingguitar: I think it's important to note not that the evacuation offer was blackmail, but that PPJ is deliberately lying about the date the offer took place. He knows full well that there's a big difference between making that offer before the hurricane hit and four days later, which is why he's repeating it. I suppose PPJ is succeeding in his mission to turn this into a big "he said, she said," thing, but there is such a thing as truth and it's important to stick to it. PPJ owes us all a big apology... or he should just go away until he learns not to lie. (Which one is less likely to happen? Place your bets.)

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    webmacher:
    I suppose PPJ is succeeding in his mission to turn this into a big "he said, she said,"
    His posts are not worth the time it takes you to respond to them. And that is his only intention - to infuriate you into thinking that he's after a reasoned debate. He's not - he's after making you waste your time repeatedly rebutting lies and misinformation. Don't bite the hooks... that's what he wants you to do.
    I think somebody is paying you to be a troll
    Probably... so let him waste his time... not yours... for all you know he's sitting in rovers office at a computer ;-)

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    He's not - he's after making you waste your time repeatedly rebutting lies and misinformation. Don't bite the hooks... that's what he wants you to do.
    Good point. On the other hand, if he was just giving his usual B.S. opinions, fine. But the problem with lies is that if they aren't refuted, they become accepted as the truth. Which is how this country got into the fine pickle it is in now.

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    if they aren't refuted, they become accepted as the truth
    Fine... then refute them if you see newbies biting his hooks... otherwise let him wast his time. Ridicule works wonders...

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    How's the aim today, Jim? Get the other foot yet? Hmmm?

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    You're right, edgar. Here's one of my favorites. A friend of mine will describe a certain annoying person as "needing a glass bellybutton." (That is, their head is shoved so hard up their *** that they need some way of being able to see out.)

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    webmacher
    "needing a glass bellybutton."
    Not bad... sounds like something my mother would say ;-) I recall vaguely a story about Superman zooming out of the sky, at lightspeed of course... Lands on Wonder Woman, has his way, again at lightspeed of course.... and takes off. Suddenly, the Invisible Man jumps up, grabs his backside, and hollers "Owww! What was that???" How's the foot, Jim?

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    wm-ppj's mentor is our very own minister of propaganda Herr Karl Rove. He learned how to lie, smear, and repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat and repeat ad infinitum. Why would he do otherwise, the job of the Minister for Propaganda and Popular Enlightenment's is to lie. Who do you think gave the false info to WAPO and Newsweek that PPJ is spinning?
    No correction or retraction yet from Newsweek on the Blanco/State of Emergency error, it seems. And no explanation from the Post about whether their version of the canard was the product of an error on the part of their reporter or, as seems more likely, a deliberate piece of misinformation they passed on from a high-level White House source without verifying it first.
    Monday's Times, not surprisingly, confirms that the White House damage control operation is being run by Karl Rove and Dan Bartlett.
    Instead of turning over her State to a bunch of turdblossoms and wastrels:
    Blanco made two moves Saturday that protected her independence from the federal government: She created a philanthropic fund for the state's victims and hired James Lee Witt, Federal Emergency Management Agency director in the Clinton administration, to advise her on the relief effort.
    link

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    edger writes:
    Probably... so let him waste his time... not yours... for all you know he's sitting in rovers office at a computer ;-)
    What makes you think you rate a personal attack person? And both feet are fine. Have you suggested anyone kill themselves today?

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    web - As bitter as it tastes on my tongue, I will concede that I misread the date. Having said that, I note again that my Times-Picayunne link is accurate to date and content, and I again ask why the Governor and Mayor waited until it was too late to issue a mandatory evacuation. I ask why approxiately 600 school and city busses weren't used to get people out. And I ask why they didn't provide enough police protection inside the Superdome. After all, it was the mayor who said go there. And I ask about the morale of the police force. Would a well run and well organized police force lose 500, one third, of its members? Who is responsible for this? Could it be that after years of dealing with well known corruption and leading national murder rates these people just said, "Enough is enough?" Didn't they know about the busses. Didn't they know about the lateness of the Mayor's and the Governor's actions? And to revisit your moment of victory, why did the Governor, even on Friday, worry about federal marshall law? Why didn't she embrace anything that would help the people of her state?

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    ...both feet are fine...
    Well, hey... it's still early!

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    Have you suggested anyone kill themselves today?
    Hmmm... well... let's see... I wasn't there, but, Adolf did a pretty good job of it, I'm told... And there are some interesting parallels to the Reich in the 30's...

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    edger - We're not talking about Adolph. We're talking about edger. Remember?

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    PPJ-not Adolph but Karl for sure.

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#44)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    Have you suggested anyone kill themselves today? And if you do so, or otherwise mention using firearms on people, it makes all the difference in the world when you put a little emoticon on the end:
    Fat albert - There are many I would save. You aint one of'em. And we don't shoot hippies... No sport in it. But we might make an exception in your case. ;-)
    Link

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    DA - You keep on forgetting to include the start of the exchnage. Why?
    Posted by fatalbert at June 26, 2005 03:18 PM What Bush and his lot hope this creates in the heartland: "Hey Wilma, them enviromentalist is all terrist, theys jus like Osama. Biily-Bob, Jo-Jon, the res' you boys go get tha guns. We gots us some hippies jus down the road." PPJ, PPJ, Where are you PPJ? Come save us from the enviro-terrorists with your tiger kung fu.
    Why? Because it shows it as an exchange started by fatalbert as an attempt at politicial humor by him, and continued by me.

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#46)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    PPJ, the fact remains that you chose to joke about shooting people in response to FA's "attempt"(and they say irony died after 9/11. Ha!) at political humor, so you don't object to the concept as such, you find it insufferably rude to be the target, not the targeter in the present case. Anyway, I'll be sure to tell folks when I link to an example of your 'wisdom' in the future to start from the beginning and read the whole thing. Mkaaaaaaaaaay?

    Re: The federal government morally must pay for NO (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    Joking about people being shot? Low, even for you, Jim.

    The federal government morally must pay for NOLA recovery and rebuilding | 47 comments (47 topical)