The 10 scariest words in English

[OzzyKP]

Re: "The 10 scariest words in English

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Hello, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." -- Ronald Reagan

I imagine the people in New Orleans are quaking in their boots at the thought of the government coming to help them.

Speaking of which, why is New Orleans still flooding. Why has the Army Corps of Engineers started fixing the dikes? Why the hell is the government actins so ineptly on this? Why the hell weren't the walls reinforced after last year's near miss with Ivan? It's like Andrew all over again.

See you make a dig at Reagan and those who distrust the government and then you pont out a lot of ways in which the government ****ed up in the first place (and still now) making things worse.

Hell you debate yourself better than anyone.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by PLATO
I just sent $50. Show how much you libs care. Match me!

I applaud you, but I don't have $50 to spare. This hurricane set us back $600. I can't make my rent tomorrow. I can't pay back a friend who lent me some money. That doesn't mean I don't have a right to be pissed about the Administration's criminal ineptitude caused by a philosophy of government hatred and greed.

[Winston]

I thought about that too, Ozzy, but then I forgot to address it.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: "The 10 scariest words in English

Originally posted by OzzyKP
See you make a dig at Reagan and those who distrust the government and then you pont out a lot of ways in which the government ****ed up in the first place (and still now) making things worse.

I have a rock that protects against tigers. Do you see any tigers around, it must work. Conservatives say the government doesn't work, and every time they get elected they prove it. That isn't really proof the government doesn't work. It's just proof that conservatism doesn't work.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Winston
Trust me Sava, the last thing I'd want is to be taken seriously by you. But you lefties really need to make up your minds on this. Did Reagan destroy government or build it up, I think at some point you have to choose one.

Reagan was a mixed bag. He talked the talk but didn't walk the walk. His rhetoric was awesome and right on the mark (like Che's initial quote), but overall he didn't really shrink the government, it actually grew under his watch. Amazingly the only President in recent memory to have a smaller government when he left office than when he got in was Clinton. How much to credit congress vs. Clinton I dunno, but still damn good to see.

[Sava]

Re: Re: Re: "The 10 scariest words in English

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's just proof that conservatism doesn't work.

Conservatism works... it just works at ruining the quality of life for the majority of the America yet remains popular by repeating the same propaganda talking points while pandering to people's religious beliefs, patriotism, and bigotry.

[OzzyKP]

Re: Re: Re: "The 10 scariest words in English

Originally posted by chegitz guevara I have a rock that protects against tigers. Do you see any tigers around, it must work. Conservatives say the government doesn't work, and every time they get elected they prove it. That isn't really proof the government doesn't work. It's just proof that conservatism doesn't work.

Its proof that politics is volitile, and since no matter who you are and what you support you are gonna get dumbasses in office that do stuff you can't stand every once in a while (or most of the time). The less power they have the less they can **** things up.

[Sava]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
How much to credit congress vs. Clinton

zero...

because the republican congress fought clinton on everything... Clinton could have done a lot more good for this country if it wasn't for the Republicans.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
You'd like to defend the position that it's the scariest someone can tell you in English? Would you prefer if state agents turned up and told you you and your family are going to the Gulags?

Well, as a matter of fact, now that you mention it...

I really don't think you intended that, but it is really funny that you said it.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Re: Crying Wolf?

Originally posted by Adam Smith
It may be a bit more complicated than this. The Army Corps of Engineers has a long history of cooking the books to justify very questionable projects. For example, the infamous Tennessee-Tombigbee waterway was justified on the basis of having a 1.01 benefit/cost ratio in just one congressional district. In fact, the benefits were only about one tenth of what was projected. I wonder if New Orleans was an unfortunate case where lawmakers simply did not believe what the Corps told them.

Fair enough. Still, when FEMA is telling you that this kind of disaster is likely, and will be one of the worst natural disasters in US history, you could at least independently verify what the USACE is telling you.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The point is, conservatives like you have this mindset that the government shouldn't do anything to protect people, whether it be from bad food served to you by an unscroupluous vender or a hurricane. On top of that, you want to limit tort reform, so we can't even sue the people who hurt us that the government no longer protects us from.

You act like this is not part and parcel of the whole idiotic ideolgy that the government should do as little as possible, and that individuals themselves should rely solely on themselves and no one else for their own protection. I don't get it. Why do you want to undo the whole purpose of civilization in the first place.

If it hadn't been for evil, selfish people like you running our government, New Orleans might still be dry.

Wow. You're on full tilt.

I don't think he's a Yank, and I doubt he has a meaningful view on tort reform in your particular portion of the sand box.

Oh, and you speak as if nobody but you gives a damn about anybody else, and people who disagree with you is in favour of the total abolition of government and all its services.

You know, it might be possible for a government to deliver needed services without a Kafkaesque bureaucracy.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Re: Re: "The 10 scariest words in English

Originally posted by OzzyKP
The less power they have the less they can **** things up.

That's like saying when you're out in the ocean, it's better to be in the water than in a boat, because an idiot captain could sink the boat. It's better to have some government protection than none. It's better to have lots of government prtection than some. The whole point of society, civilization, and government is to offer protection to members of the group. Those at the top may get more protection than those on the bottom, and they may be able to screw those at the bottom, but at the end of the day, the purpose of society is to look out for its members. We evolved that way. It is in our genetic code.

Libertarianism and conservatism are anti-social philosphies, which means, at their core, they are anti-human. This is the philosophy which allowed the necessary work in NO to not be done. This is the philosophy that decided a privately run evacuation plan was the only way to go. Busses and trucks could have been stationed all around the city in order to get people out. Hell, even when you look at evac pictures, they still have the lanes to the city open, instead of using both sides of the highway to get people out. Conservatism took what should have been an economic disaster, and made it a disaster of human life.

I'm not pointing the finger at any one party, because both parties are cupable. Democrats are conservatives too in the South, and always have been. And the Nothern party hasn't had the balls to stand up for the poor. This is the fault of how we think about government, because of an anti-social ideology best typified by the Reagan quote.

[OzzyKP]

Its also possible that something in this country might not be Bush's exclusive fault. Maybe New Orleans - the city with the most to lose - should have done a bit more to protect themselves. That makes sense.

All but the most extreme libertarians can definitatly see that building some solid levees and such around the city is a proper use of government. At least I do. That doesn't mean its the responsibility of the federal government.

If I was living in New Orleans I'd definitely approve a milliage increase to improve the flood protection system. Should folks in Nebraska pay for it? Nope.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You know, it might be possible for a government to deliver needed services without a Kafkaesque bureaucracy.

Do you know why we have a Kafka-esque bureaucracy? It's because conservatives are so inflamed that someone, somewhere, might be cheating the government, that they make it impossible for anyone to get any damn help. They have designed the programs to be failures, and then talk about how "big gub'mint" is too ineffiecient to be allowed to do anything. Conservatives claim the government doesn't work, and when elected they prove it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
All but the most extreme libertarians can definitatly see that building some solid levees and such around the city is a proper use of government. At least I do. That doesn't mean its the responsibility of the federal government.

Only the Feds have the kind of resources available to handle work of that magnitude. Chicago can't afford to repair the lakefront itself, and had to go hat in hand to the Feds. Chicago is a rich city. New Orelans is not.

Ff I was living in New Orleans I'd definitely approve a milliage increase to improve the flood protection system. Should folks in Nebraska pay for it? Nope.

Well that would be particularly short sighted, since all that grain from Nebraska can't be shipped out now. NO is the major power for about a third of the U.S. The Ohio, Missouri, and Mississippi Rivers all have a lot of ship which ultimately must exist through NO. That isn't gonna happen for a long time now.