-----" Hole In The Ground " -------

2»

Comments

  • even flow?
    even flow? Posts: 8,066
    I thought there was the word "united" in your countries name?
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    even flow? wrote:
    I thought there was the word "united" in your countries name?

    Certainly. But that doesn't mean that justifies any blanket obligation you wish to push on part of that nation. Would it be right for Bush supporters to suggest that war dissent somehow violates the "United" in "United States"? Would it be right for someone who wishes to get an abortion to suggest that someone else should pay for her abortion because she lives in the "United States"? I think not.

    The "United" in "United States" means united in purpose. And the purpose of this nation, last time I checked, was individual rights and freedoms. Blanket obligations that ignore individual will run contrary to that purpose.
  • Jeremy1012
    Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    Anyone else noticed that you've never seen Ray Nagin and Tom Morello together? coincidence?????
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    It's fair to say that many in this country benefit from having a port there. Not sure how you justify the other 2 million people as a benefit to the rest of the nation.
    There are those who are a benefit to those who work the port, then there are those who are a benefit to those who benefit those who work the port, then there are those who are a benefit to those who benefit those ..... you get where I'm going - and I'm sure you understand how cities develop.[/Quote]
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Furthermore, the American people have already paid for that port by paying the price for the products and services that come through that port.
    But what of those Americans who live in New Orleans? They are Americans, after all. Besides, a lot of that money went to other states (corporations working from a distance). Luckily a law was passed that will funnel more of those profits into Louisiana (approx. 30% for oil and gas, I believe).
    farfromglorified wrote:
    It carried enough weight for me to give money willingly to support efforts there.
    Thanks.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    But that's a moral choice and I will not sanction the enforcement of my or your morality on my friends, neighbors or fellow citizens.
    Well, tax dollars have to be spent somewhere. Might as well be within our own borders.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    There are those who are a benefit to those who work the port, then there are those who are a benefit to those who benefit those who work the port, then there are those who are a benefit to those who benefit those ..... you get where I'm going - and I'm sure you understand how cities develop.

    Certainly! But you haven't made any connection that applies to every person who is paying the price for such efforts nor is the price in any way considering the actual value.
    But what of those Americans who live in New Orleans? They are Americans, after all. Besides, a lot of that money went to other states (corporations working from a distance). Luckily a law was passed that will funnel more of those profits into Louisiana (approx. 30% for oil and gas, I believe).

    Cool.
    Thanks.

    For what? Doing what I wanted to do, what I willfully chose to do? I didn't do it for you. I didn't do it for others in New Orleans. I did it for me. You don't owe me any thanks.
    Well, tax dollars have to be spent somewhere. Might as well be within our own borders.

    Agreed. I'm not about to suggest that the money being spent in New Orleans would be better spent in Iraq or Somalia or anywhere else. I'm suggesting that the standards of "better spent" should be left to those who earned and own that money in the first place.
  • The Illinoisemakers
    The Illinoisemakers Posts: 461
    Seattle will someday be in a somewhat similiar situation as New Orleans. For years they have been talking about the big earthquake that is bound to happen and really mess up the city. They have been talking about the need to fix this two deck freeway we have practically above Seattle's waterfront, the Alaskan way viaduct. They know that when we have the big one here that thing is going to come crashing down and a lot of people or going to get hurt. Our pathetic mayor and govenor have done nothing serious to fix the problem. So when the day comes the blame will rest on their shoulders. I feel the same way about the govenor or Louisana and mayor Nagin. They choose to ignore what was clearly a concern.
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    farfromglorified wrote:
    It's fair to say that many in this country benefit from having a port there. Not sure how you justify the other 2 million people as a benefit to the rest of the nation. Furthermore, the American people have already paid for that port by paying the price for the products and services that come through that port.



    It carried enough weight for me to give money willingly to support efforts there. But that's a moral choice and I will not sanction the enforcement of my or your morality on my friends, neighbors or fellow citizens.
    That's all well and good, but they've already taken our money to fund FEMA, and will continue to take more unless we elect representatives that will abolish it, so we have only ourselves to blame, don't we? If we don't want a federal agency in the disaster relief business, we're free to demand of our government that they get out of that business, after all. Of course the overwhelming majority of Americans want no such thing, so FEMA isn't going anywhere. And since they've taken the money for an emergency management administration, is it so much to ask that they show up and effectively manage emergencies?
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • NMyTree
    NMyTree Posts: 2,374
    Ray Nagin is a racist moron.

    Nothing that comes out of his mouth, should be given much attention.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    hippiemom wrote:
    That's all well and good, but they've already taken our money to fund FEMA, and will continue to take more unless we elect representatives that will abolish it, so we have only ourselves to blame, don't we?

    Yes. Yes we do.
    If we don't want a federal agency in the disaster relief business, we're free to demand of our government that they get out of that business, after all.

    That's why I tend to vote Libertarian, if at all.
    Of course the overwhelming majority of Americans want no such thing, so FEMA isn't going anywhere.

    Then neither are failures like the one we saw in NO.
    And since they've taken the money for an emergency management administration, is it so much to ask that they show up and effectively manage emergencies?

    Yes, considering the fact that the money had no such demands or expectations attached to it.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Certainly! But you haven't made any connection that applies to every person who is paying the price for such efforts nor is the price in any way considering the actual value.
    It's not a direct "supply chain" to every individual in the country - it works more like a root system. We're all interconnected in some way - and, to make a less allegorical statement, that port system that benefits everyone in the country wouldn't be there if others weren't around to service said port and it's workers and families. Plus, who doesn't love to visit New Orleans?
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Cool.
    Yeah it is. Hopefully it will be spent properly.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    For what? Doing what I wanted to do, what I willfully chose to do? I didn't do it for you. I didn't do it for others in New Orleans. I did it for me. You don't owe me any thanks.
    I give my thanks to whomever I chose. It's mine to give away, after all. If you don't want it, you can always donate it to someone else.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    Agreed. I'm not about to suggest that the money being spent in New Orleans would be better spent in Iraq or Somalia or anywhere else. I'm suggesting that the standards of "better spent" should be left to those who earned and own that money in the first place.
    Once it's gone, you don't own it anymore. But this is probably one of those blockades where I theorize that one way is a better way for a society to function, and you theorize that it's another.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Yes, considering the fact that the money had no such demands or expectations attached to it.
    Except that such demands and expectation were attached to it. They're called the Federal Emergency Management Association for a reason, you know.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    It's not a direct "supply chain" to every individual in the country - it works more like a root system. We're all interconnected in some way - and, to make a less allegorical statement, that port system that benefits everyone in the country wouldn't be there if others weren't around to service said port and it's workers and families. Plus, who doesn't love to visit New Orleans?

    I certainly love to visit New Orleans. I do so quite often. But that doesn't give anyone the right to take a blank check out of my pocket.
    Yeah it is. Hopefully it will be spent properly.

    Definitely.
    I give my thanks to whomever I chose. It's mine to give away, after all. If you don't want it, you can always donate it to someone else.

    It seems we're now understanding each other. Well said.
    Once it's gone, you don't own it anymore. But this is probably one of those blockades where I theorize that one way is a better way for a society to function, and you theorize that it's another.

    Yep.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    Except that such demands and expectation were attached to it. They're called the Federal Emergency Management Association for a reason, you know.

    Yes. And the demand and expectation was for a name on an office somewhere. Much like the demand for "Homeland Security".
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Yes. And the demand and expectation was for a name on an office somewhere. Much like the demand for "Homeland Security".
    As I recall, when congress authorized the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, there was talk of them attempting to secure the homeland. Obviously that hasn't happened, but the people footing the bill were told that was the objective, so again, there was that expectation.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    hippiemom wrote:
    As I recall, when congress authorized the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, there was talk of them attempting to secure the homeland. Obviously that hasn't happened, but the people footing the bill were told that was the objective, so again, there was that expectation.

    But the people "footing the bill" had no choice in the matter, nor did they demand any choice. The bill arrived before the body was created and the payment was due regardless of action. No reasonable expectation can be drawn from such a situation.
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    farfromglorified wrote:
    But the people "footing the bill" had no choice in the matter, nor did they demand any choice. The bill arrived before the body was created and the payment was due regardless of action. No reasonable expectation can be drawn from such a situation.
    Of course they had a choice. If congress had been deluged by letters and phone calls from home opposing a department of homeland security, we wouldn't have one. That didn't happen because Americans by a huge margin wanted a department of homeland security, because they expected it to help to secure the homeland.

    I never said it was a reasonable expectation ;)
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963

Categories