Katrina Funds abuse

[skins]

I don't see where I have strayed from my original path of not feeling comfortable with either of the fektards we had to choose from. Bush didn't drown New Orleans silly ...that is yer my favorite party dorkbags whispering in yer ear via the news. There was a hugh storm called Katrina that flooded New Orleans and the Lemming Beuracraps fek'd us after that happened. (Not me technically...I had zero damage but 1 tree down)

 

Don't come hand me the Bush card like I am a scapegoat cause I voted for him and not yer "Hero" ...I blame you for yer lack of support for America and its pres. You and yer gang are simply sore losers...you wouldn't know cause they teach it in PE but it means suck it up and keep werkin for a better America...not the anchor you guys seem to think makes progress.

 

 

Yer a Bush Boy all the way, Balla. Yer doing a heckuva job trying to change yer tune now that Bush has lived up to his total incompetent failure nature!

 

I show a lack of support for America? You love the dummy who drowns America and sends her soldiers off to fight an unnecessary war with no plan and no exit strategy. I seem to recall some peabrained explanation by some Typical Republican about ant hills and stamping on them and some other childish nonsense. That seems like the kind of mindnumbing idiocy you might get behind.

[SuperBalla]

Yer a Bush Boy all the way, Balla. Yer doing a heckuva job trying to change yer tune now that Bush has lived up to his total incompetent failure nature!

 

I show a lack of support for America? You love the dummy who drowns America and sends her soldiers off to fight an unnecessary war with no plan and no exit strategy. I seem to recall some peabrained explanation by some Typical Republican about ant hills and stamping on them and some other childish nonsense. That seems like the kind of mindnumbing idiocy you might get behind.

 

 

 

 

Well I figured you knew what an ant was since you didn't seem to reKognize what a backbone in a man was. Everyday my analogy of the ant pile is proving to be more and more accurate. There is no borders there...in fact another non-Iraqi was named as the replacement for Al Queda's Zarquawi (he died in Iraq). Al Queda was responsible for 9/11 and is in Iraq. Bush stood up for America (as mentally crippled as he is), however just a little bit less than half of America was behind him. Call me a loyal goon but that is still better than a complaining anchor. How many articles are you going to post tomorrow that illuminate the darkside of America?

[bushwacked]

Well I figured you knew what an ant was since you didn't seem to reKognize what a backbone in a man was. Everyday my analogy of the ant pile is proving to be more and more accurate. There is no borders there...in fact another non-Iraqi was named as the replacement for Al Queda's Zarquawi (he died in Iraq). Al Queda was responsible for 9/11 and is in Iraq. Bush stood up for America (as mentally crippled as he is), however just a little bit less than half of America was behind him. Call me a loyal goon but that is still better than a complaining anchor. How many articles are you going to post tomorrow that illuminate the darkside of America?

 

 

 

 

i.e...."Bush may have made the wrong choice....but at least he did something...and you are anchoring America by not supporting these incompentely idiotic policies."

[SuperBalla]

i.e...."Bush may have made the wrong choice....but at least he did something...and you are anchoring America by not supporting these incompentely idiotic policies."

 

 

 

What do you suggest I do? Hide in the sand with Kerry, you, and Skins?

[skins]

Well I figured you knew what an ant was since you didn't seem to reKognize what a backbone in a man was. Everyday my analogy of the ant pile is proving to be more and more accurate. There is no borders there...in fact another non-Iraqi was named as the replacement for Al Queda's Zarquawi (he died in Iraq). Al Queda was responsible for 9/11 and is in Iraq. Bush stood up for America (as mentally crippled as he is), however just a little bit less than half of America was behind him. Call me a loyal goon but that is still better than a complaining anchor. How many articles are you going to post tomorrow that illuminate the darkside of America?

 

 

God, yer a fool. It is painful sometimes. Check the date on that article.

 

Al Qaeda wasnt in Iraq before we invaded. We created an insurgency and a 40 year problem and you dummies still wont send enough troops to get the job done. You ever talk to the command guys in theater, Balla? All they say is how they fight and then re-fight for the same pathetic piece of Iraqi real estate so they can set up a police station for the ISF who are taking US tax money and weaponry and then sniping our soldiers and setting up IED's to blow up our troops.

 

Yer almost jingoistically mindless but in a kind of cute way, so I wont get too harsh on you.

 

And for the record, knucklehead, you know my position for the last year has been immediate draft of all American unmarried men between 18 - 33 and send em all into Iraq. I dont lose wars like Republican Rosie O'Donnell, even stupid unnecessary Republican neocon wars.

Edited June 15, 2006 by skins

[bushwacked]

What do you suggest I do? Hide in the sand with Kerry, you, and Skins?

 

 

 

Not at all. The first step is to realize that wrapping yourself with the American flag and supporting every ill-conceived govermental policy that is supposed to fight the bad guys doesn't make you a patriot anymore than it makes people who disagree with you traitors. And even though I'm a "glass is half-empty" guy when it comes to our political system, I still believe that both the Reps and Dems will nominate a better presidential canidate than what we have now. And since we have to play the hand we are dealt, having one party controlling the executive branch and the other party on the congressional branch at least provides a check to the onslaught of the absolutely horrendous policies we've experienced recently.

 

This president and congress has taken incompetence to a new level....way past Carter....and no matter how much you guys try to blame someone else for that it's time to cowboy up and look forward.

[BeeR]

Oh goody yet another thread that's digressed into a political ping-pong match :lame:

 

In a sense I agree with you, however the people spending the money given to them on luxury items instead of food, clothing, and housing hold some of the responsiblilty as well. I know that it is hard for someone that slants left to understand personal responsibility, but come on. These people spent their money on sh*t, because they know the government is going to be there again, and again, and again to bail them out with some type of welfare. It was irresonsible for FEMA, however with all the heat they were getting from the entitlement class they had to do something. People slam FEMA for not having food and clothing for the people of NO, but the truth is they had it, in the surrounding areas, they just couldn't get it into NO. Had the people evacuated as FEMA told them to, to the surrounding areas they would have had the food, clothing and temporary housing. I just get sick of all the entitlement class, and their destructive and selfdestructive behavior.

 

People complain about the emergency assistance available, then complain about the type of assistance given, yet the same people want the government to help pay to rebuild their homes right next to the gulf on land lower than sea level, and some of you on this board think it is a good idea. You actually think a hurricane proof levy can be built, and should be built, but not built with the money of those that are going to live there, but by all of our taxes.

Thx for an actual answer.

[Perchoutofwater]

God, yer a fool. It is painful sometimes. Check the date on that article.

 

Al Qaeda wasnt in Iraq before we invaded. We created an insurgency and a 40 year problem and you dummies still wont send enough troops to get the job done. You ever talk to the command guys in theater, Balla? All they say is how they fight and then re-fight for the same pathetic piece of Iraqi real estate so they can set up a police station for the ISF who are taking US tax money and weaponry and then sniping our soldiers and setting up IED's to blow up our troops.

 

Yer almost jingoistically mindless but in a kind of cute way, so I wont get too harsh on you.

 

And for the record, knucklehead, you know my position for the last year has been immediate draft of all American unmarried men between 18 - 33 and send em all into Iraq. I dont lose wars like Republican Rosie O'Donnell, even stupid unnecessary Republican neocon wars.

 

 

Skins, Would you agree that the Al Qaeda in Iraq is made up of mostly foriegners? I think that has been pretty well established. Would you also not agree that Sadam has been a thorn in our side since the late 80's and early 90's? So, if we can get rid of that thorn in our side, and at the same time draw these foreign terrorist with no national affiliation to one place to fight, is that not a good thing? Would you rather us be chasing them around in our cities? The way I look at it, we are killing two birds with one stone. Now, you can argue that we need more troops, and that might be true, however while re-enlistment is up ( which leads me to believe that our troops are behind our actions) enlistment is down. Now there are two major reasons why enlistment is down, the first is you have people who don't want to fight, and many join the army for the vocational skills they learn there or the GI bill, thinking they will never have to defend their country, many of these type people realize if they do enlist they will more than likely have to fight. The second reason is that you and the media in generaly keep telling us of everything that has gone wrong in the war, but gloss over or over look completely all of the good that has come over it. We have lost many brave lives in this fight, and that loss is very significant, yet to date, I don't think we've lost more lives in the war than we did on 9-11. I'm also pretty sure the number of casulties that we have taken pales in comparison to the number of terrorist that have lost their lives. How would you suggest we fight the war on terror? Do you think we should do nothing, and just wait for the next attack and hope that it isn't a big one, like Clinton did after the USS Cole? Or do you think it might be a good idea to get all the terrorist in one place and kill them. An argument can be made that our presence there is causing more muslims to join terrorist organizations, and that may be true, but I seriously doubt that people are joining at the same rate that they are dying. Eventually these people will realize that they can not win, if we do not weaken our resolve and pull back. You say that we need more troops, maybe we do, but one of the best ways to get more troops is to make this war a noble fight, yet you are constantly dragging it through the mud and tearing it down. For all the post you have cut and pasted from the National Enquirer, have you posted a single one that shows the benifits of the war? You say you didn't support the war before it started, and I'm fine with that, but you say we need to finish what we started now and I agree with that. My question to you is, do you think it helps us finish what we started, and do you think it is going to help us get more enlistments to get the additional manpower you say we need, by constantly calling this an illegitimate war, by constantly bringing up any and every failure you can find, and by never posting anything positive about it? Do you think the press is helping us get more enlistments? Do you think the constant bickering by the anti-war movement in the governemnt, in the press, and by people like you discourages the terrorist? I would have to imagine it just gives them hope, that we will eventually lose our resolve and pull out early. If that happens, we have lost more than just this current war, we have given hope to the terrorist, and shown the world we no longer have the resolve that our greatest generation have, that we have become soft. If that happens my friend, we are living on borrowed time.

[Clubfoothead]

Oh goody yet another thread that's digressed into a political ping-pong match :lame:

Thx for an actual answer.

 

 

Did you think someone was going to actually come along and argue there was no abuse? What other avenue of discussion is there on the subject?

[skins]

Skins, Would you agree that the Al Qaeda in Iraq is made up of mostly foriegners? I think that has been pretty well established. Would you also not agree that Sadam has been a thorn in our side since the late 80's and early 90's? So, if we can get rid of that thorn in our side, and at the same time draw these foreign terrorist with no national affiliation to one place to fight, is that not a good thing? Would you rather us be chasing them around in our cities? The way I look at it, we are killing two birds with one stone. Now, you can argue that we need more troops, and that might be true, however while re-enlistment is up ( which leads me to believe that our troops are behind our actions) enlistment is down. Now there are two major reasons why enlistment is down, the first is you have people who don't want to fight, and many join the army for the vocational skills they learn there or the GI bill, thinking they will never have to defend their country, many of these type people realize if they do enlist they will more than likely have to fight. The second reason is that you and the media in generaly keep telling us of everything that has gone wrong in the war, but gloss over or over look completely all of the good that has come over it. We have lost many brave lives in this fight, and that loss is very significant, yet to date, I don't think we've lost more lives in the war than we did on 9-11. I'm also pretty sure the number of casulties that we have taken pales in comparison to the number of terrorist that have lost their lives. How would you suggest we fight the war on terror? Do you think we should do nothing, and just wait for the next attack and hope that it isn't a big one, like Clinton did after the USS Cole? Or do you think it might be a good idea to get all the terrorist in one place and kill them. An argument can be made that our presence there is causing more muslims to join terrorist organizations, and that may be true, but I seriously doubt that people are joining at the same rate that they are dying. Eventually these people will realize that they can not win, if we do not weaken our resolve and pull back. You say that we need more troops, maybe we do, but one of the best ways to get more troops is to make this war a noble fight, yet you are constantly dragging it through the mud and tearing it down. For all the post you have cut and pasted from the National Enquirer, have you posted a single one that shows the benifits of the war? You say you didn't support the war before it started, and I'm fine with that, but you say we need to finish what we started now and I agree with that. My question to you is, do you think it helps us finish what we started, and do you think it is going to help us get more enlistments to get the additional manpower you say we need, by constantly calling this an illegitimate war, by constantly bringing up any and every failure you can find, and by never posting anything positive about it? Do you think the press is helping us get more enlistments? Do you think the constant bickering by the anti-war movement in the governemnt, in the press, and by people like you discourages the terrorist? I would have to imagine it just gives them hope, that we will eventually lose our resolve and pull out early. If that happens, we have lost more than just this current war, we have given hope to the terrorist, and shown the world we no longer have the resolve that our greatest generation have, that we have become soft. If that happens my friend, we are living on borrowed time.

 

 

Al Qaeda in Iraq may be made up of mostly foreigners, but they are estimated to be only about 5% of the insurgents/terrorists we are fighting. So even if they all were gone, it would not have much of any impact on what is actually happening on the ground in Iraq. One interesting thing, someone I know who spent a lot of time in Iraq tells me that when the foreign fighters show up they are grabbed up by Iraqi insurgents who strap bombs on em and use them as suiciders. They dont last long at all and are not running things on any level.

 

I think Saddam was entirely contained, practically powerless, and no threat to the US in 2002 when the silly rush to war was being hyped.

 

Why doesnt Afghanistan--a place we are letting go down the toilet where there are lots of Taliban and Al Qaeda growing stronger every day--serve all the purposes of attracting our enemies that you claim Iraq does? Remember, Al Qaeda was already there and we went in and now have essentially left to go to Iraq.

 

As for terrorist recruitment, we are killing Iraqi's who werent our enemy and creating new jihadists all over the world. The correlation you try to make is nonsense. We have fulfilled Osama's prediction by occupying a MIddle Eastern country without provocation and played right into his hands.

 

Do nothing? I think we should have every soldier, Special Forces operative, linguist, contractor and resource in Afghanistan massacring the Taliban and Al Qaeda and hunting them down all over the world. Iraq has almost nothing to do with that.

 

The war in Iraq is a fight, but it is not a noble one and cannot be made one by blind support of incompetent and foolish leaders. Our soldiers are noble, but their civilian leadership is crap. I am not calling for more troops (well, yes I am), the in theater commanders have been calling for more troops from day one. I dont know why you are satisfied and complacent to ignore their wishes and instead criticize the media and those who desire competence and accountability from US leadership. It seems to me yer priorities are completely screwed up.

 

Calling for competence, leadership and accountability is not bickering and it is not showing a lack of support for the troops. It is the duty of every American, IMO. Too bad you are satisfied with the pathetic status quo while we are fighting. Saying that the media or anti-war movement is at fault for pointing out failure is ridiculous. Every American of every political stripe should be calling for a draft and a massive US movement to win the war in Iraq, or, if our goals there are accomplished or not important, getting out of Iraq. The current leadership is doing neither of those things and just complacently grinding out an undermanned war of attrition against a serious insurgency. That could go on for 20 - 30 years at this rate while Afghanistan falls into utter chaos.

 

It is sad to me that you dont care about that.

Edited June 15, 2006 by skins

[AtomicCEO]

Skins, Would you agree that the Al Qaeda in Iraq is made up of mostly foriegners? I think that has been pretty well established. Would you also not agree that Sadam has been a thorn in our side since the late 80's and early 90's? So, if we can get rid of that thorn in our side, and at the same time draw these foreign terrorist with no national affiliation to one place to fight, is that not a good thing? Would you rather us be chasing them around in our cities? The way I look at it, we are killing two birds with one stone. Now, you can argue that we need more troops, and that might be true, however while re-enlistment is up ( which leads me to believe that our troops are behind our actions) enlistment is down. Now there are two major reasons why enlistment is down, the first is you have people who don't want to fight, and many join the army for the vocational skills they learn there or the GI bill, thinking they will never have to defend their country, many of these type people realize if they do enlist they will more than likely have to fight. The second reason is that you and the media in generaly keep telling us of everything that has gone wrong in the war, but gloss over or over look completely all of the good that has come over it. We have lost many brave lives in this fight, and that loss is very significant, yet to date, I don't think we've lost more lives in the war than we did on 9-11. I'm also pretty sure the number of casulties that we have taken pales in comparison to the number of terrorist that have lost their lives. How would you suggest we fight the war on terror? Do you think we should do nothing, and just wait for the next attack and hope that it isn't a big one, like Clinton did after the USS Cole? Or do you think it might be a good idea to get all the terrorist in one place and kill them. An argument can be made that our presence there is causing more muslims to join terrorist organizations, and that may be true, but I seriously doubt that people are joining at the same rate that they are dying. Eventually these people will realize that they can not win, if we do not weaken our resolve and pull back. You say that we need more troops, maybe we do, but one of the best ways to get more troops is to make this war a noble fight, yet you are constantly dragging it through the mud and tearing it down. For all the post you have cut and pasted from the National Enquirer, have you posted a single one that shows the benifits of the war? You say you didn't support the war before it started, and I'm fine with that, but you say we need to finish what we started now and I agree with that. My question to you is, do you think it helps us finish what we started, and do you think it is going to help us get more enlistments to get the additional manpower you say we need, by constantly calling this an illegitimate war, by constantly bringing up any and every failure you can find, and by never posting anything positive about it? Do you think the press is helping us get more enlistments? Do you think the constant bickering by the anti-war movement in the governemnt, in the press, and by people like you discourages the terrorist? I would have to imagine it just gives them hope, that we will eventually lose our resolve and pull out early. If that happens, we have lost more than just this current war, we have given hope to the terrorist, and shown the world we no longer have the resolve that our greatest generation have, that we have become soft. If that happens my friend, we are living on borrowed time.

 

 

TLDR

 

On the right side of the keyboard, above the shift key, is the "return" or "enter" key. It helps to format your text and seperate thoughts into "paragraphs".

[spain]

This is not the fault of the people spending the money. If someone hands me money, I'm taking it. This is the fault of the people "throwing the money" out there and not keeping track of how or why. It's shameful that our tax dollars were treated so carelessly by FEMA.

 

So, they are defrauding the gobment, but it isnt their fault? Wow! What kind of liberal logic is that?

[Clubfoothead]

So, they are defrauding the gobment, but it isnt their fault? Wow! What kind of liberal logic is that?

 

 

 

That's not liberal logic. It's perch's definition of good business practices, Exxonstyle.

[AtomicCEO]

So, they are defrauding the gobment, but it isnt their fault? Wow! What kind of liberal logic is that?

 

 

I dunno. Have we found the missing 17 billion in Iraq? Did liberals take that?

 

Don't pretend you're using logic to villify the poor taking what's given to them instead of the massive elephant in the room.

[spain]

I dunno. Have we found the missing 17 billion in Iraq? Did liberals take that?

 

Don't pretend you're using logic to villify the poor taking what's given to them instead of the massive elephant in the room.

 

Lets see, people give fake addresses; apply for money under various names so they can get paid numerous times; spend the money on vacations and hookers, but it isnt their fault. It is the fault of our Middle East policy. Gotcha! Dude, you crazy for Co Co Puffs...

[skins]

Lets see, people give fake addresses; apply for money under various names so they can get paid numerous times; spend the money on vacations and hookers, but it isnt their fault. It is the fault of our Middle East policy. Gotcha! Dude, you crazy for Co Co Puffs...

 

 

Wait...are the people you are talking about Katrina victims or Halliburton?

[AtomicCEO]

Lets see, people give fake addresses; apply for money under various names so they can get paid numerous times; spend the money on vacations and hookers, but it isnt their fault.

 

 

It is their fault. But, if FEMA wasn't so criminally unprepared, they wouldn't have been handing out money like it was candy. Get it?

 

Lets say I leave a open bag of my company's cash on the front seat of my car with the windows down. A theif steals the money.

Is the thief at fault? Yup.

Am I going to lose my job for being a complete moron? Yup.

 

Bush's Arabian horse dealer was busy picking out suits when he should have been getting everything in place. In the scramble to make thing right, he created a situation that was going to be picked apart by unscrupulous people.

[dmarc117]

Lets see, people give fake addresses; apply for money under various names so they can get paid numerous times; spend the money on vacations and hookers, but it isnt their fault. It is the fault of our Middle East policy. Gotcha! Dude, you crazy for Co Co Puffs...

 

 

 

whats easier.....having 20 babies to keep gettin that welfare check or a couple fake names and addresses??

 

all these criminals are plain dumb....according to the libs here, they should just blame the banks and shopkeepers who they stole from for their crimes!!

 

This is not the fault of the people spending the money. If someone hands me money, I'm taking it. This is the fault of the people "throwing the money" out there and not keeping track of how or why. It's shameful that our tax dollars were treated so carelessly by FEMA.

 

Edited June 15, 2006 by dmarc117

[spain]

Giving money to welfare mamas and daddys is stupid. Whether they are in NO or anyone else. Your trying to blame this on Bush is laughable. You lefties are the Kings of more and more welfare to these ghetto leeches.

[AtomicCEO]

Giving money to welfare mamas and daddys is stupid. Whether they are in NO or anyone else. Your trying to blame this on Bush is laughable. You lefties are the Kings of more and more welfare to these ghetto leeches.

 

Fair enough. I'll drop my argument and let that undeniable piece of logic be the final statement here.

[SuperBalla]

God, yer a fool. It is painful sometimes. Check the date on that article.

 

Al Qaeda wasnt in Iraq before we invaded. We created an insurgency and a 40 year problem and you dummies still wont send enough troops to get the job done. You ever talk to the command guys in theater, Balla? All they say is how they fight and then re-fight for the same pathetic piece of Iraqi real estate so they can set up a police station for the ISF who are taking US tax money and weaponry and then sniping our soldiers and setting up IED's to blow up our troops.

 

Yer almost jingoistically mindless but in a kind of cute way, so I wont get too harsh on you.

 

And for the record, knucklehead, you know my position for the last year has been immediate draft of all American unmarried men between 18 - 33 and send em all into Iraq. I dont lose wars like Republican Rosie O'Donnell, even stupid unnecessary Republican neocon wars.

 

 

Deal with the war on terror as you will then. I don't care if we install a draft either? I think any criminal involved with Sept. 11th or is a nation that harbors, finances, and shields terrorists should be at risk of war. Fair? I didn't realize we were on the same page all along...balls to the walls eh'.

 

Did you think someone was going to actually come along and argue there was no abuse? What other avenue of discussion is there on the subject?

 

 

I called the shot though.

 

Fair enough. I'll drop my argument and let that undeniable piece of logic be the final statement here.

 

 

[skins]

Deal with the war on terror as you will then. I don't care if we install a draft either? I think any criminal involved with Sept. 11th or is a nation that harbors, finances, and shields terrorists should be at risk of war. Fair? I didn't realize we were on the same page all along...balls to the walls eh'.

 

 

Yer boys, the Republican Senators, talked today about how the Iraqi proposal to give amnesty to the insurgents is a good idea. You on board for that?

[dmarc117]

Yer boys, the Republican Senators, talked today about how the Iraqi proposal to give amnesty to the insurgents is a good idea. You on board for that?

 

 

isnt any treaty to end a war a good thing?

[skins]

isnt any treaty to end a war a good thing?

 

 

I dont give a get out of jail free card to a guy who just capped a US Marine, clown.

[dmarc117]

I dont give a get out of jail free card to a guy who just capped a US Marine, clown.

 

 

so are you pissed ww2 ended with a treaty....the germans and japanese killed alot more us marines then the terrorists have bozo. i guess you wanted every german and japanese soldier killed? in skins world....wars must end when one side is completely terminated??

Edited June 16, 2006 by dmarc117