So. Cali is underprepared for a disaster response - why?

[Mister Bushice]

30% of our national guard troops are in Iraq.

All 16 of our chinook class choppers are in iraq.

We'd have to rely on No Cal for additional troops, and other states for rescue equipment.

[Cicero]

Cause your state is overun w/ communist faggots who blame everyone else instead of nutting up and doing something.

what do I win?

[Bizzarofelice]

Take it to the political forum. I wanna discuss Kate Beckinsale's ass.

[Mister Bushice]

Take it to the political forum. I wanna discuss Kate Beckinsale's ass.

Shit. I can't move this thread. Can you?

I thought this WAS the political forum.

The Spin zone has been abducted by the Canadiens. They want lots of back bacon and our assurances we won't retaliate before they give it back.

[Bizzarofelice]

She isn't Canadien. She's British.

[See You Next Wednesday]

Cali not prepeared...why? Mike Brown pronbably know the answer.

[Diogenes]

Take it to the political forum. I wanna discuss Kate Beckinsale's ass.

Shit. I can't move this thread. Can you?

I thought this WAS the political forum.

The Spin zone has been deserted due to the clueless shit mods.

FTFY.

[Mister Bushice]

The spin zone is a she?

I guess I should have looked.

Carry on.

Kate Beckingsale does have a nice ass. Not much of a balcony, though.

[Cicero]

Take it to the political forum. I wanna discuss Kate Beckinsale's ass.

Pic?

[Mister Bushice]

Or go here if it doesn't load:

http://www.geocities.com/katebeckinsale ... es/078.jpg

[Diogenes]

Did some mention (the sequel to) Underworld?

[The Seer]

Kate Beckinsale looked the hottest in Pearl Harbor.

The reason Mexifornia is not prepared for a natural disaster is because we are a 3rd world country. 3rd world countries tend to riot better in times of stress, plus all the broken down jalopies will tie up the common highways/escape routes........


Not that there's anything wrong with that..... :roll:

[Diogenes]

As pathetic as the local gov't here, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't stiff the red cross and federal government from providing relief in an emergency.


I'm positive the Governator wouldn't.









What does that have to do with Kate, anyway?

[Risa]

The spin zone is a she?

I guess I should have looked.

Carry on.

Kate Beckingsale does have a nice ass. Not much of a balcony, though.

where? :?

http://www.kbeckinsale.net/gallery/albu ... 001/03.jpg


maybe she needs to take the boy shorts off so
that it may be better appreciated. :? she's very
pretty.

but she ain't got no ass, man.

[Goober McTuber]

The spin zone is a she?

I guess I should have looked.

Carry on.

Kate Beckingsale does have a nice ass. Not much of a balcony, though.

where? :?

http://www.kbeckinsale.net/gallery/albu ... 001/03.jpg


maybe she needs to take the boy shorts off so
that it may be better appreciated. :? she's very
pretty.

but she ain't got no ass, man.

Sometimes it’s better to have too little than too much.

[DrDetroit]

Bushice, can we examine this in a honest manner?

Despite suffering from wildfires/forestfires for the last several years, California struggles every year to handle them. Why? I understand that it is a manpower issue. Yet, the problem continues to exist year after year. Why?

Could it be that, like Louisiana, California does receive a ton of money from the federal government as well as from state-imposed taxes, but then spends those dollars on other things?

Quite possibly.

As well, are you arguing that the United States should forego pursuing national security objectives when doing so might utilize resources that otherwise would be used to assist with disaster relief efforts?

Lets be honest here...don't be a prattling fool, Bushice.

[Y2K]

We suffer from wildfires because Forest Management isn't on the agenda because our ultra lefty Enviromental Whackos think it's better they burn than be thinned. Save a tree, torch a whole forest.

[YD]

We suffer from wildfires because Forest Management isn't on the agenda because our ultra lefty Enviromental Whackos think it's better they burn than be thinned. Save a tree, torch a whole forest.

$$$$$$$$$$

[Dinsdale]

Ohhhhhkay.

And the timber lobbies/timber companies that advocate thinning over clear cutting are....?????

Oh. There are none. Try again. Another example of using political doublespeak to promote profit for a precious few, at the expense of everyone.

FACT -- When there was MORE standing timber, say 30-35 years ago, there were LESS acres burned in forest fires. End of debate. It's not an issue of "thinning" (that's Bushspeak for "cut them all down"), it's an issue of wise expenditures of resources. There were more scouts and planes 30 years ago than there are now (although the last 2 years, they've devoted more man-hours to early detection, and LO AND BEHOLD, there were less acres lost despite there being a much higher-than-average number of fires, or there were in Oregon anyhow, which more often than not leads all states every year in total acres of wild/forest fires :bigshocker:).

Those numbers alone prove Bush is caught in yet another lie. Had enough yet?

[Risa]

Sometimes it’s better to have too little than too much.

like with titty?

but not with cock?


I'm going to withhold what I was going to say about your race and your sex and your actual sexual preferences, because those would be intentionally racist, sexist and ignorant. however, I do want to hear your opinion on why having no ass is better than having an ass.

will you share?

[DrDetroit]

Those numbers alone prove Bush is caught in yet another lie. Had enough yet?

What "lie" are you referring to here, Dins?

[Dinsdale]

Uhhh....no.

Since you don't go outside, and I'm quite sure you've never worked in the woods harvesting trees(SUP DINS), I'll explain it to you, since you're a lockstepping sheep --

You're wrong.

That whole "more forested acres" is a right-wing ruse.

And if you actually believe there's more BOARD FEET now than there was 30 years ago, you're a moron of the highest order, who needs to find a new outlet for information.

And don't even try to create the false impression that you even have a clue what the difference between a tree farm(another name for "standing kindling") and a FOREST is(resistant to fire and disease).

[Risa]

Could it be that, like Louisiana, California does receive a ton of money from the federal government as well as from state-imposed taxes, but then spends those dollars on other things?

here's my ignorant 'i hope this is how it works' take:

government doesn't sign a blank check. unless it's for halliburton.

funds are given for specific projects. which is what happened in louisiana. they asked for a specific amount for the levees, the administration only originally wanted to give them $19 million (!!!), but then dudes like Senator Pete Domenici haggled it back up to around $40 million... which was still significantly less than what they were asking for.

You cannot take money earmarked for one project and spend it on another. That would be theft, and the abuse of that would be tremendous, and tremendously exploited. Say people want a park? people vote for maintaining a park. The money is then spent on maintaining the mayor's personal fleet of government hummers, or (more likely) making public improvements on land that the mayor owns and hopes to sell at a future date when the land can be completely developed (sup Chavez and the Westside). Government isn't for people pure of heart. It's for hard asses.

There's enough abuse, why add another level of it?

So if California (or Louisiana) asks for money for a specific project, but gets money for another project instead............... that still doesn't remove the fact that they didn't get the money for the original specific project.

[/end speculative take]

[Goober McTuber]

Sometimes it’s better to have too little than too much.

like with titty?

but not with cock?


I'm going to withhold what I was going to say about your race and your sex and your actual sexual preferences, because those would be intentionally racist, sexist and ignorant. however, I do want to hear your opinion on why having no ass is better than having an ass.

will you share?

We were talking about ass. I’d rather see a very small ass than a giant fat ass. So please change your avatar.

Gee, like you’ve never been racist, sexist and ignorant. :roll:

[Risa]

Ohhhhhkay.

And the timber lobbies/timber companies that advocate thinning over clear cutting are....?????

Oh. There are none. Try again. Another example of using political doublespeak to promote profit for a precious few, at the expense of everyone.

FACT -- When there was MORE standing timber, say 30-35 years ago, there were LESS acres burned in forest fires. End of debate. It's not an issue of "thinning" (that's Bushspeak for "cut them all down"), it's an issue of wise expenditures of resources. There were more scouts and planes 30 years ago than there are now (although the last 2 years, they've devoted more man-hours to early detection, and LO AND BEHOLD, there were less acres lost despite there being a much higher-than-average number of fires, or there were in Oregon anyhow, which more often than not leads all states every year in total acres of wild/forest fires :bigshocker:).

Those numbers alone prove Bush is caught in yet another lie. Had enough yet?

Bush is the true Teflon president, man. It doesn't matter if what you're saying is true. they can spin out of it.

Besides, both major parties are two heads on the same beast. neither one of them are worth a shit.

[Risa]

FACT -- When there was MORE standing timber, say 30-35 years ago, there were LESS acres burned in forest fires.

The FACT is that there are more forested acres today then there has been for decades if not centuries.

Bonus fact: You don't know what the fuck you're talking about....again.

Link, dude.

[Risa]

We were talking about ass. I’d rather see a very small ass than a giant fat ass.

Why?


What does a very small ass represent to you?
How do you imagine yourself with a very
small ass, versus a well developed ass?

What do you see in your mind's eye, that gets
your dick hard for a very small ass, but makes
your dick flaccid when presented with a developed ass?

and does it work the same way with tits?
or a cock, for you?

[DrDetroit]

here's my ignorant 'i hope this is how it works' take:

government doesn't sign a blank check. unless it's for halliburton.

And this is supposed to be what exactly? Do you actually believe that this represent reasonable and legitimate criticism? Puhlease. And the federal government does frequently sign a blank check much as it did with the initial $10.5 billion Congress authorized two weeks ago and the additional $50+ billion last week.

funds are given for specific projects. which is what happened in louisiana. they asked for a specific amount for the levees, the administration only originally wanted to give them $19 million (!!!), but then dudes like Senator Pete Domenici haggled it back up to around $40 million... which was still significantly less than what they were asking for.

Why do you expect to be taken seriously? One, you don't even cite what you're referring to. You're ignoring that both the local levee boards can raise $$ and the state also appropriates dollars. But you're also ignoring the fact that Louisiana was allocated tons of cash for levee improvement and construction, yet, a ton of that $$ was not spent on actual improvements or construction. Three articles were linked here last week dealing with that alone.

[DrDetroit]

In Katrina's wake, Louisiana politicians and other critics have complained about paltry funding for the Army Corps in general and Louisiana projects in particular. But over the five years of President Bush's administration, Louisiana has received far more money for Corps civil works projects than any other state, about $1.9 billion; California was a distant second with less than $1.4 billion, even though its population is more than seven times as large. Much of that Louisiana money was spent to try to keep low-lying New Orleans dry. But hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to unrelated water projects demanded by the state's congressional delegation and approved by the Corps, often after economic analyses that turned out to be inaccurate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02462.html

[Cuda]

So what do you have to say for Louisiana now? Bush's fault, right?

Absolutely- because he hates mass-transit

-sin
Senator Landrieu

[Cuda]

So what do you have to say for Louisiana now? Bush's fault, right?

Absolutely- because he hates mass-transit

-sin
Senator Landrieu

Mass transit? Like a light rail project to provide service to our marinas and floating casinos?!?

Brilliant!!!!

--Orleans Levee Board

Well, he hates Black people too.

[Risa]

here's my ignorant 'i hope this is how it works' take:

government doesn't sign a blank check. unless it's for halliburton.

And this is supposed to be what exactly?

a criticism of our current administration, conflicts of interest, and the fact they probably hold the average american in extreme contempt to be able to pull these things and still be supported.

wouldn't you hold someone in contempt who you're using, and who allows you to use them?

but it's also, the first part, the way i understood government. you don't go saying 'here's 4 billion dollars, spend it any way you like', in government. usually. i thought. but that's how i took your original comment about the money being sent to California (and Louisiana), that you were trying to characterize the money sent to those states as one big check that the State itself was then supposed to carve up any way it desired. A blank check. Therefore it really is a state's fault when they choose to carve up that blank check in ways that prove to be detrimental to them. That's all.

Do you actually believe that this represent reasonable and legitimate criticism? Puhlease.

Did I actually think you were in the wrong in the direction you were attempting to hit both Cali and Louisiana with, in defending the federal governmen? Yes.

So I answered as I did, while acknowledging I had zero personal knowledge to stand on except my conception of how government works (or should work).

And the federal government does frequently sign a blank check much as it did with the initial $10.5 billion Congress authorized two weeks ago and the additional $50+ billion last week.

apples and 2x4s. it wasn't even necessary, either. :? you feel the urge to overstretch, too, sometimes?

National emergencies are an entirely different beast from State budgets, and should not be used in any comparison with State budgets, except when comparing one national emergency to another national emergency.

funds are given for specific projects. which is what happened in louisiana. they asked for a specific amount for the levees, the administration only originally wanted to give them $19 million (!!!), but then dudes like Senator Pete Domenici haggled it back up to around $40 million... which was still significantly less than what they were asking for.

Why do you expect to be taken seriously?

It's a message board. The things I take most seriously are
those things which are off-board.

One, you don't even cite what you're referring to.

ok... trying to find

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/32176.html

....But starting in about 2003, the administration wasn’t asking for as much as before. The administration’s budget for the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project (SELA) has been cut drastically since 2003.

According to an Aug. 31 article in Editor & Publisher, the government has spent $430 million for the Army Corps of Engineers to shore up levees and build pumping stations.

“Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle,” the article says. “The corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security — coming at the same time as federal tax cuts — was the reason for the strain.”

A series of articles in the New Orleans Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cites the cost of fighting a war in Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.

“But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside,” the Editor & Publisher story said.

According to figures supplied by Domenici’s office, the administration sought $47 million for SELA in 2001 and almost $52 million in 2002. Congress appropriated significantly more both years.

But in 2003, the budget request dropped to $20 million for SELA in 2003 — when Congress appropriated $50 million — and $16.5 million in 2004 — when Congress appropriated $34 million.

In the 2005 fiscal year, the administration asked for $30 million for SELA, which eventually received $36.5 million from Congress.

This year the administration only requested $10.5 million for SELA.

Funding for federal flood-control projects in the vicinity of Lake Ponchartrain have sharply dropped since 2001, when the administration requested about $18 million and Congress appropriated just over $21 million. In 2005, the administration asked for less than $4 million for these projects. Congress appropriated $5.7 million.

Domenici said Tuesday he will work with the president, his colleagues and the corps to see how much emergency funding the corps needs. ...

what happened in 2003? :?

still looking...

[Risa]

somebody is lying, and I think it's Hobson....
I noticed that using Congress for the administration
to hide behind when it comes to actual money being
divvied up has become the rage....

Congress deciding to allocate more funds than the
adminstration is asking for.... isn't supposed to speak
well of the administration. it's not supposed to speak
well of the administration at all.

So why are newspapers stating it as if it is so? why
are some folks in office pulling wool in this manner?

And what money IS the administration asking for, if
Congress has to play 'good cop' with money designated
for important projects here stateside? where is the beef?

http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnew ... obson.html

Rep. Hobson: Flood funding, war unrelated
By Jessica Wehrman

Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON | Even as lawmakers debate whether more federal funds could have better protected New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina, Rep. David Hobson said the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers needs to better prioritize the slew of projects it has been given.

Hobson, who chairs the House subcommittee that oversees federal funding for water infrastructure, sharply disputes criticism that Bush shortchanged the Corps in an effort to fund the war in Iraq.

"That has nothing to do with it," he said. "Absolutely none."

And, he said, Congress has consistently funded the Corps at levels higher than the president requested.

But he said funds have been scattered across a myriad of requests, with the Corps starting new projects before completing others. The Corps is currently working on roughly 2,000 projects of varying scope and size.

Hobson, R-Springfield, renewed his call for a five-year plan for the nation's waterways, saying partially finished projects often become more costly the longer they are delayed.

For 2006, the Bush administration requested $2.97 million for hurricane protection for Lake Pontchartrain and the vicinity.

The House gave Bush what he asked for, according to a fact sheet sent out by Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who heads the Senate appropriations subcommittee on energy and water.

The Senate allocated $7.5 million. The two houses are ironing out differences in their bills.

Bush's request is lower than previous years — in 2005, for example, he asked for $3.93 million and got $5.7 million.

But congressional aides and others who track federal funding caution against assuming the cuts are from tighter budgets. While that is true in some cases, funding also will fluctuate because projects are simply more costly during the beginning of construction than the middle or end.

In the case of the Lake Ponchartrain project, Hobson's office estimates the project, estimated to cost $738 million, was 80 percent complete as of Jan. 1, 2005. Still, a fact sheet released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer said funds for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 are insufficient to start new construction projects for the program....

[DrDetroit]

Risa:

a criticism of our current administration, conflicts of interest, and the fact they probably hold the average american in extreme contempt to be able to pull these things and still be supported.

This administration wrote a blank check to Halliburton? How do you expect anyone to respond to such unbridled ignorance?

Also, your perception that the Bush administration holds the avg American in contempt is your opinion, however, that you are so obviously ignorant of simple concepts such as separation of powers and the constitutional authority to appropriate $, there's no reason to believe that your opinion is informed nor reasonable.

wouldn't you hold someone in contempt who you're using, and who allows you to use them?

Make sense, please.

but it's also, the first part, the way i understood government. you don't go saying 'here's 4 billion dollars, spend it any way you like', in government. usually. i thought. but that's how i took your original comment about the money being sent to California (and Louisiana), that you were trying to characterize the money sent to those states as one big check that the State itself was then supposed to carve up any way it desired. A blank check. Therefore it really is a state's fault when they choose to carve up that blank check in ways that prove to be detrimental to them. That's all.

Please, please, please, shut up. Do some reading on the appropriations process. Please.

Did I actually think you were in the wrong in the direction you were attempting to hit both Cali and Louisiana with, in defending the federal governmen? Yes.

Dumbass, properly criticizing the local and state officials is not the equivalent of defending the federal government. You and most of the others here excusing the behavior and performance of those local and state officials should re-read that last statement.

apples and 2x4s. it wasn't even necessary, either. you feel the urge to overstretch, too, sometimes?

Huh?

You were suggesting that blank checks are not written. Well, two massive checks have been written in the last two weeks that demonstrate otherwise.

National emergencies are an entirely different beast from State budgets, and should not be used in any comparison with State budgets, except when comparing one national emergency to another national emergency.

Then you are the one at fault for speaking too generally.

What happened in 2003? I don't know. I'm not involved in writing the budget.

[Risa]

...I think...

I laughed.

I'd call you 'suge', but people tend to get offended, so I'm not going to go that route to offend you. There are other ways ;)

Still looking... man, it was in the Albuquerque Journal last week, Detroit.. the numbers were so skewed, I knew something was wrong. Here it is it was supposed to be a good thing that a certain amount of money was appropriated in the first place, and come to find out, it wasn't even Bush who was responsible for it... but they were trying to make like the administration itself relented?

http://www.sitnews.us/0905news/091105/0 ... udget.html

...On Thursday, the White House Office of Management and Budget said in a statement on the bill that the administration is "concerned" about the extra NOAA funding.

Not so the two principal authors of the spending bill, both from Katrina-hit states.

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., chairman of the subcommittee that wrote the spending bill, said there is "continued frustration among many of my Senate colleagues" about administration efforts to cut NOAA's budget after the hurricanes last year and now Katrina....

Fuck, I can't find it. The article was about Domenici defending the committee (Senate Energy, but I swear to god there was a Water one) he chairs, and the money budgeted out.

I am so sorry, Detroit

[DrDetroit]

It's funny how these lefty's are now whining that the US Corps of Engineers has been short-changed, yet, they certainly didn't whine when their elected representatives were ram-rodding completely bullshit spending appropriations down our throats.

[Risa]

where is the beef?

It's up your fat ass, you stupid fucking cow.

I'm going to buy a chair in 2 weeks, I'm going to position my lamps
just... so... and then I'm going to take a picture of
that fat ass for you.

Is that cool?

Congress routinely budgets more money than ANY administration asks for.

It's called pork, dumbshit.

I thought pork was for pet projects, not for important projects?
Pork is scrambling for money just because the money is there.

Appropriating money for the levees is an important project.
Appropriating money for a decontamination unit in the middle
of Nebraska is pork.

Budgeting for a stoplight at a busy intersection where several
children have been maimed or killed is an important project.
Budgeting for a stoplight in a one stop town is pork.

And anyway, why should Congress have to approve more money
than what the administration is asking for in the first place? basically, what you're saying is that the administration is expected to drastically
undercut funding, and then Congress is expected to put a little more on top? but no one is to ever expect to get exactly what they're asking for?

If so... what occurred in 2003 to make those little haggling games even more steep?

and what projects does the administration think is worthy of fully funding?

[Risa]

It's funny how these lefty's are now whining that the US Corps of Engineers has been short-changed, yet, they certainly didn't whine when their elected representatives were ram-rodding completely bullshit spending appropriations down our throats.

Real people don't want that shit, Detroit. Real people want responsible spending. Which is why we have independent papers to rail against inappropriate spending. The only people who usually make out like bandits over that shit are the representatives themselves... not the people.

Of course, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. It helps substantially when the squeaky wheel is also well heeled, but you know how that goes, too.

Which, to bring back something you (?) said about the corruption in Louisiana, is wrong.

The money pocketing goes from top to bottom. But an administration who treats it as business as usual instead of as something to curb.. bears blame itself.

[Cuda]

... so I'm not going to go that route to offend you. There are other ways ...

Such as?

I'm going to buy a chair in 2 weeks, I'm going to position my lamps
just... so... and then I'm going to take a picture of
that fat ass for you.

Calm down. There's no need to do anything rash.

[Goober McTuber]

We were talking about ass. I’d rather see a very small ass than a giant fat ass.

Why?


What does a very small ass represent to you?
How do you imagine yourself with a very
small ass, versus a well developed ass?

What do you see in your mind's eye, that gets
your dick hard for a very small ass, but makes
your dick flaccid when presented with a developed ass?

and does it work the same way with tits?
or a cock, for you?

Quit trying to pass your fat ass off as “developed”.

BTW, a cock doesn’t do it for me, I’m pretty sure you can relate.

I'm going to buy a chair in 2 weeks, I'm going to position my lamps
just... so... and then I'm going to take a picture of
that fat ass for you.

Wide-angle lens much?