panzwami

you don't read SC much, do you? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=forum_35&search_string=panzwami&search_type=AND&search_fields=u&search_time=&search_user_username=&sb=post_time&mh=25

damn, beat me to it.

FIGHT! WIN! DRINK! GET NAKED!!!!!

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3kt.htm ------------- NEW ORLEANS FLASHBACK: OFFICALS WARNED RESIDENTS 'YOU'LL BE ON YOUR OWN' Mon Sep 05 2005 18:57:15 ET Before residents had ever heard the words "Hurricane Katrina," the New Orleans TIMES-PICAYUNE ran a story warning residents: If you stay behind during a big storm, you'll be on your own! Editors at TIMES-PICAYUNE on Monday called for every official at the Federal Emergency Management Agency to be fired. In an open letter to President Bush, the paper said: "Our people deserved rescuing. Many who could have been were not. That's to the government's shame." But the TIMES-PICAYUNE published a story on July 24, 2005 stating: City, state and federal emergency officials are preparing to give a historically blunt message: "In the event of a major hurricane, you're on your own." Staff writer Bruce Nolan reported some 7 weeks before Katrina: "In scripted appearances being recorded now, officials such as Mayor Ray Nagin, local Red Cross Executive Director Kay Wilkins and City Council President Oliver Thomas drive home the word that the city does not have the resources to move out of harm's way an estimated 134,000 people without transportation." "In the video, made by the anti-poverty agency Total Community Action, they urge those people to make arrangements now by finding their own ways to leave the city in the event of an evacuation. "You're responsible for your safety, and you should be responsible for the person next to you," Wilkins said in an interview. "If you have some room to get that person out of town, the Red Cross will have a space for that person outside the area. We can help you." Developing...

I agree. I've had mine for ~250 jumps and it still works great. If you don't mind the lens not flipping up, I think it's the way to go.

I think there are those that would argue that his success doing just that is the single cause of his influence. What better way to advance one's issue than by making those in power (politicians) so deathly afraid of it that they would rather shit their pants and slap their mothers than get anywhere close to it?

Or this one (October 2004): http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/index.html?fs=www7.nationalgeographic.com Or this one (less than two months ago): http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050718/18neworleans.htm

courtesy Neal Boortz:

throw on some pearls and you're ready for formalwear...

Have any BofA customers been able to do this successfully via the BofA website? It keeps giving me an error.

yeah because, capitalism and free market economics were getting boring anyway...

I don't see anything in that post that puts forth any specific evidence of biased or unfair reporting on the part of FOXNews, nor do I see anything that supports any other media outlet as being more reliable. You don't seem to have any problem publicly trashing them on this forum, so you should at least have the decency to attempt to provide some sort of proof. In the meantime, I'll quote "Billy Madison": "....what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." edit: typo

Sir Charles, wedding tackle, and my personal favorite, the love club.

man I'm so glad to see that people are finally starting to pick up on that...

dood, did you read the article? That's someone's home that just got fucked up. Say what you will about their business practices, but breaking into someone's home ain't right.

I'm assuming you're not even going to try to back that up...

"SEC. 2. (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." There is no specific listing of what does and does not qualify as "hostilities." Thus, the President has to decide whether or not he believes a situation warrants the use of military force, and then make that case to Congress. Congress can then stop that action by voting it down, or approve it either through declaration of war or specific statutory authorization.

This is what I was referring to when I mentioned the President is the one who makes the decision. There is no hard definition of "hostilities" - it's a judgement call. The person making the call is the President. Again, there are those that argue the President acted in response to hostilities, and those that argue he acted for money. Not getting near that one. But the fact remains that he made the decision and Congress approved. If you disagree with that decision, vote for the other guy.

Billvon was arguing that the declaration of war was the means through which Congress approves of military action. My point was that there's another way for that to happen, without declaring war. The tacit consent I'm referring to in this case is that which the American people granted to the President and the Congress by electing them to office. Our system of government is a representative democracy, not a democracy, and as such the general population must grant it's approval to certain elected representatives to govern and make decisions on their behalf. Americans have every right to question and speak out against those decisions they feel are improper, but they are likewise bound by those decisions. John Locke also argued tacit consent to mean that any person who has accepted the benefits of a government has thus consented to those burdens it has placed upon him.

yeah I dunno how this got missed, I posted about it in detail earlier in this thread. edit: link

That's two people. Not to split hairs, my point is simply that there is never going to be a right answer to the question "is the sacrifice worth it?" This goes back to a post I made earlier today. Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, there are two methods for applying American military force, and one of them does not include declaring war. The latter is the course of action taken in this case. If the inclusion of Congress in the decision-making process is the tacit consent of the American people, that consent is resident here. There are those that argue that this is a war undertaken in response to a deadly attack on our soil, and those that think it was done purely for financial gain. I don't know the answer to that question. But, both sides have been covered in this case. If this action was taken in response to attack, the President exercised his authority as Commander-in-Chief. If there was another motive, the United States Congress affixed it's seal of approval. Yeah, I'm really glad that guy doesn't have any stars on his shoulders.

I happen to like Doritos, and since you are associating Doritos to fat people, you're saying I'm fat. MEAT TOSSER!!!!!!!!!! Send me a check for a cool ten grand or I'm suing your ass off. edit: stop the violator!

The problem is, who determines what is and is not a waste? I don't think there will ever be a cause that 100% of the American population could get behind. It would be much easier if before sending troops it were possible to get the families of all soldiers together in one big room and take a vote as to whether or not it was a good idea, but I don't think that's in the cards. There has to be someone to decide, and in our system of laws, that person is the President of the United States. Americans vote in the presidential election knowing whoever wins will be granted certain authorities, some of which involve putting other Americans in harm's way. Does anyone think there is ever a cause noble enough for a mother to say "OK, go ahead and send my son to his death?"

Now that's a valid point. I agree that the process by which Congress makes spending decisions is crap, and usually has more to do with getting oneself re-elected than on actually solving a problem. It's rare to find a politician on either side of the aisle that will put self-promotion aside and actually try to accomplish something. On the body armor thing, that was a definite problem for a while. According to this, the first groups of front-line, combat-ready units were sent over properly equipped with the necessary gear. As more guard and reserve forces were sent, this problem arose. Funds were quickly appropriated in 2003 after the shortage became known. The largest problem, though, was actually manufacturing that many vests and getting them in the hands of deployed soldiers. The Army brought on extra suppliers and worked with existing ones to increase substantially the monthly production rate. It was a pretty high-profile problem when it came out, but Congress and the military did work pretty quickly to fix it. According to this, by March/April 2004, all troops had been properly equipped.

Whether or not the Congress does most of what he likes it to do is irrelevant. The fact remains, it is Congress that controls the purse strings. Thus, "and if so, good for W. for finally wising up two years after starting this war" isn't quite accurate, is it? If you don't like the way your tax dollars are being spent, call Capitol Hill.