ADVERTISMENTS:
call us:
206-350-1082
support killoggs!
|
 |
| |  |
 |
|
 |
|
 jess 
|
too little, too late
Since I have only sporadic access to Killoggs (not having a computer at home, and it's blocked at work), I haven't really been able to check in and have been relying on other Killoggers for my news. Even though I haven't met any of you Louisiana kids, know that I have been thinking about you a lot in the last few days.
I'm glad that you are all safe. I hope the same for your family and loved ones. I can't imagine what it's like to feel what you're feeling, and I won't pretend I can. If there is any way I can help other than giving money, let me know. I am incredibly disappointed in the unbelievable lack of empathy I see from a lot of peers right now - I didn't think I could become more disappointed in the US federal government than I already was, but - that too.
Also, I'm sorry to get on the soapbox, but: if one more person fucking complains to me about gas prices I swear I will have an aneurysm. (I drive, too. And yes, I think the oil industry is phenomenally fucked for reasons not relating to this tragedy.) No wonder you can't feel anything for people in other countries, you heartless shitheads. Refineries were destroyed - that means LIVES AND JOBS as well as resources. Take public transportation for a while, or just suck it up and pay the extra $20, or curtail your mobility if it affects you that much. Our primary concerns right now as human beings should be helping others.
Off the soapbox now.
Much love.
[ posted by jess at 09/03/2005 08:42:59 AM ] [ trackback ]
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Threaded Responses [ bottom ]
 | ed [email] said at 9:15 AM 09-03-2005:
Coming clean here, I am one of those asshats who has complained about rising gas prices.
Unfortunately, I don't live in a place where mass transit is an option. And I have curtailed my driving habits to the point where all I do is drive to work and back. And I *still* can't afford it.
Yes, I feel totally crappy bitching about gas prices while people are dying. Literally, people are dying, and one of my biggest worries is whether or not I can afford to get to work.
It's a hell of a catch, that Catch-22.
I, too, mourn for what has been lost - and what is *being* lost in the areas affected by this hurricane. But man, being the selfish beast that he is, and me, being a man... I can't help it.
I am praying continously for us all. |
Rodney C said at 2:43 PM 09-03-2005:
In the end, I hope federal money is not used to rebuild new orleans, it would be a waste of my money. If the Private citizens, City Gov, and State Gov want to send good money after bad, that is their right.
But, I hope the people don't expect a hand out from the rest of the nation... |
 | josh [email] said at 3:02 PM 09-03-2005:
read this article
ill hit the high points for you:
"In 2001, FEMA warned that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S. But the Bush administration cut New Orleans flood control funding by 44 percent."
"After a flood killed six people in 1995, Congress created the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, in which the Corps of Engineers strengthened and renovated levees and pumping stations. In early 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a report stating that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S., including a terrorist attack on New York City. But by 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Additional cuts at the beginning of this year (for a total reduction in funding of 44.2 percent since 2001) forced the New Orleans district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze. The Senate had debated adding funds for fixing New Orleans' levees, but it was too late. "
MUCH OF THE DESTRUCTION WAS PREVENTABLE.
The Levees survived the initial urricane. Had the flood control system been upgraded, MOST of this damage could have been prevented.
YOUR money, BILLIONS of it, is going to be spent as a result of this. Had the Feds just given the Army Corps of Engineers the money they requested, or perhaps just kept the funding level, you would not have as much of your tax money gone for this - it's ALWAYS cheaper to prevent an accident than clean up after it. |
Rodney C said at 3:07 PM 09-03-2005:
I'm not a fan of Bush but the federal funds to upgrade the leeves started in the 1960s, and have been diverted little by little for decades.
To blame their failure on one administration is absurd, and the people saying it are only doing it to attack the current administration for their own purposes.
Again, I hate Bush, i consider him a socialist. But to blame the current federal government is silly.
It is the result of decades of failure at the Federal level.
Maybe some good will come from this in a return to classic federalism, limited federal government, etc.
But I know just like after 9/11 this disaster will only further bloat and expand the federal government, with more of my money going to it, with all of us seeing no real benefit from it... |
|
| josh [email] said at 3:13 PM 09-03-2005:
sure, but the report stating it was one of the 3 most likely catastrophe's was in his adminstration (one of the other 3 was a terrorist attack on NYC).
and, even with that report from FEMA, the administration cut funding by almost HALF.
had the administration given FEMA/ACE the money needed to fix the levees, we would have saved BILLIONS of tax payer money. also we would get teh NOLA port open WAY sooner, meaning that gas would flow much sooner, meaning gas prices would not rise as much and that we would not have all the trouble getting our agricultural exports from that region out of the country that we will have. |
 | myriam [email] said at 3:13 PM 09-03-2005:
how are those poor people going to pay to fix the levees holding water out of THEIR districts?! That's why we HAVE government aid, to take care of the people that can't take care of themselves. You think private companies are going to rebuild something that doesn't threaten them directly? No way. |
 | mary [email] said at 3:15 PM 09-03-2005:
Again, I hate Bush, i consider him a socialist.
Did I miss something? Is today opposite day? |
|
| ed [email] said at 3:46 PM 09-03-2005:
I had the same thought, but Rodney's from Texas. You have to make allowances.
It's like a whole 'nother planet. |
Rodney C said at 3:53 PM 09-03-2005:
heh, indeed, it is...
(anyone else have problems with double posts here? i seem to have a few...) |
 | amanda [email] said at 4:01 PM 09-03-2005:
Nope. Rodney is just trying to protect the purity and essence of our precious natural fluids by resisting the Soviet hoards poised at our borders, yearning for the opportune moment to attack our way of life. |
rcaston said at 4:12 PM 09-03-2005:
If I believed in any of that, I'd be in favor of rampant federal expansion in order to curb the 'red threat' ... |
 | amy [email] said at 11:32 PM 09-11-2005:
i'm a political moron, but i even caught that one. |
|
| josh [email] said at 3:34 PM 09-03-2005:
i think the federal government is way too involved in our lives - but disaster preparedness and recovery, like anti-terrorism, is one of the areas i think they NEED to be involved, because they are national. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 3:55 PM 09-03-2005:
yeah i agree. infrastructural things like that need to be national, they're just to big and wide and non-profitable to be effectively controlled privately. |
Rodney C said at 4:01 PM 09-03-2005:
You can have the State governments handle things themsleves without a huge Federal Government being involved.
There was a time when the Federal system was considered inferior in power to the States, but that was a long time ago... |
|
| josh [email] said at 4:05 PM 09-03-2005:
Yeah, before the Civil War. That was a long time ago; get over it.
Also- do you really think the STATES can deal with Terrorists effectively? What happens if a suspected terrorist moves across state lines?
Sorry dude, but in most terrorist events and distasters, the fact that the whole country was able to respond in a unified and coherent way was why we have historically (this disaster excepted) able to respond so well! Too many cooks ruin a dish, dude. |
rcaston said at 4:07 PM 09-03-2005:
I believe you can fight terrorism effectively and still have a small federal system more in line with the views of the founding fathers.
Though, I know I am in the minority. |
|
| josh [email] said at 4:11 PM 09-03-2005:
You changed your phrasing - a minute ago you said do you think that "State governments (can) handle things themsleves", now you say "ou can fight terrorism effectively and still have a small federal system".
Those two statements are NOT the same thing.
So, do you think fighting terrorism should/can be done by the states themselves? Or did you misspeak originally? |
rcaston said at 4:15 PM 09-03-2005:
I believe in a Federal System, but I prefer classic federalism. Very narrow in focus and size.
federally controlled military defense falls under classic federalism, in fact it was one of the primary reasons behind federalism in the first place (re: federalist papers) |
|
| josh [email] said at 4:18 PM 09-03-2005:
Anti-terrorism isn't military defense though, so you are still being vague.
The military doesn't root out terrorist cells inside our country; intelligence/anti-terrorism agencies do. |
rcaston said at 4:25 PM 09-03-2005:
You think 50 different intelligence agencies tied to the States is any less efficient then the number we have spread across the federal level? :)
The rest of the world, namely Europe (pre European Union) deals with these issues of many small nations or nation-states in this example in a similiar fashion without issue. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 4:29 PM 09-03-2005:
what? can you re-explain what you mean about europe pre-EU? Having multiple agencies to deal with stuff? huh? |
rcaston said at 4:38 PM 09-03-2005:
each nation has it's own independent intelligence agency, and was able to defend it's interests just fine.
So to expect less from the States is not unreasonable. |
|
| josh [email] said at 5:01 PM 09-03-2005:
See below. INTERPOL. |
|
| josh [email] said at 5:00 PM 09-03-2005:
Haha, you amaze me.
The rest of the world, namely Europe (pre European Union) deals with these issues of many small nations or nation-states in this example in a similiar fashion without issue.
Yes, Europe does deal with it: they deal with it via Interpol, the International Criminal Police Organization. Perhaps you have heard of it.
You think 50 different intelligence agencies tied to the States is any less efficient then the number we have spread across the federal level? :)
Yes, they obviously would be. Say you had a terrorist cell, or a terrorist, or a spy, that moved from state to state. If each agency was conducting an investigation on this guy in their own state, trying to figure out who he was, that is duplication of effort, which is the definition of inefficiency. |
rcaston said at 5:08 PM 09-03-2005:
I see no difference in efficiency between 50 different state agencies versus 50 different federal ones.
I also don't see why you don't see that interpol is an example of many nations combining intel without the need for a greater government system be in charge of it, ie: federal. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 5:10 PM 09-03-2005:
INTERPOL *IS* "federal". It *is* a greater govt system that oversees the interaction of all these littler agencies. That's the definition of federal. Federated states. |
rcaston said at 5:18 PM 09-03-2005:
Interpol is not a federal system. No nation gave up it's soverignty to work with it. |
|
| josh [email] said at 5:23 PM 09-03-2005:
the point is, however, that there is ONE agency that does their job.
in the EU it's not a federal agency because they aren't a federation of states.
in the us, we need ONE organization to do what the FBI does, but since we ARE a single country, it's part of that country's framework...
are you saying you'd want us to have an organization that is like the FBI, in that it pursues crime that is multi-state, but it would not be part of the government at all? |
|
| josh [email] said at 5:19 PM 09-03-2005:
I see no difference in efficiency between 50 different state agencies versus 50 different federal ones.
sure but we dont have 50 cia's and 50 fbi's.
we have one of each |
|
| ed [email] said at 7:46 PM 09-03-2005:
Eff that. We have Jack Bauer.
We don't need anything else. |
|
| josh [email] said at 4:32 PM 09-04-2005:
AHAHA! |
|
| myriam [email] said at 4:06 PM 09-03-2005:
Yeah, the states do a great job of taking care of their little bits of our national infrastructure. |
rcaston said at 4:10 PM 09-03-2005:
I happen to think Texas does a fine job with its toll funded highways that are built and maintained without any federal highway funds. |
|
| josh [email] said at 4:16 PM 09-03-2005:
sure, but how useful would your toll funded highways be, in terms of interstate commerce, if there were no roads in poorer states that people & trucks could drive on to get to texas?
the interstate system allows for the flow of goods and commerce between states, which made the booming economy of the 20th century possible.
if california's & florida's agricultural goods couldn't reach texas because alabama and arizona were not able to build decent roads, that would be bad for both the producing AND consuming states. |
rcaston said at 4:20 PM 09-03-2005:
While I agree it has benefits, I still find it outside the scope of Federal government.
But again, this is where my opinion on how government should work is just that, my opinion. |
|
| josh [email] said at 4:24 PM 09-03-2005:
so you would prefer we eliminated it, even though it makes our economy possible? |
rcaston said at 4:27 PM 09-03-2005:
eliminated, no - if it really is a economic benefit, it will continue to exist due to market forces whether it be by private sector or the states, likely a combination of both. |
|
| mary [email] said at 4:29 PM 09-03-2005:
Or not. Which is why the government got involved in the first place. |
rcaston said at 4:33 PM 09-03-2005:
when you say "the government", I assume you mean the federal government? If so, then I would argue that would you suggest is completely outside the scope of classic federalism. |
|
| mary [email] said at 4:50 PM 09-03-2005:
Yeah, and it's also outside the scope of Dianetics. |
rcaston said at 4:54 PM 09-03-2005:
ok, now you're just being silly...
then again, I like silly. |
|
| josh [email] said at 4:54 PM 09-03-2005:
why? why would poorer states between two major producing states create infrastructure that supports the states on either side of it?
answer : they would build the roads, but charge tariffs/tolls on every good passing through them. thus making interstate commerce more unattractive, and less efficient. the non-producing state would win out, because they would get to profit highly off of goods that they neither produced, sold, or consumed. the originator state and the destination state would both lose.
this is how it was in the bad old days, and is the whole reason why have unfettered interstate commerce, and the interstate system, in the first place. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 4:23 PM 09-03-2005:
exactly!
also, what about states who produce more power than they use, and then states next door who use more than they can produce, and how do we get the power between them effectively and cheaply without overall coordination? (ie, federal control or oversight)... you saw this a little bit (but with different agitators: companies fighting against each other instead of states) in the CA brownouts. |
rcaston said at 4:30 PM 09-03-2005:
Each state should produce enough power for it's people or at least close to it. If it doesn't it is setting itself up for problems.
The free market tells us that any state that does not overregulate a industry into extinction (like the citizens of California did to it's power industry) will be able to have business's which will come and build the plants there to supply the power. |
|
| mary [email] said at 4:33 PM 09-03-2005:
There is so much bad/naive economics in this, I don't even know where to start. |
rcaston said at 4:35 PM 09-03-2005:
You generally start at the beginning. |
|
| mary [email] said at 4:47 PM 09-03-2005:
Each state should produce enough power for it's people or at least close to it.
That would be horribly inefficient. The means of producing energy isn't evenly distributed. It's better to have the energy produced/refined/transformed in the places that can do it most efficiently than have marginal areas struggling to do so. Without a guaranteed infrastructure to move power around, we'd have a hard time getting wheat and cattle out of the midwest, don't ya think?
Even the U.S. as a whole doesn't produce enough energy to sustain itself. The good news: We produce other things, which we can trade for what we lack. Facilitating this trade by supporting infrastructure is one of the things government does well.
The free market tells us that any state that does not overregulate a industry into extinction (like the citizens of California did to it's power industry) will be able to have business's which will come and build the plants there to supply the power.
Actually, the state had been moving toward deregulating its power system when this happened. It did a lousy job of it.
The "free market" actually tells us very little about anything, mostly because it doesn't really exist. Competitive markets, however, are pretty great at meeting people's needs. And there's plenty that government can do to smooth the way. |
rcaston said at 4:52 PM 09-03-2005:
Re: Production - Power generation is not limited by geography, so I would say your arguement of comparing to food production to be invalid. Pebble bed reactors for instance can be built anywhere.
Re: California - Even with deregulation, due to the NIMBY (not in my backyard) and the enviro-nut level of most citizens there, I would be suprised to see a dozen new nuclear plants going online there anytime in the next decade.
Re: Free Market - Government can only interfere with free markets, which is why you believe they do not exist, since you expect government intervention, you can not accept the idea of a free market. |
|
| mary [email] said at 4:57 PM 09-03-2005:
No, I just realize that "free markets" generally lead to predictible undesirable consequences, many of that are easily assuaged by government involvement. For instance, busting up monopolies. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 5:02 PM 09-03-2005:
the enviro-nut level of most citizens there,
sounds like you've never visited CA. Also, nuclear power is actually pretty clean and much, much more environmentally friendly than some other power options (yay, coal!). In any case, they'd probably install more windfields, which Californians tend to like (they are actually quite pretty and are built in areas few people live anyway) and which do a decent job of providing clean power. But this has nothing to do with anything. The state fucked up power deregulation in CA... it's a shame the state had so much control. |
rcaston said at 5:10 PM 09-03-2005:
I happen to love Nuclear power.
Though wind power has the problem of killing countless birds every year.. tho thats an issue with the enviro-nuts, not me. |
 | kiche [email] said at 5:13 PM 09-03-2005:
supply side economics does not equal a free market.
laissez faire capitalism does not equal a free market.
believe it or not dude, it takes money and government regulation to keep the market free.
from wikipedia:
A free market is an idealized market system, where all economic decisions and actions by individuals regarding transfer of money, goods, and services are voluntary, and are therefore devoid of coercion and theft
guess what? that takes regulation and tax money, dude. that's why the american stock exchanges are in new york, chicago and san francisco instead of montana, nevada and indiana.
also, social and religious conservatism (which is what the republican party stands for today) is anethama to capitalism. that's why no red state is a center of capitalism.
a freaking moron could figure this out. you are the equivalent of a brainwashed communist from the middle 20th century. quit drinking ideological kool-aid and open up your eyes to reallity. |
rcaston said at 5:20 PM 09-03-2005:
I do not respond to name calling. |
|
| josh [email] said at 5:21 PM 09-03-2005:
(you just did) |
rcaston said at 5:25 PM 09-03-2005:
doh! |
|
| kiche [email] said at 5:31 PM 09-03-2005:
josh, i busted this guy twice.
twice.
in fifteen minutes.
this guy has put ideology over reality for so long that he's stunned. stunned. when he get's busted.
you can't expect him to be thinking clearly.
i don't expect any sort of coherent response from him. |
|
| josh [email] said at 5:10 PM 09-03-2005:
California's power situation actually was not caused caused by regulation.
Deregulation had meant the state had to divest itself of it's state owned utilities.
Private utilities then took over power generation.
Enron (and other companies, but we'll use them as the figurehead) manufactured a power shortage to make themselves rich, at California's expense.
They did this by selling California generated power to other states, causing a shortage, then buying power from the other states to alleviate this shortage. Enron made money from the sales each way, California lost out because they had to buy imported power at greater expense than locally-generated power, plus Enron got their commission from both sides of the sale.
Had unscrupulous businesses not acted very badly, there would not have been a power shortage. |
|
| mary [email] said at 9:47 AM 09-04-2005:
Had unscrupulous businesses not acted very badly ...
Why do you hate the free market, Josh? Why do you hate freedom? |
|
| josh [email] said at 4:33 PM 09-04-2005:
well technically thats not really a problem with the free market, what they did was illegal anyway, i think, even in a "free market" situation. free markets don't mean you can mug people! |
 | huddo [email] said at 2:40 AM 09-04-2005:
Wait...more talk about Interpol! Wait...are we not talking about poser goth wave rock? I'm lost. |
Rodney C said at 3:36 PM 09-03-2005:
Under Bush, the federal government has grown more in power, spending, and size then any president in decades. Prescription Drugs, Homeland Security, etc.
The guy is a socialist. |
|
| josh [email] said at 3:40 PM 09-03-2005:
I think you are getting your definitions wrong.
Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that a society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production. In application, however, the de facto meaning of socialism has changed with time. Although it is a politically loaded term, it remains strongly related to the establishment of an organized working class, created through either revolution or social evolution, with the purpose of building a classless society. It has also, increasingly, become concentrated on social reforms within modern democracies. This concept and the term Socialist also refer to a group of ideologies, an economic system, or a state that exists or has existed. - wikipedia
While Bush is anything but a true conservative, he definitely doesn't match the definition of socialism. |
Rodney C said at 3:49 PM 09-03-2005:
FDR believed that to advance socialism the Federal government had to grow, the bueacracy of the federal government provides more services for the general welfare by the relation of it's size to the people it serves.
ergo - anyone who grows the federal government serves the purposes of socialism by default. |
|
| josh [email] said at 3:52 PM 09-03-2005:
you know that's not a very logical statement, right?
also, i would say that the (indeed way larger) government we have today is very alien to what FDR would have wanted. |
|
| mary [email] said at 4:21 PM 09-03-2005:
Yeah, no shit. It's certainly very alien to what this socialist would want.
You can have a large federal government that functions chiefly as a plutocracy. |
|
| mary [email] said at 4:22 PM 09-03-2005:
Also, Bush cut federal taxes. |
rcaston said at 4:41 PM 09-03-2005:
Bush reduced one avenue of revenue of funds into the Federal system, but at the same time increased spending even more.
The spending is the problem. |
 | brandonA [email] said at 10:18 PM 09-03-2005:
Huge logical fallacy
Beavers make trees fall down, but we never call them lumberjacks.
Just because two things A & B share a major characteristic, it doesn't automatically imply that A is a B. |
Rodney C said at 3:46 PM 09-03-2005:
Under Bush, the federal government has grown more in power, spending, and size then any president in decades. Prescription Drugs, Homeland Security, etc.
The guy is a socialist. |
Rodney C said at 3:51 PM 09-03-2005:
Under Bush, the federal government has grown more in power, spending, and size then any president in decades. Prescription Drugs, Homeland Security, etc.
The guy is a socialist. |
|
| josh [email] said at 3:53 PM 09-03-2005:
you said that already dude |
Rodney C said at 3:56 PM 09-03-2005:
For some reason my browser is re-posting, I did not intentionaly write the same thing over and over..
Is this a common problem with firefox and this site with refreshing? |
|
| josh [email] said at 3:58 PM 09-03-2005:
scroll up to the top of the responses and all will be revealed! |
|
| ed [email] said at 4:06 PM 09-03-2005:
Haha!
I wish all would be revealed to me. I have burning questions. And senstaions, for that matter. |
rcaston said at 4:17 PM 09-03-2005:
Ack...
Ed, you may want to get those burning places looked at by a doctor... :/ |
|
| ed [email] said at 8:02 PM 09-03-2005:
Yunpin' yiminy...
You use the stylized "R" from "rice-burning rat-bastards" fame as your website's logo, and cast aspersions towards others?
You might want to grow up enough to where you actually have pubes before you try to garner any interest in your opinions that you throw up (err, out) on the internet, Junior. |
rcaston said at 9:58 PM 09-03-2005:
My wife tells me the same thing...
Though, I've been throwing my opinions around for years, so it would be a serious breach of tradition to stop now. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 5:01 PM 09-03-2005:
rodney caston is right guys.
how dare we ask fema to respond to our disaster the way they respond to disasters in florida and california.
our tax dollars shouldn't go to helping us in a time of need.
rodney caston is the type of "principled right wing nutjob" that wants to drown the federal government in a bathtub, just like the republicans are drowning new orleans right now.
oh and rodney, i'm sorry that the federal government forced you to start respecting the rights of black people.
what a horrible assault on "states rights". |
rcaston said at 5:13 PM 09-03-2005:
I am offended you would turn this into a race issue.
Eh, but if that is your game then I'm not going to play with you. :P |
|
| kiche [email] said at 5:28 PM 09-03-2005:
states rights is a code word for racism, rodney.
i'm from the south, you're from the south.
don't try to play dumb with me.
from wikipedia:
During the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, states' rights again become strongly associated with Southern racial politics, with proponents of racial segregation and Jim Crow laws denouncing federal interference in these state-level policies. In 1948, pro-segregationist Strom Thurmond broke with the Democratic Party and formed the States' Rights Democratic Party, also known as the "Dixiecrats". Some observers pointed out that a plausible solution to the dilemma posed by "civil rights" vs. "states' rights" would have been the passage of civil-rights laws on a state rather than a federal level; when few if any such laws were actually introduced during this time (though many were proposed, and passed, later), critics proclaimed the states' rights movement to be a smoke screen for continuing racial discrimination and segregation.
i guess that i have more than a 30 second mtv attention span knowledge of history makes me "no fun to play with."
:-(
keep on fighting for segregation, ummm..., i mean states rights, rodney caston! |
M Peck said at 7:01 PM 09-03-2005:
It is hardly reasonable to cite Wikipedia as an authoritative definer of a term. This is application of the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.
Furthermore, even were the Wikipedia definition to be considered authoritative, said definition by no means supports your assertion. To conclude that the term "states' rights" applies solely to considerations of segregation simply because the spectre of states' rights was raised relative to that subject by historical persons demonstrates egregious application of the Logical Fallacies of Composition and Too Narrow Definition.
Furthermore, your implication that Rodney C has "a 30 second mtv attention span knowledge of history" (sic) is not only puerile, but clear application of the Logical Fallacies of Appeal to Pity, Attacking the Person (known as an ad hominem attack), and Hasty Generalization.
I am not prone to offering unsolicited advice, but in this case I will do so: develop a more thorough understanding of the art of rhetoric before you attempt to wax erudite. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 7:58 PM 09-03-2005:
It is hardly reasonable to cite Wikipedia as an authoritative definer of a term. This is application of the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.
my response to this would be that everyone i knew in mississippi & louisiana growing up who was all about states rights was a hardcore racist who pined for the return of segregation.
but i guess you can throw that out as "anecdotal evidence".
hmmm... both you and mr. caston are from the south and seem utterly oblivious to states rights ever ever being used to defend racist policies.
by the way, every word in blue above links to a differnet page proving my point. they're google cached so that important words are highlighted for your convenience.
but i guess you can just dismiss all of that as "logical fallacy of appeal to authority" or "anecdotal evidence".
hey, i even link to a modern day states rights party page that argues that gay marriage is not a states rights issue. in fact it's funny how the majority of "states rights" people are opposed to states rights to decide things like "medical marijuana" and "right to die" issues.
i may have grown up in a swamp, but i ain't an idiot matt and i'll appreciate you not tryin' to snow me.
i'll take states rights seriously when states rights supporters take it seriously.
may i suggest the first thing you do is to get states off the federal dole. red states (some of which are the ones that support states rights) are the states that overwhelming take more federal tax monies than they put in. how 'bout fixi' that matt? toss all that social conservatism, red state bullshit and fix your economies?
oh and i didn't accuse mr. caston of having a "a 30 second mtv attention span knowledge of history."
i accused him of being " the equivalent of a brainwashed communist from the middle 20th century."
I am not prone to offering unsolicited advice, but in this case I will do so: develop a more thorough understanding of the art of rhetoric before you attempt to wax erudite.
and i can see that mr. caston is not alone. |
rcaston said at 8:28 PM 09-03-2005:
I am actually against government sanctioned marriage. I do not see where the government has any business in a private religious ceremony.
As for drugs, I'm in favor of each state having their own drug policies.
But I'll play one round here;
Fallacy of Composition:
You assume based on some of our beliefs that we support red states and their sucking at the federal teet.
When in fact, I'm Libertarian. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 8:59 PM 09-03-2005:
i never accused you of being a conservative.
i can smell a "libertarian" a mile away.
by the way, those are irony quotes.
while it's nice that their are some states righters that really believe in states rights, that's neither the majority of states righters or the leadership.
and on top of that states rights in the 21st century is bunk. back in the 18th & 19th century, during states rights hey day, it might actually take you a little while to leave your state. seeing as how transportation consisted of mainly of walking and riding horses. even trains back then were pretty slow. now anyone can drive anywhere. while the states still have domain over many things, we have to worry a lot more about such things as interstate commerce. having certain states with lots of fucked up laws can severely hamper interstate commerce. unfortunately for conservatives and "states righters", we live in a capitalist society and screwing with interstate fucks up our economy.
while i'd agree with you that drug policy belongs in the domain of the states, i think your statements on here about fema and rebuilding new orleans are ignorant and offensive.
it may very well be that it is not possible to rebuild new orleans, but i've paid a lot of tax money to the feds which has been funneled into fema. fema has helped many other regions when a disaster befell them, so damn straight do i have the right to say fema's not doing their job. |
rcaston said at 9:03 PM 09-03-2005:
FEMA's work speaks for itself. |
M Peck said at 10:09 PM 09-03-2005:
It is abundantly clear that, because my refutation of your illogical argumentation was in response to your accusations against Rodney C, you have assumed that I share the opinions and ideals of Rodney C. You are guilty of the commission of yet another logical fallacy, the Logical Fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, or, simply, the post hoc fallacy.
I have no interest in further unveiling your seeming inability to construct logical arguments, and so I will post no more. As before, I offer this unsolicited advice: quit before you get further behind. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 1:43 AM 09-04-2005:
having read this, i have a few questions for you.
are you even a real person ar you a republibot? are you a progam that exists to defend bush?
you do know that the people on here's houses are destroyed and are searching for relatives right?
wait are you some sort of algorithim set up by the democratic party to engender hatred against right wingers?
oh wait, no you are real...
you are dumber than dirt.
here please go here and rant about communism, traitor. |
 | brianbibbly [email] said at 12:05 AM 09-12-2005:
M Peck is obviously a Logic 101 student who is facinated by the "Logical Fallicies of blah de blah" in his text book. Slippery Slope! Straw Man! You hack.
Hey Peck,
If A, then B.
If B, then C.
Ergo, If A, then C.
GENIUS! |
 | jeremy [email] said at 1:04 AM 09-12-2005:
transitive property is 8th grade algebra.
keg stands |
|
| brianbibbly [email] said at 9:06 AM 09-12-2005:
That is also known as a logical syllogism, you douche. |
|
| ed [email] said at 10:08 AM 09-12-2005:
Dude, that's like 3rd grade math! |
Dagon said at 8:06 PM 09-03-2005:
Don't forget:
Logical Fallacy of Strawman.
rcaston never once has used the words "State's Rights" anyone in the thread.
So Kiche's entire basis for attack is flawed. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 8:46 PM 09-03-2005:
rodney caston said:
You can have the State governments handle things themsleves without a huge Federal Government being involved.
There was a time when the Federal system was considered inferior in power to the States, but that was a long time ago...
hmmm... techinically he didn't say the words "states rights", but i'm not freakin' stupid. |
Dagon said at 9:18 PM 09-03-2005:
but i'm not freakin' stupid.
Logically Fallacy of Burden of Proof. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 1:37 AM 09-04-2005:
it's very nice that you took logic 101, it does nothing for new orleans, the gulf coast or america. much like your ideology. |
Dagon said at 4:11 AM 09-04-2005:
Logical Fallacy of Circumstantial Ad Hominem. |
 | zack [email] said at 3:31 PM 09-04-2005:
idiot fallacy of idiotic ad hominem. |
 | reggie [email] said at 9:36 PM 09-03-2005:
Yeah...I'm gonna get some goooood dialogue from youse guys. |
art said at 10:28 PM 09-03-2005:
wow. this is a lot of shit oging on for a saturday. |
 | denman [email] said at 2:18 AM 09-04-2005:
Not being feeling very "logical" today (and being from Mississippi) I'll withhold my commentary on these two "gentlemen." (Okay, but it did involve families and cancer.) |
|
| denman [email] said at 2:29 AM 09-04-2005:
Let me just add this: I'm glad that two states were devistated, an as of yet uknown number of lives lost, those left clinging to life, begging for help (some of the combination of the two being people I know), and all you care about is not giving up any of your hard earned money to these burdens. I'd like to know where the logic is in that. |
rcaston said at 4:06 AM 09-04-2005:
I think you're confusing compassion with logic. |
|
| denman [email] said at 1:46 PM 09-04-2005:
It seems like you are using logic to get around compassion. |
|
| huddo [email] said at 12:10 PM 09-04-2005:
i knew killoggs would go to shit once they let vulcans post. |
|
| reggie [email] said at 2:37 PM 09-04-2005:
You're such a racist Huddo, you Romulan bastard. |
|
| josh [email] said at 4:31 PM 09-04-2005:
the funniest thing about this thread is that rcaston got sad and invited all his friends to argue for him! |
rcaston said at 6:32 PM 09-04-2005:
Heh, you think I can control them? ... |
|
| denman [email] said at 11:03 PM 09-04-2005:
The entire puprose of entering in a societal structure is for protection and survival. If you are not interested in giving of yourself when it is your turn, but only passively taking your spot in a safe society you are not holding up your end of the contract. You can hold your position against "handouts" freely and without ridicule as soon as you agree to leave this society. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
