Journal bmetzler's Journal: George Bush, The Man. 19
The latest from a sound-thinking Canadian (not an oxymoron after all!)
By David Warren
The Ottawa Citizen Sunday, September 11, 2005.There's plenty wrong with America, since you asked. I'm tempted to say that the only difference from Canada is that they have a few things right. That would be unfair, of course I am often pleased to discover things we still get right.
But one of them would not be disaster preparation. If something happened up here, on the scale of Katrina, we wouldn't even have the resources to arrive late. We would be waiting for the Americans to come save us, the same way the government in Louisiana just waved and pointed at Washington, D.C. The theory being that, when you're in real trouble, that's where the adults live.
Hmm, the adults are in Washington DC? It's an interesting article. Go read the whole thing yourself.
Little Problem (Score:2)
Certainly David Warren believes it, but...
Do you see it as that simple, really? This author immediately loses a great deal of credibility, in my view, the moment he makes such a broad statement.
Then -- if this is really the case -- would this not also immediately explain the age-old question, why are there so few poor Republicans?
While, I think the essay foolish in many ways, there is a cold hearted point that I "get". I mean,
Re:Little Problem (Score:2)
Let me explain - to Both of you... (Score:2)
It wa
Re:Little Problem (Score:2)
In my mind, Democrats tend to fall into two camps: (1) lower-income people ("welfare queens," union agitators, and such) who think society owes them everything and (2) zillionaires ("Hollyweirdos," "trustafarians," and such) who've already gotten their money and couldn't care less if you or I have the opportunity to get ahead. I make a fairly comfortable living now and came from what was eventually a solid midd
I haven't read the rest of the article (Score:2)
Re:I haven't read the rest of the article (Score:2)
um maybe in *your* world. but in reality... you are completely wrong.
real adults HAVE money, because they know how to meet their obligations AND manage their resources.
Re:I haven't read the rest of the article (Score:2)
real adults HAVE money, because they know how to meet their obligations AND manage their resources.
Somebody is allowed to keep resources without forming a limited liability corporation? Or having banks and other governmental forces (yes, the banking system is a part of government) come to take those resources away?
For instance, I supposedly own my house- but in reality I have to make payments to the bank monthly and the county yearl
Re:I haven't read the rest of the article (Score:1)
I'm assuming you own your home and have paid off the mortgage on it. If you haven't, then let's pretend you have.
Would you still have to pay taxes on it? Yes, you would-- even though (technically) it's yours. What would happen if you refused to pay those taxes? Chances are,
Re:I haven't read the rest of the article (Score:2)
2 ways in general. Both were at one time deemed usury. The first is by depriving you quick and ready access to your own money. Only 1/10th of the money supply is physical- you have no real way to get your hands on it in the case of a run on the bank; this is partially saved through federally insured accounts up to $100,000, but if you've ever REALLY been in that situation, you know it can take 6 months or more to see the payment, if ever. They make money o
After reading the full article (Score:2)
Re:After reading the full article (Score:1)
How one defends against a hurricane I'm not sure, but that's his theory.
Re:After reading the full article (Score:2)
And there's a large amount of case and legislative law on the subject that led me to that conclusion.
How one defends against a hurricane I'm not sure, but that's his theory.
Shields Up Captain! Ok, so bad sci-fi cliche, but in the case of defending against any form of weather, up to and including a hurricane, that's the first point. The second point is flight- and being able to take flight. I guess with all the rebuilding
Re:After reading the full article (Score:2)
Not broken- but certainly severely bent with deadly consequences.
They teach it if you take the college prep courses. In 1803, Congress decided that recovering from "Acts of God" were a part of the common defense. The Supreme Court upheld the rebuilding of a small New Hampshire town a few years later.
That's the entire constituti
Re:After reading the full article (Score:2)
I'm sure they will- but I don't like my tax money paying for scenes of dead people on TV, and a federal agent when asked about those scenes saying "What people at the convention center?". Sloppy at best.
Is that common defense, or "immediate" response that you are expecting? It was the "immediate" response that people are complaining about, something that you even didn't mention as having a constitional foundation.
When at