tso-d_chris

Good tip. That one slipped my mind.

Maybe it was because last year was an election year, or maybe it was because his brother was Governor of Florida. Either way, I can't see how the blame does not rest squarely, although not solely, on Bush's shoulders this time.

It was certainly not the reaction I was expecting. While it would be ideal to get help from the closest people, there has now been the time to bring in anybody from anywhere in the world, and there are still communities (as of this afternoon) begging for assistance. I don't suppose you have that 800 number, do you?

I just returned from the local Red Cross (I am in Missouri at the moment). I tried to volunteer my time and any applicable experience and was told I would have to waint until mid October to be trained. Isn't the whole point of a volunteer to offer experience, time and service to those who are unable to obtain them for themselves? Why would they turn away volunteers? Does anyone know of any agency willing to accept volunteers? There are still news report of communities still in desperate need of assistance. I feel like an ass sitting around and hearing about it on the news, knowing I have the time to help, and not doing anything. To be completely honest, I never imagined the government would be so woefully incompetent in the wake of the storm. Things were nowhere near that bad for most of us in Florida last year. I took it for granted that the Gulf Coast would receive the same immediate attention.

Congress!

Given that morning's failures of NORAD, which appeared to be in good working order when Payne Stewart's plane was intercepted by fighter jets on Slick Willie's watch, I find this assertion difficult to believe.

IIRC there were military offices in each of the buildings involved in the attacks of 9/11. Doesn't that make them legitimate military targets? I'm not defending the actions, or saying you are wrong, just trying to understand your logic.

Do you know how the two methods compare with respect to mpg or pollution?

I have a friend that uses used cooking oil from a local restaurant in his diesel Mercedes. I know the diesel was designed to run on vegetable oil, so that farmers could grow their own fuel. I remember reading somewhere that there is a difference in ese of changing to 100% biodiesel between direct and indirect injection engines. On one of them it is supposed to be as simple as just switching fuel. The other requires a small bit of prep work. I don't remember which is the easier kind of injection to make the switch with. Good luck.

I see. Any particular reason you picked 2003? One year is hardly a representative sample for something that happens relatively rarely, don't you think? I understand the point you are trying to make. I just don't believe it justifies racial profiling. Think of it this way. 50,000 people is less than 2/100 of 1% of the population. I do not find it at all hard to believe that such a small portion could be pissed off, frustrated or otherwise motivated enough to do something violent. Using race to profile potential threats is going to make it relatively easier for the other races to exploit holes in the system.

It would have helped if you had listed domestic terrorism. Is that why you withheld the source? How about giving up the link. It's only ethical. Yeah. Back in mid September, the eleventh IIRC, of 2001, we had some planes hijacked and flown into various prominent buildings. Perhaps you have heard of them. They were the twin towers of the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon. According to officil reports, Osama bin Laden was behind it. We trained him. Many have referred to 9/11 as a terrorist attack. Wouldn't you?

Psst...GM...I think this is the quote to which AC is referring.

Notice how none of them took place in America. Let me help. Zero. Remember, our proactive foreign policy created Osama bin Laden. Are you saying you are in favor of Osama bin Laden?

Its only racism if you fail to take into account the centuries of slavery and other artificial handicaps the majority race in this country has had prior to the last forty years of civil rights. I am not so shortsided to ignore centuries because I've only seen a few decades first hand. Twice I've pointed out the error of this logic. Just read the other two posts. If you need further help with your reading comprehension, PM me. I will be happy to help you study. Before 1905 the majority of people assumed time and space were absolute, never changing. We now know for certain these assumptions were incorrect. With research you would find your assumption, which you claim is shared by a majority of people, also, is incorrect. Sorry. Out of curiosity, were you able to keep a straight face when you typed that?

This means nothing without being broken down by race or religion. Broken down by race/religion? Hmm...Are we counting drive-bys as terrorism now? I don't think you want to go there. Thank you for supporting my argument. Columbia is in South America, not the middle east. FYI. (You might also hear it referred to as Central America.) I Googled MILF, and I gotta tell you, if that's terrorism, terrorize me! (Just making sure you're not taking things too seriously!) On a serious note, this does at first glance appear to possibly be the work of a Middle Eastern male. Perhaps more definitive evidence is available, but not posted. Fair Enough. Except it happened in the Philipines, so its not really relevant to the discussion at hand. You are aware that Israel and Palestine are known for not playing well together, right? That is hardly a threat to America. That is a threat to Israel. It doesn't concern me much when I'm in an American airport. Still not an attack on America. It was an attack on a Rabbi. Again, this sounds like part of the Israel Palastine Conflict. It wasn't on American soil or her territories, at any rate. You are aware that Saudi Arabia has traditionally been considered fertile ground for terrorism, right? Never mind that the US protects the royal family that enables it. Maybe if we stopped doing that, the violence might eventually diminish. Israel / Palestine conflict again. Not relevant. You are aware there is a war going on in Iraq. Am I supposed to feel sorry for the guy because he was paid better than the soldiers are? He knew the risks of working in a combat zone. It's not terrorism. Its war. Iraq war. Israel/Palestine Conflict. Legitimate military target for any army not bound by the Geneva Convention. Not terrorism. Well paid civilians in a combat zone. They knew the risk. Well, you've not provided any supporting evidence relevant to the discussion at hand. How about some terrorism against America, on America's soil? That is what is relevant to this discussion.

What are you quoting?

Let's use a nice metaphor, to offer a more objective perspective. Imagine you have a traditional footrace, with a history spanning hundreds of years. Traditionally only the members of one team were allowed to actually race. This insured that that team remained perennial champions. The best thing was, every time the team won, they were allowed to apply their winning lead to their starting point for the next race. And they were free to change the rules of the game a they saw fit. About one hundred forty years ago, the competition was opened up to any team that wanted to race. Except that only the original team was allowed to train. And winnings from previous races had to be provided in order for them to participate in the rule changing procedings. Meanwhile, the original team kept training, racing and winning, for about a century, every race, acquiring more of a head start for the next race. In fact, it got so that the original team was only having to run half the race at this point. Suddenly, things change. All the teams are allowed to train and participate in the rule changing procedings. And, since it was impossible to make the original team start back at the beginning of the race, the other teams were now allowed to start at a point much closer, though still behind, the original team. The Original Team had many members that were not happy about this handicap given to the Other Teams, because even though the Original Team was still easily the winningest team, there were now the occasional defeats. The had won automatically for so long, without any serious competition, they never realized that it was possible to lose a race. Okay, let's face it. That was no Allegory of the Cave. I should probably explain the symbolism. The Original Team quite obviously represents the American Caucasion. The competition is the economy are transition points, such as a job change or a school admission. The other teams are American minority races. The timeline was based on Black American history (as opposed to Hispanic American or Native American). The head start that the winning team gets to apply during the next race is the benefits that come from being raised in a successful family and/or community. The rule changing procedings are elections. The handicap the Other Teams are allowed near the end of the story is representative of affirmative action. You are right, Kennedy, racism is wrong. That is exactly what would it would be if you ended affirmative action and returned the unfair advantage back to the racial majority, completely ignoring the racist policies of the past centuries that gave them that unfair head start. That would be retroactive racsism. Don't get me wrong, affirmative action is a flawed policy in implementation, but it is better than any alternative yet proposed. When we no longer perceive differences in race (ie. When the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes), affirmative action (or something like it) will no longer be necessary. All this talk of racial profiling tells me we are not anywhere close to that point. Fortunately, all the opposition to racial profiling tells me we are making progress. Still, it would probably be more efficient to just eliminate any race differences through procreation.

Like AQ was affiliated with Saddams regime? Let's stick to what we know, and not the scare tactics. How many Muuslims have been caught in Airports with weapons since 9-11? How many non-Muslims? The Muslims don't make up the overwhelming majority. No matter how you spin it.

Presidential taste, so to spesk, has definitely gone downhill since JFK!

Yours is the most short sided understanding of affirmative action I have seen, I believe. Not that it's unique to you. Unfortunately, many people are unable to see past the reverse racism claims. The supporters of affirmative action rightfully believe that since minorities of relatively recent past have, in general, received an inferior primary and secondary education from the state, and are thus at an unfair disadvantage after secondary school. To quote Lyndon Johnson, "you do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others', and still justly believe that you have been completely fair." To claim reverse racism is, in most cases, projection. That is not to say that I am a huge fan of affirmative action. It is a flawed system. However, currently, there are no better alternatives being championed. Most domestic terrorism is not carried out by foreigners. Therefore, it would be INCOMPETENT police work to primarily target foreigners. It would undermine the security efforts in airports, not help them. I will ask one more time before I assume that you have no facts to back up your argument. Can you offer any eveidence that the overwhelming majority of terrorists attacking US are Muslim males? Listing bin Laden and his followers does not comprise a majority. I have never claimed that NO Muslim male poses a threat to America. But to assume they pose the largest threat would be wholly unsubstantiated. Did you understand that time? The link explained it. The attachment was merely to lend credibility to the claim that the FOX subsidiary did in fact win a case allowing them to severely distort the truth in their reporting. I could have given you more links and attachments, but I assumed you were capable of finding keywords within what was presented, and doing your own advanced search. I apologize for overestimating your researching skills. My mistake.

That is SOOOO wrong! You forgot Wolfowitz!

Try again. It is making fun of those who are able to spin affirmative action into a form of racism. I think that's crazy thinking. I have offered no opinion on affirmative action. What are you talking about , sir? I am quite certain, if I quoted you, my reply was relavent. If you were unable to comprehend the reply, let me know and I will rephrase the point in a manner you are able to understand. You must have missed the link. FOX won a lawsuit when they fired two award winning journalists because they had the integrity to not distort the truth to the extent of lying in their stories. Are you saying you support lying in the news reporting? FOX has little credibility as an unbiased source of news.

Psst...Hey GM...Proof would be demonstrating an overwhelming majority of terrorists are Muslim males. Anything short of that would indicate racial profiling would create new security weaknesses. That is not the case. There are more domestic terrorists than foreign ones.

I feel at far greater risk walking by an abortion clinic than I do in an airport. That's not because of the security, either. They merely make feel like a criminal for no good reason. But since you brought up good ol bin Laden, he is in fact the best reason yet to change our foreign policy to a more diplomatic approach. We created him. If he is a monster, it is because we trained him to be one. And now he has a nice following of Merry Men. If we don't want monsters running around with Stinger missiles and AK-47s, perhaps the wisest path would be to stop using covert force to implement foreign policy. I'm not convinced visible force is a much better option. I see no benefit to be gained for a civilized nation by using race as an initial means to locate potential criminals. All it will do is undermine civil rights and the effectiveness of law enforcement. It creates relative weaknesses in the system.

You are still unable to find any proof, I see. So you bring more baseless hysterical rhetoric to the "debate." You've not provided any proof it won't. As you just pointed out, I have indeed offered no evidence that using racial profiling will not decrease the effectiveness of security measures already in place. That is because I think racism in police work will decrease the effectiveness of security measures already in place. So true. Just don't forget about your inability thus far to provide any evidence of racial profiling working.