M.K. Ham was not saying that at all and you know it .

I love it when Bill tells Democrat guests “Thanks for coming on the program, you’re a stand-up guy”, like he did today with Rep. Andrews.
It’s funny cuz he never says that to his Republican guests.

It’s an admission that his show is a right-wing den-of-lions and not very fair and balanced after all. lolol

On topic…way to piss of Pony-girl by putting words in her mouth, Bill!!

BOR asked an irrational question, IMO.

What would the lib Dems have said if GWB violated the Posse Comitas (?) act and sent Federal troops into LA without the legal requirement to be invited to do so?

What would we Con Repubs said if BHO had done so? Of the two GWB would have had more justification b/c Katrina affected 90,000 sq miles with the harmful aftermath still visible today.

I think we can all agree that there would have been an uproar, and rightly so.

I don’t think that that means everyone who would disapprove is just fine and dandy with innocent people dying. MKH was exactly correct on this.

Additionally, unlike Katrina the effects and aftermath of this latest snowstorm would have been over before any mobilized federal troops could have gotten there. What could possibly have possessed BOR tonight?

Get snow for a couple of days and where is the fed ? Whatever ! Local problem .
Katrina didn’t need rocket science to move the elderly and sick . And fuel and secure transportation . Duh ! Which locals did neither .

Grammie said:
BOR asked an irrational question, IMO.

What would the lib Dems have said if GWB violated the Posse Comitas (?) act and sent Federal troops into LA without the legal requirement to be invited to do so?

Yep. Aside from that, if you wanted to send the National Guard in to clean up, you don’t need the federal government to lift a finger, given that their commander is the Governor of New York. Duh, Bill.

Pablo said:
if you wanted to send the National Guard in to clean up

Which Bill was suggesting, BTW.

Pablo said:
Which Bill was suggesting, BTW.

Did I not understand him correctly, Pablo?

Tucker P. said:
Katrina didn’t need rocket science to move the elderly and sick . And fuel and secure transportation

Tucker, are you suggesting that the Feds were not needed in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita?

Yeah this argument is tired and hackneyed.

Conservatives call for a limited government, not a non-existent government.

Any characterization otherwise is disingenuous and/or ignorant.

To a conservative, a disaster is exactly when the government is needed.

National defense, disaster assistance, law enforcement, and municipal services such as roads and bridges etc. are some of the principal duties of the government in the eyes of a conservative.

In comparison I could list what liberals believe are principal responsibilities of the government, but I don’t have all week to post this.

Grammie said:
BOR asked an irrational question, IMO.

What would the lib Dems have said if GWB violated the Posse Comitas (?) act and sent Federal troops into LA without the legal requirement to be invited to do so?

Not an irrational question. It is a LOGICAL premise. Yes, liberals DO SUPPORT the feds getting involved immediately. This is the difference between libs and conservatives. Libs do not fear or see a shame in asking for federal help like you fake conservatives eg. Gov. Christie (“Mr. Conservative”) who’s now asking for federal aid. This is what happens you convince the masses the fed government is the devil.

What would we Con Repubs said if BHO had done so?

Foam at the mouth and bitch like you always do at everything he does.

Gasket said:
Not an irrational question. It is a LOGICAL premise.

Logical? So, anyone who does not support federal troops roaming the city of new York after a snowstorm is OK with people dying? That is logical to you?

Gasket said:
Foam at the mouth and bitch like you always do at everything he does.

Grammie said:
What would the lib Dems have said if GWB violated the Posse Comitas (?) act and sent Federal troops into LA without the legal requirement to be invited to do so?

You obviously missed my first question: Care to take that one on

Grammie said:
Did I not understand him correctly, Pablo?

I’m not sure. He was talking about the federal government coming in, but he suggested the National Guard as how that might take place. (see the 2:15 mark in the clip) My point that that the NG isn’t federal troops and you could send them in with no federal involvement at all, let alone any questions of violating state sovereignty. Emergency management type stuff is the bulk of what the Guard does in peacetime, and they do on it their Governor’s orders, not the President’s. For instance, last spring when we had heavy flooding here, there were NG troops directing traffic at intersections, among many other things. The Feds didn’t send them.

Gasket said:
Libs do not fear or see a shame in asking for federal help like you fake conservatives

Then why didn’t Kathleen Blanco take it when Bush was begging her to?

Pablo said:
Pablo says:
January 4, 2011 at 1:11 am

I did and didn’t understand him.

I think b/c my mind goes automatically to the massive federal help needed by the states and local communities after Betsy, Camille and Katrina I tend to forget the a governor can call on the National Guard.and the Feds don’t have to be involved.

Thanks.

These sorts of waste material and filth lead to some severe health issues predominantly infectious diseases. Colon Lipo is the latest entry in the market, which detoxifies your internal system and makes you feel fresh and revitalized.
Colon Lipo

Grammie said:
Logical? So, anyone who does not support federal troops roaming the city of new York after a snowstorm is OK with people dying?

Of course not! However, you guys never make the distinction is MY point. You label any & ALL federal “intervention” as the feds broadening their powers with your “BIG GOVT” bullshit.

To answer your first question, I will answer it with another question of my own? When have Democrats complained that the federal government was too quick to come assist a state in dire need administrative protocols notwithstanding?

Pablo said:
Then why didn’t Kathleen Blanco take it when Bush was begging her to?

She did? Bush was “begging” to assist her and she refused? I have seen nothing of the sort unless that’s your latest partisan spin. He’s the fucking POTUS! Get the NG down there anyway and deal with the other BS later. That’s what leaders do and voters reward decisive action. The Katrina debacle was a collective failure of both the federal and state government. I will agree Blanco and Nagin did a terrible job handling that issue. Nagin really shouldn’t have been re-elected after that happened, but like O’Reilly likes saying, you do not excuse bad behavior with bad behavior. I am not defending Blanco and Nagin here. I am chastising rigid ideologues who stick to their political dogma when it comes time for necessary and immediate action.

For the record, Christie is taking heat for this for nothing. I got similarly pissed off when people were getting mad at Obama when the oil wells were hemorrhaging in the gulf. Like he could dive down there and plug the wells himself. Just like Obama, Christie being in NJ would not have fixed the issue any faster. I am pissed at Christie solely for his double speak and hypocrisy when it comes to federal assistance.

BarneyFranken said:

National defense, disaster assistance, law enforcement, and municipal services such as roads and bridges etc. are some of the principal duties of the government in the eyes of a conservative.

.

That sounds like socialism to me. :)

Shows how unrealistic these guys are, the idea they have is only an idea and a theory. It’s not practical, reminds me of the privatize fire service in one of the Southern state that allowed a house to burn down because they didn’t pay their Fire service bill. Pathetic,

Gasket said:
That sounds like socialism to me. :)

Fact: Just a service not used in the liberal way of control, control, control.. so you have the wrong use of governement services don’t you liberal!

Yes, saying the feds should not help in emergency situations when people may die is nutty. Likewise, letting 40 thousand people a year die from lack of medical care is also nutty.

Bill can be such a tool sometimes.
NYC could have been plowed properly if the sanitation dept. just did their damn job.
Everywhere they plowed was just fine and the the other areas remained unplowed from a deliberate work stoppage.
Comparing a snow storm to Katrina was ridiculous.

BOR has been disrespecting and constantly interrupting MK Ham for over a year now, …I really don’t know why she comes on his program. Michele Malkin boycotts BOR because of the male against female sexism he tolerates.

http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2007/10/14/malkin-quits-the-factor/

skyfet said:
It’s not practical, reminds me of the privatize fire service in one of the Southern state that allowed a house to burn down because they didn’t pay their Fire service bill. Pathetic,

It was a “City” Fire Department…quit reading SALON…they never get their stories correct.

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

That said…O’Reilly was way off base. Removing snow is a local issue, not the feds, not the states. If the locals cannot do it, they need to be replaced. That includes the union.

This is not the first time something like this has happened. Snow falls all over the country and it is impossible for a federal agency to move as fast as they would need to.

BatBoy said:
It was a “City” Fire Department…quit reading SALON…they never get their stories correct. http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html That said…O’Reilly was way off base. Removing snow is a local issue, not the feds, not the states. If the locals cannot do it, they need to be replaced. That includes the union. This is not the first time something like this has happened. Snow falls all over the country and it is impossible for a federal agency to move as fast as they would need to.

But otherwise, you are OK with the Feds spending tax dollars to help states deal with natural catastrophes? That is socialism. Consider our forefather’s very first, founding policial document, the Mayflower Compact:

“Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.”

Gasket said:
To answer your first question, I will answer it with another question of my own? When have Democrats complained that the federal government was too quick to come assist a state in dire need administrative protocols notwithstanding?

Gasket said:
You label any & ALL federal “intervention” as the feds broadening their powers with your “BIG GOVT” bullshit.

I/we do? I had no idea that my support for a more limited role for government really means I want NO government.

Gasket said:
To answer your first question, I will answer it with another question of my own? When have Democrats complained that the federal government was too quick to come assist a state in dire need administrative protocols notwithstanding?

Non responsive and highly ideological based on your answer to what Repubs would say if BHO sent Federal troops in violation of Posse Comitas. Care to try again.

Gasket said:
She did? Bush was “begging” to assist her and she refused? I have seen nothing of the sort unless that’s your latest partisan spin.

That’s NOT SPIN. From the Washington Post:

“NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 3 — Tens of thousands of people spent a fifth day awaiting evacuation from this ruined city, as Bush administration officials blamed state and local authorities for what leaders at all levels have called a failure of the country’s emergency management…..Behind the scenes, a power struggle emerged, as federal officials tried to wrest authority from Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans, a source within the state’s emergency operations center said Saturday.

The administration sought unified control over all local police and state National Guard units reporting to the governor. Louisiana officials rejected the request after talks throughout the night, concerned that such a move would be comparable to a federal declaration of martial law. Some officials in the state suspected a political motive behind the request. “Quite frankly, if they’d been able to pull off taking it away from the locals, they then could have blamed everything on the locals,” said the source, who does not have the authority to speak publicly.

A senior administration official said that Bush has clear legal authority to federalize National Guard units to quell civil disturbances under the Insurrection Act and will continue to try to unify the chains of command that are split among the president, the Louisiana governor and the New Orleans mayor.

Louisiana did not reach out to a multi-state mutual aid compact for assistance until Wednesday, three state and federal officials said. As of Saturday, Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency, the senior Bush official said. ”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090301680.html

I’m a real live genuine YAT and the WaPo article is dead on. BTW, our next door neighbor, MS, got the full and direct brunt of Katrina. Their Repub Governor, Haley Barbour, did the exact opposite of Blanco and MS has had a much faster recovery.

valkyrie101 said:
But otherwise, you are OK with the Feds spending tax dollars to help states deal with natural catastrophes?

Val, I go away for 5 months, come back and you are still building your little straw men – or should we call this one a “snowman” – and then knocking them down.

Yes!!! Especially when we are talking about a disaster that spreads across FIVE states encompassing 90,000 SQUARE MILES. Four weeks after Katrina my Mama, a 100 yrs old, died in my home in FL. It took two weeks before we could bury her with my Dad b/c of the aftermath of the storm. We drove through the devastation that was Katrina from the FL panhandle thru to NOLA.

Yes, Val, there are disasters that it is not only constitutional for the Feds to handle but also absolutely imperative.

Grammie said:
Val, I go away for 5 months, come back and you are still building your little straw men – or should we call this one a “snowman” – and then knocking them down. Yes!!! Especially when we are talking about a disaster that spreads across FIVE states encompassing 90,000 SQUARE MILES. Four weeks after Katrina my Mama, a 100 yrs old, died in my home in FL. It took two weeks before we could bury her with my Dad b/c of the aftermath of the storm. We drove through the devastation that was Katrina from the FL panhandle thru to NOLA. Yes, Val, there are disasters that it is not only constitutional for the Feds to handle but also absolutely imperative.

Strawman? I asked the basic question: Is there a problem with the Federal government bailing out states or locals hit by serious natural catastrope? Of course the answer must be no. But using Fed money to help out IS socialism. We don’t call it that, but that is what it is. Same with our socialist system of providing fire and police protection, or our military protection: we tax everyone, put the money in a pool, and use the money for the common welfare of all the people. Socialism.

valkyrie101 said:
Of course the answer must be no. But using Fed money to help out IS socialism

Are you quite sure that what you are describing is Socialism?

I would say that that is the core and essence of Federalism. Just as it is no more socialism than for the Feds to be responsible for national defense. Socialism defines the relationship between government and economic activity.

–noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Grammie said:
That’s NOT SPIN. From the Washington Post:

“NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 3 — Tens of thousands of people spent a fifth day awaiting evacuation from this ruined city, as Bush administration officials blamed state and local authorities for what leaders at all levels have called a failure of the country’s emergency management…..Behind the scenes, a power struggle emerged, as federal officials tried to wrest authority from Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans, a source within the state’s emergency operations center said Saturday.

I posted that too in a 12:13 comment which for some reason is awaiting moderation. That is very annoying.

Grammie said:
Yes, Val, there are disasters that it is not only constitutional for the Feds to handle but also absolutely imperative.

Of course, it still requires the consent of the states in question, which is rarely a problem as mostly they want the help.

Pablo said:
Of course, it still requires the consent of the states in question, which is rarely a problem as mostly they want the help.

Of course. That very point is what started this conversation.

Grammie said:
Are you quite sure that what you are describing is Socialism? I would say that that is the core and essence of Federalism. Just as it is no more socialism than for the Feds to be responsible for national defense. Socialism defines the relationship between government and economic activity. –noun1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Socialism equals government ownership.

valkyrie101 said:
Socialism equals government ownership.

Exactly how does Federal deployment of troops and material equal government ownership and of what?

Grammie said:
Exactly how does Federal deployment of troops and material equal government ownership and of what?

The capitalist model would require our government to purchase its military protection from private contractors. The socialist model involves the government, rather, taxing the general population and providing that protection via millions of employees itself. Like it or not, that is a socialist system.

Val, according to you a capitalist society has a completely privately run mercenary military?

Name me one capitalistic country that does that.

Also according to you a socialist system has a military that functions as government/civilian employees.

Name me one of those while you are at it.

Grammie said:
Val, according to you a capitalist society has a completely privately run mercenary military? Name me one capitalistic country that does that. Also according to you a socialist system has a military that functions as government/civilian employees. Name me one of those while you are at it.

There is no such thing as a fully capitalist system. Rather, there are governments set-up by people that use capitalist and socialist systems in tandem, like us. Public schools, fire service, police service, road repair , libraries, and a host of other fully socialist sub-systems are incorporated in our overall system together with our mostly capitalist general economy. In most developed countries, virtually all, in fact, they also provide medical care pursuant to a socialist model. Why? Because that is the most efficient way to provide for not only the common defense, but also the general welfare of the nation and the health of its citizens.

valkyrie101 said:
Rather, there are governments set-up by people that use capitalist and socialist systems in tandem, like us. Public schools, fire service, police service, road repair , libraries, and a host of other fully socialist sub-systems are incorporated in our overall system

So, since the Roman Empire had services such as roads, public libraries, police forces etc they were just socialists after all.

Socialism is an economic term. Let me repeat that. SOCIALISM IS AN ECONOMIC TERM!!!!

In socialism the government controls economic activity and dispenses the fruits of the economy based on their political ideology.

In capitalism individuals control much more of their own economic activities and use their wealth as they see fit as opposed to a government official.

Both systems have government services but the means of production are handled differently resulting in differences in what and how much the government provides.. The difference is in capitalistic societies individuals provide much more of their services for themselves.

The government fulfilling their duty in Katrina is not socialism. It is their obligation as our government. That obligation holds whatever economic system we use.

Grammie said:
So, since the Roman Empire had services such as roads, public libraries, police forces etc they were just socialists after all. Socialism is an economic term. Let me repeat that. SOCIALISM IS AN ECONOMIC TERM!!!! In socialism the government controls economic activity and dispenses the fruits of the economy based on their political ideology. In capitalism individuals control much more of their own economic activities and use their wealth as they see fit as opposed to a government official. Both systems have government services but the means of production are handled differently resulting in differences in what and how much the government provides.. The difference is in capitalistic societies individuals provide much more of their services for themselves. The government fulfilling their duty in Katrina is not socialism. It is their obligation as our government. That obligation holds whatever economic system we use.

Dude, socialism is just another word for collective ownership. It has existed for at least thousands of years. Likewise, capitalism, in at least rudimentary form, has also been around for at least thousands of years. The frickin Pilgrims were socialists. It has nothing to do with communism or any of that economic theory crap.

Here is our first socialist manifesto (the Mayflower Compact):

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc.
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.

This is not a Federal issue. This is a local issue that should be handled by the people of this city. If this is the type of nonsense their getting from the Unions and this idiot Mayor, then let the people of this city correct it.
In this case criminal charges should be brought against the Union bosses, and Mayor Bloomburg should be removed from office!

That Compact sure didn’t last long, did it.

“The Puritans implemented a form of Platonic Christian Socialism, which was based upon an ideological synthesis of such influences as 1) Plato’s Republic, 2) a utopian interpretation of the New Testament (especially Acts 2:44-46), 3) a joint-stock agreement between colonial shareholders and the London-based John Peirce & Associates company, 4) a Continental European cultural attitude toward education (acquired during Pilgrim settlement in Holland), and 5) especially close economic and cultural bonds between Boston’s elite and the ruling class of England. During their first three years in the New World, the Puritans abolished private property and declared all land and produce to be owned in common (a commonwealth).

In Plymouth over half the colonists promptly died from starvation. Governor William Bradford observed that the collectivist approach “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.” He lamented the “vanity of that conceit of Plato’s . . . that the taking away of property and bringing community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.” Governor Bradford implemented private ownership of property, but Platonic Christianity continued to dominate other aspects of regional social policy.

For his part, John Winthrop delivered a famous speech in 1630 that articulated the prevailing contemporary Bay Colony ethic of social collectivism:

[W]e must be knit together in this work as one man, we must entertain each other in brotherly Affection, we must be willing to abridge our selves of our superfluities for the supply of others’ necessities, we must uphold a familiar Commerce together . . . [and] make others’ Conditions our own, . . . always having before our eyes our . . . Community in the work, our Community as members of the same body[.] . . . [W]e shall find that . . . when [God] shall make us a praise and glory, that men shall say of succeeding plantations: the Lord make it like that of New England: for we must Consider that we shall be as a City upon a Hill.:

Let me repeat this part:

“During their first three years in the New World, the Puritans abolished private property and declared all land and produce to be owned in common (a commonwealth).

In Plymouth over half the colonists promptly died from starvation. Governor William Bradford observed that the collectivist approach “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort”

http://www.quaqua.org/pilgrim.htm

Colonists to the new world had more than economics as a driving force. Their backers, such as Plymouth Bay Company, were in it strictly as an investment. Their investment only paid off after the socialistic economic model was scrapped.

No matter how often you accuse me of being a hypocrite b/c as a conservative I, per you and your straw men, do think government can be legitimate and used legitimately; or accuse me of socialism b/c I support the Federal role re Katrina and Rita doesn’t make it so.

Grammie said:
That Compact sure didn’t last long, did it.

Huh? We live by it today.

valkyrie101 said:
Huh? We live by it today.

The economic portion of the Compact was scrapped in three years while they kept the remainder religious/social constructs of their Platonic Christian Socialism.

The last time I looked freedom of and from religion in both our public and private lives is going great guns. In fact, that aspect of it was essentially gone within a century. You don’t agree?

Grammie said:
The economic portion of the Compact was scrapped in three years while they kept the remainder religious/social constructs of their Platonic Christian Socialism. The last time I looked freedom of and from religion in both our public and private lives is going great guns. In fact, that aspect of it was essentially gone within a century. You don’t agree?

You certainly can not change the intent of our founding fathers, our real founding fathers, four hundred years later by philisophical argument, my friend.