(04-01-2011, 07:29 PM)username Wrote: Mincing words. Look how well the government handled Katrina.


Please don't tell me that was another conspiracy.

try and understand this

The order of responders is local,state and then federal.

The area had a few days warning on the size and power of katrina, the local people failed by not evacuating the the lower elevations and setting up dedicated relief centers , the state failed by not having their people staged and ready to go from dedicated staging areas, and the feds failed by not sending people in to make sure the local and state had done all that they could while at the same time mobilizing their assets.

it was a multi tier cluster fuck.

(04-01-2011, 07:45 PM)IMaDick Wrote: try and understand this

The order of responders is local,state and then federal.

The area had a few days warning on the size and power of katrina, the local people failed by not evacuating the the lower elevations and setting up dedicated relief centers , the state failed by not having their people staged and ready to go from dedicated staging areas, and the feds failed by not sending people in to make sure the local and state had done all that they could while at the same time mobilizing their assets.

it was a multi tier cluster fuck.

That's a lot of mentally deficient people. Must have been a conspiracy for that many people to fuck-up all at once.

The three stooges were in charge, what did you expect?

Nagin,blanco and of course brown.

everyone blames Bush, but He had people hired to do this shit.

It occurred to me that whether or not we knew or should have known about the potential for terrorists to fly a plane in to a building, we CERTAINLY know it's possible now and to my knowledge, we don't have no-fly zones set up for potential targets. Is that even do-able? Would it create chaos in airtraffic? Is this just part of another greater conspiracy? Or are we still mentally deficient?

So many questions, so few answers.

More than 100 nuke plants, and too many to count sky scrapers, and then where do you stop? if you push the attacks from the large targets then they go to the smaller ones, do you want to live in east germany with anti aircraft bunkers everywhere?

Don't try to fly over the White House or over Kings Bay, Ga. They WILL shoot you down.

We handle air traffic by tracking all the planes. When one deters from it's assigned path, we scramble jets immediately after making contact. Before 9/11, planes got a ton of warnings before we actually got a jet in the air. Not now. We don't need to cover the US in prohibited flight zones; we have kickass jets.

(04-01-2011, 08:03 PM)username Wrote:

(04-01-2011, 07:45 PM)IMaDick Wrote: try and understand this

The order of responders is local,state and then federal.

The area had a few days warning on the size and power of katrina, the local people failed by not evacuating the the lower elevations and setting up dedicated relief centers , the state failed by not having their people staged and ready to go from dedicated staging areas, and the feds failed by not sending people in to make sure the local and state had done all that they could while at the same time mobilizing their assets.

it was a multi tier cluster fuck.

That's a lot of mentally deficient people. Must have been a conspiracy for that many people to fuck-up all at once.

How can you blame the government when the people were TOLD to evacuate, but didn't? I don't understand that thinking.

While some want to call it a conspiracy plot, all that really happened was people didn't want to leave because they didn't want to miss their chance to loot. Hurricane Katrina was Louisiana's biggest Flat Screen TV Five Finger Discount Sale.

The Governor and other officials have to pass the information to the federal level to ask for help. Like Dick said, blame Blanco. Or the stupid asses who didn't know what "mandatory evacuation" meant.

Georgia had a HUGE increase of crimes, especially violent crimes, after the refugees came here. And our test scores dropped when the refugee kids joined our schools. They weren't the best and brightest in Nola. There were some good folks, but most were of the criminal persuasion.

(04-01-2011, 05:48 PM)Duchess Wrote:
I think Tiki is a guy...

Sorry, Cracker -

I think you just lost the monopoly on gender ambiguity.

I gotta start using sports analogies in posts.

And talk about tits, too.

(04-01-2011, 11:07 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(04-01-2011, 05:48 PM)Duchess Wrote:
I think Tiki is a guy...

Sorry, Cracker -

I think you just lost the monopoly on gender ambiguity.

I gotta start using sports analogies in posts.

And talk about tits, too.

Scary chicks

Don't fuck with us.

(04-01-2011, 09:29 PM)Cracker Wrote: How can you blame the government when the people were TOLD to evacuate, but didn't? I don't understand that thinking.

While some want to call it a conspiracy plot, all that really happened was people didn't want to leave because they didn't want to miss their chance to loot. Hurricane Katrina was Louisiana's biggest Flat Screen TV Five Finger Discount Sale.

I was kidding about the conspiracy plot, lol.

But were the people of New Orleans given enough "mandatory evacuation" notice? Did they have the ability to evacuate...and a place to go too? I don't have a lot of sympathy for the able-bodied who chose not to leave but I think the response, and failure to see what might happen with the levee's, was a governmental failure. Meh, if you want some boring, before you go to bed reading, here you go...

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/katrinareport/mainreport.pdf

(04-01-2011, 06:39 PM)rothschild Wrote:

(04-01-2011, 05:38 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(04-01-2011, 04:36 PM)rothschild Wrote:

(04-01-2011, 07:59 AM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(04-01-2011, 01:48 AM)rothschild Wrote: Does everything observed necessarily constitute empirical data?

Is this a rhetorical question or an explanation couched in your adaptation of the Socratic Method?

Clarification by examples, please.

Answer the question with a yes or no and I'll provide examples if necessary.

Sorry . . . I quit caring about your opinion when you dodged my legitimate requests for clarification of your musings.

For the record, my question is rhetorical in the sense that the answer is patently obvious to anyone who isn't a fuckwit -- which apparently you are.

When observation of a particular thing remains constant irrespective of who is observing, it can then be said to be empirical; in those cases where observation deviates due to subjectivity, however, it is not empirical.

You're welcome.

Hahahahaha!

Fourth and long . . . nice punt! Was that so hard?

You are ambiguous and careless with your use of terms. And your need to be . . . to be . . . hailed as brilliant, gets you pissy and frothy when it doesn't happen.

Too bad, kid.

You don't comprehend what you read, do you?

What? You thought Ari and I had no idea about empirical research or the scientific method? Hahahahaha!

If you only had great tits . . . this fuckwit "boy" would hang on your every word! Really!

Thanks for your response, though. It was pathetic; but sweet.

Didn't catch the "I quit caring about your opinion . . " in the previous post, did you?

If it makes you feel any better, it's really not you.

It's your dreadful tits.

Honestly Katrina (and maybe the BP oil spill) were the closest we've had to a Japan earthquake/tsunami.

That said, I was once put in charge of creating a disaster preparedness plan for the company I worked for. What a joke. If you kept extrapolating out the possibilities, it became impossible! Okay, 1), the building collapses (what do you do?), 2), people can't get to the office because roads/bridges are impassable (what do you do?), 3), all communication is down so you rely on off-site back-up computers but unfortunately they're down too so 5)...

At some point we always got to "we're fucked".

(04-01-2011, 11:47 PM)username Wrote: Honestly Katrina (and maybe the BP oil spill) were the closest we've had to a Japan earthquake/tsunami.

That said, I was once put in charge of creating a disaster preparedness plan for the company I worked for. What a joke. If you kept extrapolating out the possibilities, it became impossible! Okay, 1), the building collapses (what do you do?), 2), people can't get to the office because roads/bridges are impassable (what do you do?), 3), all communication is down so you rely on off-site back-up computers but unfortunately they're down too so 5)...

At some point we always got to "we're fucked".

what color underwear are you wearing?

never mind, it just seemed like the extent of your usefullness at the moment.

(04-02-2011, 12:23 AM)IMaDick Wrote: what color underwear are you wearing?

Underwear? Nothing stands between me and my Calvin Kleins.

(04-02-2011, 12:42 AM)username Wrote:

(04-02-2011, 12:23 AM)IMaDick Wrote: what color underwear are you wearing?

Underwear? Nothing stands between me and my Calvin Kleins.

I wear what I like to call the underwear mullet. It's business in the front (a tiny suit and tie that covers my junk) and party in the back (a tiny, battery-powered neon sign hanging above my butthole that reads, "The Money Pit").

(04-01-2011, 11:07 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(04-01-2011, 05:48 PM)Duchess Wrote:
I think Tiki is a guy...

Sorry, Cracker -

I think you just lost the monopoly on gender ambiguity.

I waffle back & forth at any given time.

The reality is, it's irrelevant. I enjoy you because you're smart & funny, a quick wit, not because I think you might have a pecker or a great set of hooters.

(04-01-2011, 07:06 PM)rothschild Wrote: Well, pommy, incompetence is indicative of mental deficiency -- as is your failure to recognize that. Or are you a dishonest cretin?

The fact you always post in bold is indicitive to the fact you think what you have to say is more important than what anybody else has to say, which when you take into account what you actually contribute here is laughable.

The Bush administration were incompotent in ignoring intelligence which indicated that Muslim extremists planned to hijack planes and deliberately crash them into buildings in the US.

That doesn't make ⁹⁄₁₁ an "inside job" does it though fucknut?

If hurricane Katrina had happened in Connecticut instead of Louisiana the response would have been completely different.

(04-01-2011, 11:40 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: Hahahahaha!

Fourth and long . . . nice punt! Was that so hard?

You are ambiguous and careless with your use of terms. And your need to be . . . to be . . . hailed as brilliant, gets you pissy and frothy when it doesn't happen.

Too bad, kid.

You don't comprehend what you read, do you?

What? You thought Ari and I had no idea about empirical research or the scientific method? Hahahahaha!

If you only had great tits . . . this fuckwit "boy" would hang on your every word! Really!

Thanks for your response, though. It was pathetic; but sweet.

The only reason you think the original statement was ambiguous is because you assumed that I didn't know what I was talking about -- and still do.

Quote:Empirical Evidence in Scientific Research

Scientific evidence is considered empirical when it can be observed by many people and all will agree as to what they observed. An example would be reading a thermometer. No matter who observes the thermometer, it still displays the same temperature. The counterexample to this is physically sensing warmth or coolness. Observer A might sense that a room is warm, while observer B senses that the same room is cool. These observations differ depending on the observer, and are therefore considered subjective. Evidence that is not dependent on the observer (i.e., is objective), that appears the same no matter who observes the evidence, is considered to be empirical evidence.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_empirical_evidence

Thus "all that is observed is not empirical" is a true statement.

(04-01-2011, 11:40 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: Didn't catch the "I quit caring about your opinion . . " in the previous post, did you?

Shouldn't I be asking you that question?

(04-02-2011, 07:40 AM)Ordinary Peephole Wrote: The fact you always post in bold is indicitive to the fact you think what you have to say is more important than what anybody else has to say, which when you take into account what you actually contribute here is laughable.

The Bush administration were incompotent in ignoring intelligence which indicated that Muslim extremists planned to hijack planes and deliberately crash them into buildings in the US.

That doesn't make ⁹⁄₁₁ an "inside job" does it though fucknut?

The Bush team was competent when it came to running successful electoral campaigns. How do you go from that to doing absolutely nothing to defend against kamikaze hijackings?