Returning to port was necessary since the required equipment was not on the coast guard vessel, and the captains were not present. You can call the people who stand in the gap and watch our freedoms, and provide for our safety idiots if you must, but they saved lives during Katrina by ignoring the rule of law to save those lives - they didn't wait on protocol. But when there are lives at stake on the barges, they took no chances. Sometimes law enforcement has to make hard choices - You're probably one of those bleeding hearts who think that if someone takes off with a cop near the window, the cop is not at liberty to shoot the driver for attempted murder with a deadly weapon. Or when a taxi driver tries to blow through a checkpoint with a pregnant women in the car is machine gunned to death, and the woman and her baby with him. Or when some 15 year old punk with cognition difficulties and a weak heart is punched in the face by a law officer and then dies from being tasered for jaywalking and refusing to be cuffed. You're probably one of those whiny wackos who think that killing that kid on Mexican soil for throwing rocks at a border guard wasn't justified. Yeah, when you guys go OFF, law is just a suggestion. That's how people get killed.
On Jun 21, 2:52 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > I have a great disrespect for anyone that refuses the concept of "common > sense". > > Since more time was wasted in returning to port in order to fulfill the > demand than it would have taken to simply have it all delivered on site > (barges move very slowly), yes it was incompetent and just plain stupid. > Compliance is one thing (I do agree with it's need) but forced compliance > during a state of emergency that requires a dereliction to that emergency is > absolutely wrong. There are no statutes saying the vessels needed to return > to port to comply.... just that compliance is mandatory. The method was > idiotic. > > > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 1:32 PM, euwe <[email protected]> wrote: > > Are you trying to say that there was no appreciable damage done to > > the > > clean-up efforts by pulling the barges from operation ?? > > ---------- > > I'm saying that the Coast Guard has the duty to enforce Maritime law, > > and they did it. Life comes first, then the clean-up effort. > > Bureaucracy is a bitch - the Coast Guard ignored the law in the > > aftermath of Katrina to save lives - I don't think that's a big > > problem. It's when you ignore the law to put people's lives at risk, > > that's when you make the big mistakes. > > > They were boarded (no blockade in this instance) and told to return to > > port to get a captain, proper life saving equipment and fire fighting > > equipment. Those were the critical things they needed for law. > > Communication equipment may be part of the law, I don't know - I leave > > law enforcement up to those who are trained in it. But calling them > > would still require a captain to accept responsibility - I understand > > that authority was nowhere to be found. > > > Does your disrespect for our Coast Guard extend to our Military forces > > as well? Checkpoint guards in Iraq for instance? > > > On Jun 21, 2:17 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Are you trying to say that there was no appreciable damage done to the > > > clean-up efforts by pulling the barges from operation ?? > > > > Are you trying to say that a simple radio transmission or phone call from > > > the Coast Guard telling the barges to up-date these problems would have > > gone > > > unanswered ?? > > > > Oh, by the way, the Coast guard does not require or regulate the need for > > > communications devices on barges... so yes, you can blow the thing up as > > > long as everyone has a life jacket... but it is not necessary that you be > > > able to call for help. Just the sort of authority thats needed. > > > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:55 PM, euwe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Here we have the hypocricy - you guys are blaming Obama for the Coast > > > > Guard enforcing Maritime law, saying that there is no need for the > > > > barges to obey the law, fuck the law. I bring up the same thing - > > > > where Bush used his executive clemency to excuse Libby for obstruction > > > > of justice - and you say - it's the law - Bush was within his rights > > > > to commute the sentence of a law breaker... not "fuck the law" - you > > > > are the ones who are hypocritical - you only want the law obeyed when > > > > it is in your best interests. > > > > > On Jun 21, 1:30 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > No, it is exactly ON POINT and that, I fear, is the problem. You rail > > > > > against the Bush use of executive privilege and or orders yet will > > not > > > > > address the coinciding use of same by your party. It is rather > > > > hypocritical. > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:06 AM, euwe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Euwe, you claim....... > > > > > > "it's a discussion about the authority of the government through > > Bush, > > > > > > who undercut the authority of law." > > > > > > Ok, so it is. Now just which one of Bushs' Executive Abominations > > has > > > > > > Obama reversed and or removed from practice ??? > > > > > > There is a speech (several) in which the skinny Kenyan promised to > > do > > > > > > just that. > > > > > > I'll wait for that list... honesty counts... > > > > > > ------------- > > > > > > Too far afield - Bush and 9/11, Executive clemency, Obama and the > > > > > > coast guard authority is already out on a rabbit trail - start a > > new > > > > > > thread. > > > > > > > On Jun 21, 9:55 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Euwe, you claim....... > > > > > > > > "it's a discussion about the > > > > > > > authority of the government through Bush, who undercut the > > authority > > > > > > > of law." > > > > > > > > Ok, so it is. Now just which one of Bushs' Executive Abominations > > has > > > > > > Obama > > > > > > > reversed and or removed from practice ??? > > > > > > > > There is a speech (several) in which the skinny Kenyan promised > > to do > > > > > > just > > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > I'll wait for that list... honesty counts... > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:43 AM, euwe <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > This discussion of Cheney > > > > > > > > ------- > > > > > > > > This is a discussion about authority and the respect it > > deserves. > > > > Bush > > > > > > > > commuted Libby's sentence, not Cheney - it's a discussion about > > the > > > > > > > > authority of the government through Bush, who undercut the > > > > authority > > > > > > > > of law. The idea that was put forth is that the Coast Guard has > > no > > > > > > > > right to pull a barge out of action when the captain can't be > > > > located, > > > > > > > > and it does not have the proper mandated life saving and fire > > > > fighting > > > > > > > > equipment. Life is more important than property. > > > > > > > > > On Jun 21, 9:37 am, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > euwe, > > > > > > > > > > This discussion of Cheney is nothing more than your ongoing > > > > effort to > > > > > > > > > deflect from or obfuscate the real issue, which is that the > > Obama > > > > > > > > > administration has, on more than a dozen occasions, slowed or > > > > blocked > > > > > > > > > efforts to clean up the oil spill. You've proven your > > political > > > > > > agenda > > > > > > > > > is more important than containing the disaster and that you > > are > > > > > > either > > > > > > > > > foolish or naive enough to believe that the handling of the > > > > disaster > > > > > > > > > by this administration is anything short of gross negligence. > > > > > > > > > > You're no better or worse than those who defended Bush in the > > > > face of > > > > > > > > > his many failings. Until the general population wakes up and > > > > stops > > > > > > > > > looking at events thru colored glasses we can forget about > > > > getting > > > > > > > > > this country back on track. > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 21, 9:16 am, euwe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > And again he did not pardon Libby > > > > > > > > > > =--- > > > > > > > > > > he commuted his sentence - that's a form of pardon, but not > > a > > > > full > > > > > > > > > > pardon. It is covered under the same Presidential power of > > > > > > executive > > > > > > > > > > clemency. He merely didn't clear him of wrong doing - he > > "just" > > > > > > > > > > removed the inconvenience of serving jail time. Bush had a > > > > stake in > > > > > > > > > > Libby's obstruction of justice, and probably was forced > > into > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > compromise by Cheney. After that, they weren't so chummy. > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 20, 9:42 pm, dick thompson <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > And again he did not pardon Libby so your whole point is > > > > moot. > > > > > > What > > > > > > > > > > > you are saying is that in reality you have no leg to > > stand on > > > > so > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > just flailing around throwing mud but it won't stick. > > > > Typical > > > > > > Dem > > > > > > > > MO. > > > > > > > > > > > > euwe wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > sovereign authority and the respect due. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 20, 7:21 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Just what does that have to do with the subject at > > hand. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> or "I pardoned Libby?" > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Jun 20, 5:39 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Whatever happened to "Personal Responsibility" ?? > > These > > > > > > ships > > > > > > > > were > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> not manned by tourists but by seasoned sailors who > > are > > > > just, > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> more so, concerned with the preservation of their > > own > > > > life > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> USCG. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Just which professional is more correct... the > > seasoned > > > > > > sailor > > > > > > > > or the > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> seasoned sailor commanded by an organization that > > has > > > > never > > > > > > had > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> successful "private or public" enterprise ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Jun 18, 4:01 pm, euwe <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> oh, I get it - you're a libertoonian. So have you > > got > > > > your > > > > > > own > > > > > > > > carpet > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> cleaning business? Or maybe you refinish parking > > lot > > > > > > blacktops? > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Jun 18, 4:36 pm, bruce majors < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >http://libertarian2010.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/libertarians-say-gove. > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > > > > > > > > For options & help seehttp:// > > > > groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > > > > > > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > > > > > > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > > > > > > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Mark M. Kahle H. > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google > > ... > > read more » -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
