I agree. How do you live with yourself? On Jun 21, 3:41 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > You said.... > > 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 - > > That sir is as hypocritical as it gets..... > > > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 2:38 PM, euwe <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > ... > > 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.
