Crap Throwing Monkey

I see two different questions here: 1) Should federal response to disasters be reviewed to see how to improve performance? Yes. Even when performance is good, it should be reviewed. 2) Should it be done by Congress? As a matter of fact, one of our posters here was invloved with reviewing the performance of the federal effort. He possesses some knowledge and experience on the subject, and was onsite collecting data while the relief effort was still going on. Is a bunch of bozos, for the most part not the least bit qualified in emergency response, sitting in judgement a thousand miles and six months away from events really going to accomplish anything better? Best they'll do is tell the media who they should tell us to blame.

Didn't anyone read the link? They're protecting the Arctic from the Danes.

Yeah. Talk to me when someone you're close to goes through genetic ablation of inducible nitric oxide synthase. Until then, shut the !@#$ up, moron.

You're a piece of sh--. Genetic ablation of inducible nitric oxide synthase is very painful and dangerous, both the illness it treates and the procedure itself, and not something to be made light of. I assume you're just an ignorant ass who doesn't know jack sh-- about genetic ablation of inducible nitric oxide synthase anyway, but anyone who'd make fun of genetic ablation of inducible nitric oxide synthase deserves to be thrown under a !@#$ing bus regardless.

THAT is pretty weird. One little known fact, though...the life-cycle of toxoplasmosis requires a round-trip between rats and cats. The only problem being that rats, as a general rule, try to stay as far away from cats as possible. So toxoplasmosis developed this neat little trick where it basically !@#$s with the rats' brain in such a way that it reduces inhibitions...thus making infected rats MUCH less likely to run away from cats, thus insuring cats get infected. Which is an interesting little tidbit of information, given that the article you posted suggests that toxoplasmosis may be mind-altering in people as well. I actually believe that the article itself is bull sh-- (toxoplasmosis manufactures LSD? Yeah, sure... ), but it's very interesting bull sh--.

Not just Chevy...Chrysler, Ford, Dodge, GMC...basically, you Volvo-driving mother!@#$ers hate every American car...

But they didn't hang 81 points on them like Kobe did...

Eh. I have good days and bad days. It's a result of consciously choosing quantity over quality, on the theory that on average for every hundred wisecracks I make, one of 'em's bound to be amusing. The other 99 stinkers are just a curse I have to live with...

Not that I want to get involved in this ridiculous discussion in ANY way...but I have a nit-picky technical question. Does "unindicted" specifically mean that the grand jury clears someone, or does it also cover investigations that are not brought in front of the grand jury for whatever reason? Common sense would dictate it covers both (as the end result in each case is no indictment)...but as a legal technical term does it specifically indicate the case was brought before the grand jury and dismissed? Reason I ask is, stuckincincy's use of the phrase "unindicted co-conspirator" bugged the hell out of me, as really the only way I can imagine someone being an "unindicted co-conspirator" is if the case never goes to the grand jury (because if you've got enough evidence to label someone a "co-conspirator", you've got enough to get an indictment). If the term "unindicted" specifically requires presentation to the grand jury, "unindicted co-conspirator" is even bigger bull sh-- than I'd originally thought. And "co-conspirator"? Isn't that just a "conspirator"? What the !@#$ kind of stupidity is "co-conspirator" anyway?

You mean "Cindy Sheehan's still around!" or "Flightsuit! Halliburton! Nose pick!" aren't real issues of the day? It's not just on this board. After Katrina, I had discussions with people experienced in disaster relief and FEMA operations about how the systemic and logistical problems that influenced the relief effort were both apolitical and unavoidable in that situation...and still they had to add "By the way, 'your' [sic] boy Bush looks like a !@#$ing idiot through all this." People who knew the root causes of events still had to blame it on their favorite punching bag for the sake of appearances! I think America, as a society, is pretty much doomed. People all over seem totally incapable of a deep understanding of anything...even on the extraordinarily rare occasions they discuss real issues over bull sh-- like the media's "Camp Casey" or spotted owl coverage.

But...but...but...he had every right to charge into the stands, because the guy he attacked downloaded his rap CD...even though it was legal, because it was unenforcable but illegal...

Government employees aren't typically models of initiative, either. Not that I want to get into this argument much at all...I just wanted to say that that particular statement probably isn't a useful distinction in the context.

Hey Jerry, you remember that game where you implemented that great defensive plan that thoroughly dominated the opponent? Yeah, neither does anyone else...

Your inside sources told you this, of course...

But he used to say "We should understand and talk to the terrorists and sing kum ba yah together" was good foreign policy as well. You've got to give him credit for consistency...he's consistently an extremist.

There is that.

While normally I'd consider jumping in and defending someone from a shot like this...that was a really good one.

Ergo, an effective government is a corrupt one. And a more effective government is a more corrupt one. ...I think there's a logical fallacy in your statement. Just maybe.

One irrelevent idiot defending another irrelevent idiot from a thrid irrelevent idiot. It has a certain karmic symmetry to it.

I'm just upset that you feel entitled to it without any sort of competitive process, even though you're not the least bit qualified to do it, either. Typical friggin' Democrat...

Dibs on the liver transplant concession. 583164[/snapback] What, you expect to just get exclusive rights "just because"? Who the !@#$ are you, Halliburton?

Jimmy Griffin?

And yet, it may very well seem refreshing after hearing "We just have to execute better" every single week...

Pat Robertson, mostly.