Hixter

No. It means that there would have been ZERO deaths in New Orleans if everyone had used their heads and left the city.

And his truthfulness led to the most lopsided presidential election loss in the history of the Democratic party.

As a huge disaster in which the feds did become involved. But it's ridiculous to put the federal government in front of the city and state government when it comes to early response. In fact there was quite a bit of tension early on as the governor refused to federalize the National Guard troops because she didn't want to lose her grip on the relief effort.

That doesn't scale very well in anything but the hugest of disasters, as the Feds aren't even involved much of the time. The individual is still the first in the chain of responsibility. There's no way you could evacuate a major city if everyone waited for the official order. I've spent most of my life in hurricane-prone areas and it's always been beaten into our heads to evacuate early, stockpile supplies if you don't plan to evacuate and don't plan on any outside assistance for at least 72 hours.

Responsibilities during a natural disaster work from the bottom up: 1) The individual. Evacuate, and do it early. Don't wait for someone to make the decision for you. If you foolishly decide to stick around, prepare to be completely self-sufficient for at least 3-7 days. 2) Local government. Immediately responsible for its area in the 24 hours or so before and after the disaster. Nagin made a lot of costly mistakes. 3) State government. Once the disaster has passed, the state moves its National Guard troops and emergency apparatus to the affected area within the first day or two. Blanco

Looks like Drudge is hinting at Alaskan governor Sarah Palin getting the nod as McCain's veep.

You're right; they're constantly outdoing each other when it comes to sleazy campaigning, corruption, immoral behavior and special interests. You're kidding yourself if you believe that the millions of dollars pumped into the 2 campaigns don't come with strings attached. There are a lot of interests with deep pockets and they're going to grab the president's ear via his wallet. But they'll do their best to hide it: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventions/...8622&page=1

I was in New Orleans a few weeks ago and had lengthy conversations with about a half-dozen residents who rode out the storm. Their comments were unanimous: 1) The federal government waited too long. BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENT WAS ABSOLUTELY PARALYZED AND THE FEDS SHOULD HAVE FORCED THEIR WAY IN WHEN THE STATE WENT WEAK IN THE KNEES. 2) The local cops were useless and turned and ran. 3) Roving bands of local thieves and looters were the biggest worry. They should have been shot on sight. I just saw on the news that assault rifles and ammunition are being snapped up in Louis

I doubt many people would be able to maintain this level of enthusiasm if they knew what went on behind the scenes in their candidate's camp. Better still, I wonder how many people would be able to watch the competing party's convention and genuinely allow their opponents to enjoy their revelry - based upon different beliefs and philosophies as it may be - without rude remarks and condemnation. Let's face it - this all comes down to "I'm right and you're wrong and I don't want to hear otherwise, so let me get back to kissing this politician's ass."

"Read my lips - no new taxes" should be all anyone has to remember. Has any candidate ever *not* promised to not raise taxes? Are today's taxes a greater burden than they were in the past? Can a candidate follow through with promises to balance the budget, feed the poor, house the homeless, treat the sick and not raise taxes? It's so much easier to issue a statement and create a website that says, "You'll be better off under my administration than Candidate X"* * Six thousand words of legalese and other fine print that basically prevent anyone from ever holding us to our pre-election promi

If it's not accurate, then it shouldn't even exist - unless it's such an obvious parody ("John McCain will increase your taxes and eat your grandmother") that people don't try to pawn it off as convincing evidence that Candidate A is better than Candidate B. I don't believe an effing promise that a candidate makes until he/she actually makes good on it. And neither should you.

Just more politically motivated smoke and mirrors. I'm going to register ronpaulwillincreaseyourpenissize.com. "As a 501©(3) non-profit organization, Brookings describes itself as independent and non-partisan.[4][16] Media descriptions of Brookings range from liberal to centrist. The New York Times has referred to the organization as liberal, liberal-centrist, and centrist.[17][18][19][20][21][22] The Washington Post sometimes describes Brookings as liberal.[23][24][25] The Los Angeles Times describes Brookings as liberal-leaning and centrist.[26][27][28] In 1977, Time Magazine described the

The stage has already been set for withdrawal from Iraq. President Obama shouldn't have to worry much about it. What's FA?

The person who finds himself in office will find that the world can be an ugly place and he will have to make very difficult decisions which will result in the deaths of many people. And a lot of people will be screaming at him for making those decisions. Just read this and laughed: Asked to hint which way he is leaning, McCain turned

The war in Iraq is winding down, but could flare again. Afghanistan will take several more years of fighting (keep an eye on Michael Yon's excellent reporting, he's just arrived in country) and Obama's been talking tough about places like Darfur, Russia and Iran. Any of them can - and might - lead to bloody conflict involving U.S. troops. And the battle against terrorists is going to last for our lifetime. Much blood will be shed and there will always be someone who questions whether it was necessary. It's the president's job to make those tough choices.

They're not talking about algae that's floating around in the lakes and rivers, rather large-scale farmed ponds using algae that's been genetically modified to produce oil. Ever seen a sugar cane plantation? I have. How much sugar do you think you get from that huge, bamboo-like stem? And how much work and land does it take to produce it? Massive burn offs, destruction of the Everglades' ecosystem - we're be much better growing this stuff in some slimy ponds in the middle of nowhere. And we need new nuke plants, too. Lots of them.

Like every war. Obama didn't exactly sound like a man promising a war-free presidency tonight: "I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression." If elected, he's going to kill people. And there will be plenty of discussion about whether it was right or wrong. That's simply how the world works.

Obama's sure to wage war(s). It'll be up to you to decide whether they are useless or not. History shows that there are usually 2 equally divided sides to every war and one man's useless war is another man's war of liberation, defense and/or necessity.

Converting traditional human foodstuffs and crops into ethanol doesn't make much sense when there are starving people and huge amounts of land and fertilizers involved. Converting crop waste and things like algae would be much easier to sustain.

They've been making big strides in "growing" petroleum substitutes in algae and other genetically modified plants. It's not completely science fiction.

Sounds like the truth to me, regardless of which party is running the show. It only takes a cursory glance at history to see that it's true. Obama has come out strong about Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Darfur, so the chances of a bloodless presidency are so low as to approach zero. The next president is going to make decisions that will kill people. It's a certainty.

It's difficult to find anything about McCain's flying history (Forrestal and the shootdown are exceptions) on the Internet that don't come from a highly biased political website. I'd want to see the official Navy after action reports before I'd write anything off as bad piloting. As yet another indicator of the willful donning of political blinders, I wonder how many chickenhawk squawkers know that McCain's son served in Iraq?

Let's face it - the average person cares very little about politics, doesn't invest much effort into investigating the issues and is eager to lap up anything that makes their favorite candidate look good and his/her opponent look bad. So you wind up with half-truths about crashed planes and closet Muslims and I think the candidates are ok with it. Then it's easier to run on the basis of your speaking ability and charm and your opponent's weaknesses instead of your plans and promises. Unfortunately, the media lets them get away with it by and large and rarely ask the tough questions. I lost a

So you're counting the Forrestal fire as an example of McCain's ineptitude? That's like blaming JFK for getting in the way of Oswald's bullet. And the fact that McCain, as an admiral's son, requested a combat tour in Vietnam and refused an opportunity for early release from his Hanoi imprisonment don't exactly jibe with the intended portrayal by anti-McCain activists as a sissy enjoying a comfy career as the son of an admiral. The man spent more than 5 years as a POW and was beaten, stabbed and tortured by his captors. There are plenty of things to pick on McCain about, but his military career

I always liked his mustache when he was at the U.N.