HAPPY ANNIVERSARY!!!!!!!!!
(I have no idea, btw)
'Safe'
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
HAPPY ANNIVERSARY!!!!!!!!!
(I have no idea, btw)
I don't think this is sufficient to topple the country in its totality. However, the number of people who have been displaced and are now having their suffering magnified by government apathy and incompetence is in the seven figures, in a nation with readily available firearms and relatively free mobility throughout. Bloody coups have arisen out of a lot less.
Broussard on "Meet the Press" was really intense. You could tell Tim Russert was a bit taken aback by the emotion displayed.
Let me rephrase it a bit and get rid of the connection.
Person #1: I believe that Person A should be fired because they had their hand in the till.
Person #2: Well, Person B was a member of the Klan, and you never called for Person B's ouster. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
Broussard on "Meet the Press" was really intense. You could tell Tim Russert was a bit taken aback by the emotion displayed.
Mayor Nagin on 60 Minutes was also very compelling.
Yeah, I saw him too. Whew.
Haley Barbour and GWB look like ice scupltures in comparison.
Haley Barbour and GWB look like ice scupltures in comparison.
Haley Barbour is really coming out of this disaster well, all things considered. Of course, he's helped by Mississippi having its own emergency management agency that is way out in front of FEMA in that state.
Haley Barbour is really coming out of this disaster well
If you say so. Everytime I see him, he seems really surly and a Bush administration apologist. But at least he's keeping his cool.
I understand some MS residents aren't too happy for him because he didn't call for mandatory evacuations. Granted I don't know this for a fact, just something I read from a MS resident.
Haley Barbour wasn't sounding the Federal horn earlier this week. Now he's had a chance to calm down and get on message. Feh.
dw -- I think that's technically a complex question. Because, in your example, what Person B did is irrelevant to a discussion of Person A. It's tricky because I think it's actually a couple of fallacies in one:
1. "If what Person A did was wrong, then what Person B did was also wrong." 2. "If you did not condemn Person B, it's hypocritical to condemn Person A."
And there's probably more, but those are the ones that leap out at me. They're both unsupported distractions. #1 is a complex question, and #2 may be a false analogy. In a conversation, I'd just go with "What B did isn't the subject, and has no bearing on what A did," though.