Stalin Alive And Well And Living In DC

[mhafinancial]

So what's up with the government not allowing photos of the dead? Just like they would not allow photos of the caskets returning from Iraq.

What are the Busheviks afraid of? That people will see that their policies actually don't protect us?

Government Tries To Prohibit Photos (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06101601.htm)

[TIES2]

Why don't you hop on a plane this weekend and go help pull bodies out of the soup if you're in such desparate need to see the dead -- just be sure to bring a box of disposable gloves

[mhafinancial]

Why don't you hop on a plane this weekend and go help pull bodies out of the soup if you're in such desparate need to see the dead -- just be sure to bring a box of disposable gloves
Please confront with the issue and not the emotion.

What is the Bush administration afraid of?

And why are photos of soliders' caskets forbidden?

[TIES2]

okay, that's fair -- I agree somewhat. I remember after 9/11 my then 5 yr old wanted to know if the TV show we were watching would ever end. The same images over and over, it's not good for children. Adults know what dead bodies look like.

What are they afraid of? Who knows. Do we really need to see dead bodies to understand the carnage in both Iraq and New Orleans??? I don't think so. Are we suffering from out-of-sight, out-of-mind syndrome? I don't think so. I did hear a news report that many of the New Orleans dead are falling apart or badly decomposed...we probably don't need to see that.

Emotions are already about as high as they can be. Running photos of dead bodies could put things over the edge. And I'm not talking here about the government saving face -- it's too late for that. I'm talking about a knee jerk reaction in communities across the US.

[bossmom]

i agree that it's not necessary to see the dead bodies

i lost a cousin 8 years ago in a plane crash and the news showed the carnage and we saw a part of my cousin that i wish to this day i had not seen - you can imagine what part we saw if we knew, without question, that it was him :greyno:

is it really necessary?

[mhafinancial]

i agree that it's not necessary to see the dead bodies

i lost a cousin 8 years ago in a plane crash and the news showed the carnage and we saw a part of my cousin that i wish to this day i had not seen - you can imagine what part we saw if we knew, without question, that it was him :greyno:

is it really necessary?
I am sorry for your loss and your experiencing it that way.

Whether it is necessary or not is not the question. The question is do we or do we not have freedom of speech. A First Amendment? Rove and Bush would clearly prefer it if we did not.

[mhafinancial]

From wonkette.com:

Swift FEMA Action

You know, it's become so fashionable to beat up on the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the lack of accountability therein. In reality, the agency has acted swiftly on some occasions to quell bad actors in its ranks. Why, just look at how promptly it addressed the conduct of Nicole Rank, a Corpus Christi-based FEMA administrator who was dispatched to the Charleston, West Virginia site of a flood last year. It so happened the president turned up in town at the same time, for a Fourth of July speech, and Rank turned up at the event with her husband Jeff. Both were wearing a T-shirt that read "Love America, Hate Bush" and "Regime Change Starts at Home"; the Charleston police told them to "cover [the shirts] up, take them off, or leave completely." When the Ranks refused they were forcibly removed from the premises and briefly imprisoned, so that the president could proceed with his speech declaring the Fourth an occasion to celebrate "the freedom for people to speak their minds, the freedom for people to worship as they so choose. Free thought and free expression, that's what we believe"

And within two days, FEMA informed Ms. Rank that because of the incident, she was being released from the Charleston assignment. That's some rapid action to protect the security of the homeland. A heck of job, you might even say.

[bossmom]

I am sorry for your loss and your experiencing it that way.

Whether it is necessary or not is not the question. The question is do we or do we not have freedom of speech. A First Amendment? Rove and Bush would clearly prefer it if we did not.

thank you david.

in response to your question as to whether we have freedom of speech:

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/topics/first_amendment.html

"The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicates a message."

Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

i am having a very hard time with the way the media and the democratic party has responded to the tragedy of hurricane katrina; their response has been nothing short of dividing this country even further by throwing the race issue into the mix; i do not see an effort to come together and work as a unified nation for the victims but instead, a party that is taking this as an opportunity to advance themselves - portraying the dead bodies on national television, imo, is not going to do anything but invoke anger and other negative feelings, i.e., and i quote, cause a breach of the peace or cause violence - in due time it may be more appropriate but, for the moment, i think it would be best to focus our energies and attention on what can we do as a unified nation to help the states of louisiana, alabama & mississippi and their citizens recover from this horrible disaster - that, imo, would portray us as a strong nation that comes together in times of disaster instead of a vulnerable, bickering, finger-pointing divided entity - the question then, for me, becomes that of appropirateness of time - there will be an appropriate place and time for all that is happening - but, imo, now is just not that time

[On Highway 29]

i am having a very hard time with the way the media and the democratic party has responded to the tragedy of hurricane katrina; their response has been nothing short of dividing this country even further by throwing the race issue into the mix; i do not see an effort to come together and work as a unified nation for the victims but instead, a party that is taking this as an opportunity to advance themselves - portraying the dead bodies on national television, imo, is not going to do anything but invoke anger and other negative feelings

The media is reporting on a news story and some members of the Democratic Party (and I’ve heard some Republicans) are questioning the slow city, state and federal response to the flooding, and that’s exactly what the two should be doing. I can’t understand why we want to turn away when news isn’t good or to our liking. It seems that more and more this country wants to live in a fantasy world where bad things don’t happen. A national tragedy is happening before our eyes, and as a country, we need to keep asking “why?” until we get to the root causes.

Yes, the dead bodies stir emotion and anger but that’s the news. You can’t change the news or the fact that people died. If you don’t want to see the dead bodies, turn the TV off, but don’t impose more censorship when it comes to reporting the news.

Is there anyone under the sun who didn’t notice that all the people lining up at the Convention Center were black? We have to ask ourselves why this is. Why are we so afraid to talk about race in this country? I don’t believe whites share all the responsibility when it comes to the “race issue.” Both sides have their prejudices and misconceptions. Perhaps we’re afraid to talk about race because white people may find out that black people have some valid points and black people may find out that white people have some valid points. Would that be the end of the world?

[bossmom]

The media is reporting on a news story and some members of the Democratic Party (and I’ve heard some Republicans) are questioning the slow city, state and federal response to the flooding, and that’s exactly what the two should be doing. I can’t understand why we want to turn away when news isn’t good or to our liking. It seems that more and more this country wants to live in a fantasy world where bad things don’t happen. A national tragedy is happening before our eyes, and as a country, we need to keep asking “why?” until we get to the root causes.

Yes, the dead bodies stir emotion and anger but that’s the news. You can’t change the news or the fact that people died. If you don’t want to see the dead bodies, turn the TV off, but don’t impose more censorship when it comes to reporting the news.

Is there anyone under the sun who didn’t notice that all the people lining up at the Convention Center were black? We have to ask ourselves why this is. Why are we so afraid to talk about race in this country? I don’t believe whites share all the responsibility when it comes to the “race issue.” Both sides have their prejudices and misconceptions. Perhaps we’re afraid to talk about race because white people may find out that black people have some valid points and black people may find out that white people have some valid points. Would that be the end of the world?

i agree, i just think that right now the focus should be on recovery and coming together as a unified nation in order to do that the best way we can - the rest can be dealt with at another time - the population of louisiana was 68% black - logic would follow that if a majority of the population is of one race that most of the people affected would also be of that particular race -

questioning is one thing but what i've seen is not merely questioning, it's divisive - i question also and, like ties2, i am not of the opinion that the federal government is not at fault, i just don't think they are 100% at fault - local and state government also failed their own citizens -

and, for the record, i'm not white

[On Highway 29]

and, for the record, i'm not white

Help me understand why you're pointing this out in relation to what I wrote in my post. I must be missing something.

[HeldUp]

Help me understand why you're pointing this out in relation to what I wrote in my post. I must be missing something.
Because she's a stunningly attractive Latina.

[bossmom]

i suppose i should've said i am neither white nor black - as it was in response to this part of your post:

"Is there anyone under the sun who didn’t notice that all the people lining up at the Convention Center were black? We have to ask ourselves why this is. Why are we so afraid to talk about race in this country? I don’t believe whites share all the responsibility when it comes to the “race issue.” Both sides have their prejudices and misconceptions. Perhaps we’re afraid to talk about race because white people may find out that black people have some valid points and black people may find out that white people have some valid points. Would that be the end of the world?"

also, because i was the one to point out that i feel the media and democratic party are unnecessarily throwing the race card in.

although i agree with you on your position regarding talking about race, i sincerely do not think "race" has anything to do with this tragedy but, instead, it is being used to fuel the proverbial fire against this administration

[bossmom]

Because she's a stunningly attractive Latina.

why thank you tarik :kiss: :kiss:

[jas & max]

Because she's a stunningly attractive Latina.



Indeed...Stunningly.

[mhafinancial]

Because she's a stunningly attractive Latina.
Yes, I think I saw a pic of her in the shirts I made for Bobby B. a couple of years ago, and I thought "Dang, I shoulda sent her a smaller size". ;)

[HeldUp]

why thank you tarik :kiss: :kiss:
Trust me, the pleasure is all mine... :wink:

Uh, sorry Bossdad... :angel:

[Flory Days]

although i agree with you on your position regarding talking about race, i sincerely do not think "race" has anything to do with this tragedy but, instead, it is being used to fuel the proverbial fire against this administrationThe proverbial fire against this administration needs to be fueled because they show no sign that the welfare of the least of its citizens (primarily racial minorities) is close to being a priority.

As they say, if you're not with us, you're against us. :rolleyes:

I think I have seen a pic here on this board some time ago documenting the stunning Latina. I trust nothing has changed in that regard. :angel:

[dhenise]

The proverbial fire against this administration needs to be fueled because they show no sign that the welfare of the least of its citizens (primarily racial minorities) is close to being a priority.

As they say, if you're not with us, you're against us. :rolleyes:


:throwup: :throwup: :throwup:

[HeldUp]

As they say, if you're not with us, you're against us.
You're with us or with the hurricanes...

[imabrucefan]

You're with us or with the hurricanes...

Make no mistake. The US will hunt down and punish those hurricanes. We're gonna smoke 'em out of their holes. Get 'em on the run.

[mhafinancial]

Make no mistake. The US will hunt down and punish those hurricanes. We're gonna smoke 'em out of their holes. Get 'em on the run.
Dead or alive.

They are top on the priority list, right after we catch Bin Laden....dead or alive.

And Jon Benet Ramsey's killer....dead or alive.

And Nicole Simpson's killer...dead or alive.

After that, those pesky hurricanes better watch out.

[daven]

Please confront with the issue and not the emotion.

What is the Bush administration afraid of?

And why are photos of soliders' caskets forbidden?

Its a pity that you need to ask this question as anyone with an ounce of common sense probably knows the answer already. 2 words - BAD TASTE.

[mhafinancial]

Its a pity that you need to ask this question as anyone with an ounce of common sense probably knows the answer already. 2 words - BAD TASTE.
If you think these guys care a whit about common sense you might be the one lacking.

The only place where common sense plays a leading role for the administration is sticking to the message and pr. And photos of coffins and dead bodies disrupt that yummy warm message that Georgie is making you safer.

[daven]

I have to say that I think that anyone who wants to see pictures of dead bodies or caskets really needs professional help.

[mhafinancial]

I have to say that I think that anyone who wants to see pictures of dead bodies or caskets really needs professional help.
No one here said they want to "see them".

What was said is that the press should have a right to "take them".

Do you understand the difference?

[daven]

No.

The press are scum who will always go for a bad news story over a good news story.

If people stopped buying the crap they peddle then they wouldn't bother asking to take such photos.

It happened in England once when one paper clearly crossed the decency barrier and as a result a whole community boycotted that rag. They lost big time due to that.

I am not sticking my head in the sand but I just don't listen to "bad news" channels any more. It is far better to look around you at all of the good things in life and let the press scum talk [put in the choice bad news of the day] to death.