Lets kill all the poor people...yeah!

Sounds like a government plan to me?

you are a psycho!


On Sep 5, 2005, at 10:27 AM, andrew michael baron wrote:

On Sep 5, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Michael Sullivan wrote:

This dream, as i realized this morning, made me feel that all the racial issues bubbling around the Katrina media news is less than accurate and this level of devastation in any city would yield similar results from an unprepared country and equally unprepared cities within it... whether it is the elite NYC or anywhere else. 

Bull shit. Why couldn't the gov. call all the school buses in the state to go down and get them a week ago?

Why is the gov. turning away donations of food and clothing?

Why is the gov. taking poor and injured people and dumping them off in the middle of cities to fend for themselves?

Why are the few police left trying to stop looting of property over saving lives?

Why is the army in combat mode instead of rescue mode?

Why are relief experts being cut off from communications and authority?

I'll tell you why:  


When its all said and done, people will return to their lives and the hatred against Bush will simmer. Bush will have saved the US a lot of money in insurance claims and medical expenses. No need to rebuild the poor, better to just erase them, right?

Bush will use the savings to start a war in Iran just in time to change guards during the next election.

Meanwhile, the serious rescue efforts are just off the horizon, racing to repair the oil refineries now that gas is up to $3:50 a gallon.

Sound like conspriacy? What else could be the reason for saying no to help when help is ready?


On 9/5/05, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Are you saying that if more people vote, someone else would be elected
and this sort of thing would not happen?

I see no reason to believe that.  It would seem that basic statistics is
against you on this (FWIW)

I know of no theory that postulates: "If all the people who did not vote
had voted, then elections would come out different."

I DO think that there may be many benefits from getting people more
involved with elections (more dialog, more participation, more vlogs!, etc)

But I also feel that it will take more than votes to change the "results".

I also feel that the difference you point out is important to many: it
is our choice to vote or not!

at least for the moment ;)

The main point is this: with big voter turnouts or not, both places
suffered horribly.


Deirdre Straughan wrote:

> Why? Because India, unlike the US, is a truly functioning democracy.
> India's hundreds of millions of poor and/or illiterate people VOTE,
> and have considerable political clout.
> Everybody's mad at Bush now, for good reason. But, hey, folks, he was
> democratically elected by the American people.
> Or was he?
> Less than half of Americans voted in the last presidential election,
> and many of those who didn't vote are the poor, young, and anyone else
> who feels powerless. I don't think American culture encourages people
> to vote, whereas n many European countries, it is AGAINST THE LAW not to.


My name is Markus Sandy and I am

aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
skype: msandy

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"The hybrid or the meeting of two media is a moment of truth and revelation from which new form is born"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Videoblog Directory - Free Videoblog Hosting / Vlogosphere Aggregator - on again off again personal vlog

Rss reader Fireant Internet directory
Individual Free rss reader



Rss reader Fireant Internet directory
Individual Free rss reader


Reply via email to