| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
| Locked on 08/29/2005 2:09:55 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason: |
Posted on 08/29/2005 2:47:45 AM PDT by NautiNurse
That's very sad. I hope it's not too many people.
Hurricane casualties, or from the cemetaries?
And file the sights off your small-caliber guns if using them for bear.
Probably from the mausoleums.
Thanks!
Now that the storm is starting to move away, we'll start to see the cost. Granted, New Orleans isn't under twenty feet of toxic water with fifty thousand dead, like some were predicting...but "dodging a bullet" may not be the right term. Looks more like she dodged the first two rounds of the burst, but the third got her.
}:-)4
Oh no.
Good Lord. That's sad news.
sw
Thanks too!
"Gut Shot" perhaps?
Any truth to the rumor Walter Matthau is alive and well and sitting on a bar stool at Pat O'Briens? Wearing a funny hat.
No doubt, it's gonna be ugly.
Did you not get enough coverage with all media focused on the hurricane for 24 hours?
What about the news in Europe, other nations, Iraq, Texas, Oklahoma, New York - are all to bow down to the hurricane and just stack up the news?
So, you will go on record as not wanting to have the news reported whenever it occurs. You wish for the media to determine when and what news you are allowed to hear?
I have not noticed that all local news and all national news stopped because we are at war in Iraq and people there too are dying. I have not noticed that only one news event at a time can be mentioned.
You have been propagrandized into accepting that the media will determine what you will hear - as in the round the clock coverage of Aruba, the ignoring of any good news from Iraq, and the power of the media to determine what you think.
I do not agree. You see - I am able to hear of more than one thing at a time. Maybe we should just have one channel and only the most "important" story that meets with the media approval be aired.
I'm also sure the people that were directly in the path and have lost everything are not feeling like they dodged a bullet.
Me too :)
Send Shep in over any of them. Although I still like Harrigan and Leventhal AND Greg Kelly from the Iraq war days.
That's one confused moral system you have there. How can it be "wrong" to save a life?
It's a civil disobedience and someone doing this should be willing to accept the consequences which might include jail or getting shot.
Possibly so, but it's not morally wrong. Human lives take precedence over property. Especially in an emergency situation.
Man's laws may say it is wrong, but God's law supercedes man's law.
Your post is nobel but the thief stealing a TV probably feels like morally he is right too. In this scenario, all would probably understand but it's still wrong.
We can examine the morality of the action objectively. We don't need to compare it to a criminal's self-delusion. Helping someone to remain living by obtaining medicine for them is not wrong. It may be technically illegal, but it is not wrong. Maybe you think "illegal" and "wrong" are the same thing?
SD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.