Here We Go Again

President Bush has named Karl Rove to be in charge of all the reconstruction
of the Gulf Coast .. How's that for a kicker ? Shades of the Arabian Horse
Association, who can think of anyone more qualified to oversee the billions
of dollars in contract projects, that will be necessary to complete the
re-construction..

First signatory of this disaster known as Katrina, was the presidential
signing to pay the workers, below standard wages.. hmmm... Not much reported
on this little tidbit, from our illustrious media.. huh ?

Vice President in hiding.. Dick Cheney was also on the job.. Even though ..
he was reportedly vacationing in Wyoming or some damned place, he took the
time to divert the restoration of power to a pipeline .. The power crews
were involved in trying to restore electrical power to some of the area
hospitals, where people were dying because of no power.. They received
directives from Cheney's offices to immediately commence work to restore
power to one of the oil pipelines which supply oil to refineries somewhere
on the east coast.. Something like that.. The utility companies involved,
diverted more than half their crews which were engaged in the effort to get
power back up, to the area hospitals.. That's priorities for you, isn't it ?

Bill Walker
Irving

 

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:16:09 GMT, "Bill Walker"

While I have heard some comments about this subject the media is too
busy whining about other stuff to worry about something that might end
up being a moot point as the pay scale will most likely end up going
higher then normal due to lack of enough construction personnel
anyhow.

If it is true about the power being out to a hospital that had people
dieing due to it then I would agree that that was a stupid thing to do
but I doubt it really happened. Hospitals have generators for a
reason.

Ruppster
sportster at dodge-semis dot com

 

You are forgetting this re-construction is being executed by agencies of the
federal government.. The contracts are being awarded by them and regardless
of the availability of construction hands in the area, they can be imported
from other areas to fill those gaps.. Needless to say, there may also be an
influx of people from offshore sources, as well..

Generators do not work without fuel.. Google it..

 

Not likely.. What is even more startling is that the Ruppster seems to
believe that I'd invent, fabricate or make up such an idea as Cheney's
office directing those crews to prioritize that pipeline power.. Not
likely.. it has been reported on a reliable news source and that is where I
got the information.. hmmm...With all that doubt Ruppster has expressed, I'd
appreciate hearing from him, after he has researched it and found it to be a
credible report..

Bill Walker
Irving

 

Why not provide a cite so we can all assess the credibility of your
post.
--


Don
RCOS# 7

2000 - Yamaha Venture Millennium Edition

Disclaimer:
This message may contain incidental references to various
brands of motorcycles, vehicles or parts manufacturers.
They are included for informational purposes only and
are not intended to upset, inflame or otherwise disturb
the sensibilities of anyone associated with the brands.
Hyper-sensitive readers of the post who might be upset
with the content are advised to make copious notes,
organize them into a coherent message and then hit the
delete button.

http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/reeky.htm
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/radium1.htm
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/banff.htm
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/kananaskis.htm
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/walkercalgary.htm
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/calgarybrowning.htm

 

It may be being executed by the federal government but the actual work
will be done by civilian contractors. When they run out of workers and
need more they will need to have an incentive for people to come from
afar and this will have to be by paying more per hour. I come from a
construction family and I am more then familiar with how things work
in the trade.

Sure, let me waste my time to research a point "you" made. I have
better things to do like go to bed as I need to get up at o-dark 30 to
drive to Norfolk first thing in the morning for a class at ITT.

Ruppster
sportster at dodge-semis dot com

 

And if I caught the news correctly back up generators were brought in.
I have yet to see any proof that "people are dieing right now due to
lack of power."

Ruppster
sportster at dodge-semis dot com

 

No where did I imply that you made it up. All I said was "I doubt it
really happened". You made a comment based on things you heard and I
made a reply based on what I have picked up. And I also said that if
you are right I agree with you. I took your comments at face value and
saw no reason to demand you back up your comments when all you were
doing was voicing your opinion of what you think happened. So to put
the ball in my court saying I need to "google" it is nothing more then
a joke. Right now I am working 2 jobs and going to school at night so
I don't have a lot of free time to watch every news show or read every
little news article. Anyhow, my comment was just my opinion and you
are free to take it for what you want. No "google" required.

Good night,,
Ruppster
sportster at dodge-semis dot com

 

Here's a cite:
http://tinyurl.com/97mam

I guess there's no room for doubt.

 

Lovely site, it only wanted to install 3 cookies.

As far as the article all it does is talk about the return of power to
a couple of rural hospitals being delayed. It does not say whether
lives were being lost due to the delay and that they had no back up
generators (it did mention one hospital had running generators so how
could it have caused any deaths at that one?). Nothing unusual for the
media, all they want to do is push a sob story to make you think
things are worse then they are. They don't care about posting all the
facts, just the ones they want you to know. Anyhow, it only confirms
part of Bill's comments but not all of it. So the doubt still stands.

Ruppster

 

Morgan,
I understand that some of the hospitals lost their generators right
after the storm and that some people on live support probably died but
that would have happened right after the storm. By the time the crews
were working on getting power restored those that were still in danger
of dieing should have been moved to someplace with power or been
stabilized on replacement generators. My comment was in regards to
Bill's accusation that "The power crews were involved in trying to
restore electrical power to some of the area hospitals, where people
were dying because of no power." These crews were working on getting
power restored several days after the storm was gone so I doubt that
anyone in the hospital was still at risk of dieing as Bill claimed. So
if you reread my comment about doubting what happened you will see
that I did not doubt the generators had gone out, only that people
were still dieing from lack of power several days afterwards. By then
additional generators had been brought in to take care of the
hospitals till the crews working on the power lines could get power
back. I have yet to see any article that proves that people died
during the additional 24 hours it took to get power back up due to
crews being diverted to other work. All the article mentioned was a
quote from one person saying "it would have been nice if power was
restored 24 hours ago".

Ruppster

 

Then why did your pop state "The power crews were involved in trying
to restore electrical power to some of the area hospitals, where
people were dying because of no power"? As I said I have yet to see
any article that supports his comment. And if you reread what I said
you will see that I did agree with his comment if it was true. But
there is a difference in trying to get power to a hospital ASAP when
they have no power at all versus a 24 hour delay in restore outside
service to a hospital that has got power from a generator. The article
was way short on details as usual and didn't do much to back up your
pop's claim.

Ruppster

 

Argument for the sake of argument isn't an indication of enlightenment, is
it ? I will stand by my original post .. If you can dispute it, do so..
Even by you own admission, there is evidence that my comments had merit . I
don't post links or refer to articles for a good reason.. When I post a
comment, it is usually based on what is being reported or something that
I've read.. Feel free to dispute my comments at your discretion..

Bill Walker
Irving

 

Okay, got to love the "argument for the sake of argument" comment. I
wasn't trying to argue anything. You made a comment that I made a
reply to last week. After a couple of other posts in the thread it
looked like that was that and the thread was dead. A few days later
Wakko posts a link to a site that was supposed to "remove all doubt"
to my initial comment. My latest replies were aimed at Wakko and his
link, not you Bill. All I did was point out that his link only
supported your initial comment about the crews being diverted but did
nothing to rebuke my "doubt" that there were still people dieing in
the hospitals almost a week after the hurricane. If trying to point
out an error is a "argument for the sake of argument" then I guess
every discussion on this group is an argument and no one here is after
"enlightenment". If anyone was trying to make an argument out of it I
would say you need to look at your son for that. His reply to my post
to Morgan made it sound like I was saying it was okay to divert crews
as they were going to die anyhow when I said no such thing. If trying
to put words in someone else's mouth isn't trying to start an argument
than I don't know what is.

As far as "feeling free to dispute your comments at my discretion" why
should I bother? I wasn't the one making accusations without proof.
Your comment was made as your opinion of the situation, no reference
to facts were given and I gave just as much consideration to them
based on the evidence used to back it up. You said your part and I
voiced my opinion in return. That's all.

Ruppster

 

‘‘ruppster,I don't post links or refer to articles for a good
reason.. When I post a comment, it is usually based on what is being
reported or something that I've read.. Feel free to dispute my comments
at your discretion..
Bill Walker
Irving

‘‘Bill, that's the way I am. I read, hear and see the news
events of the day. my interpretation might not suit others, but my
interpretation is my opinion. I would imagine most folks do the same.
They offer their points of views, and expect others to either agree or
disagree. We all, have our opinions. and we're ready to argue our
case.’’ If we are convinced we are wrong, hopefully we will admit it
and move on!! BJAY

'Ya'll take care'' --BJAY--

 

And that reason is obvious to all, Billy-boy. You don't post links or cite
articles because you really don't want someone else to read what you've
allegedly read and find that you've twisted the facts to your own liking.
You can certainly have your own opinions on a subject, but you can't have
your own set of facts.


When I post a

 

There's nothing wrong with making a comment based on something you
heard on the news without having to provide a link to some site to
back it up. It's up to the reader to determine if the "source" is
worth listening to or should just be ignored. Plus just because the
info about an item under discussion was posted to a site at so-and-so
location doesn't make it 100 percent correct or even true in the first
place. There are so many sites out there with "news" articles that are
nothing but bs. Just because they are on the net doesn't mean they are
valid.

Ruppster

 

‘‘Iggy,There's nothing wrong with making a comment based on
something you heard on the news without having to provide a link to some
site to back it up. It's up to the reader to determine if the "source"
is worth listening to or should just be ignored. Plus just because the
info about an item under discussion was posted to a site at so-and-so
location doesn't make it 100 percent correct or even true in the first
place. There are so many sites out there with "news" articles that are
nothing but bs. Just because they are on the net doesn't mean they are
valid.
Ruppster

‘‘Ruppster, man your piece above is well spoken, These folks
that think their news source is correct,and with out a doubt, factual,
gawls me.’ Every source is: some writer, some author, some reporter,
and some columnist's opinion of how he, or she interprets a news worth
story.’’ I, personally get all my news information form television,
and my Morning Gazette.. That's my business.’’ Whats so funny is
then, we interpret what we either read, or what we have heard on TV
Nightly News, to suit us. Just like the Bible! The reasons there's so
many different denominations is because of the wide variety of what man
thinks, of what he interprets, the information in the Bible.or something
like that, smile.
(BJAY)