home

Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who Stayed Behind

Via Bob Casey's (PA) Senate campaign:

When asked about the Hurricane Katrina disaster this weekend on Pittsburgh's ABC affiliate WTAE-TV, Rick Santorum said, "...you have people who don't heed those warnings and then put people at risk as a result of not heeding those warnings. There may be a need to look at tougher penalties on those who decide to ride it out and understand that there are consequences to not leaving." Click here to see the video.

< Mark Levin Gripes | Brown Describes His Disaster Experience >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#1)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    It's times like this that I'm very glad I no longer live in PA and have the "pleasure" of having Santorum (and Specter) as my Senator(s). He does, however, raise a valid point. The people who stayed behind ended up putting other people at risk, the people who were sent in to rescue them. I don't think a fine is the appropriate response, but would the defense lawyers here jump to represent a rescue worker who refused to enter NOLA on the grounds that he did not wish to risk his life trying to save people who made a conscious effort to put their's in danger?

    Contrast fining victims in New Orleans and surrounding parishes in 2005, with FEMA's corrupt giveaways to residents of Miami-Dade County unaffected by the Florida hurricanes of 2004. For that and other stories of the politics of Bush-era disaster relief, see: "FEMA: Florida Election Management Agency."

    The people who stayed behind ended up putting other people at risk, the people who were sent in to rescue them.
    O.K., there are stupid people in every crisis. I'm sure a few of those made a choice to stay. But most of the people who stayed were poor and had no money to leave. I heard about one guy who bought $3,000 worth of tickets for himself and his family to fly to Houston. I heard of another guy who paid a taxi driver $800 to drive out of state. I know a lot of people packed up their cars and left. What were people supposed to do who had no cars and no money? What were the elderly, or those with severe health and mobility issues, supposed to do? A little imagination, and a little empathy, please...

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#4)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    Yeah, yeah, yeah. There are consequences for women who have sex, too. Punish them all! By the way, what are they doing with all those abandoned doggies?

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#5)
    by jen on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    Send him go rifle through the pockets of the dead when the city is finally drained. That will be their fine.

    video doesn't work on Macintosh platform.

    The people who stayed behind ended up putting other people at risk
    And all those people whining about not having any bread--why don't they just eat cake?

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    He would love to build a jail for them in a republican small town (maybe PA) so that they could be counted but have no vote. A fancy kind of redistricting. Punish them some more and profit off it why not, just like slaves. What a sick bigot he is.
    Bigot \Big"ot\, n. [F. bigot a bigot or hypocrite, a name once given to the Normans in France. Of unknown origin; possibly akin to Sp. bigote a whisker; hombre de bigote a man of spirit and vigor; cf. It. s-bigottire to terrify, to appall. Wedgwood and others maintain that bigot is from the same source as Beguine, Beghard.] [1913 Webster] 1. A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite. [Obs.] [1913 Webster] 2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion. [1913 Webster] To doubt, where bigots had been content to wonder and believe. --Macaulay. [1913 Webster]


    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#9)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    Wouldn't that be an ex post facto law, and thus blatantly unconstitutional? I don't mind the idea of fining people who cause the rest of us to spend money to fix their mistakes (I'm not counting those who really couldn't leave), but I do mind congressmen who try to exceed their authority.

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    roy-So all of the people who stayed should be in-terror-gated by the FBI so we can find out which ones actually could leave and chose not to. Those get jailed for stealing your tax dollars?
    (I'm not counting those who really couldn't leave)


    From CNN:
    I am stunned by an interview I conducted with New Orleans Detective Lawrence Dupree. He told me they were trying to rescue people with a helicopter and the people were so poor they were afraid it would cost too much to get a ride and they had no money for a "ticket." Dupree was shaken telling us the story. He just couldn't believe these people were afraid they'd be charged for a rescue.


    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#12)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    But most of the people who stayed were poor and had no money to leave.
    Well, if the polling of NO after Ivan is representative then ~ 5 in 6 could leave but chose to stay.

    Is this another case of somebody just making stuff up? Or would you care to supply a link for your source?

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    wm- pw is jes spekalatin. Heads will roll, dam* freeloaders.

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#15)
    by Nowonmai on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    Oh now this is a smart move. Let's fine people that didn't have the money or means to get out of NOLA to begin with. I'm not referring to the Hurricane Freaks that like riding out storms, but the vast majority of the poor who couldn't leave. Abofrigginglutely brilliant idea. What next? Execute the poor for being poor? The term "heartless bastard" clearly comes to mind.

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#16)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    And here's the follow-up story from the AP today, in which Santorum tries to weasel out of his absurd, ignorant, and cruel statement of the other day.

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#17)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    Doesn't seem very weasely to me. He unambiguously referred to those who "decided" to stay.

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#18)
    by kipling on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    Boldly leaving no stone unturned in the attempt to screw the poor and the middle classes for everything they've got. Sanitarium, whoever he is, clearly has his priorities right at this time when rescue operations are still going on, at least those not interfered with by FEMA, making sure the fires burn everything properly. Next will be "Why are tax dollars used to helicopter people too stupid to use their SUV's to evacuate? They should pay for the helicopter ride, the winch, the winchman,...." But before that will be, "those who stayed behind, and continue to screw up bold plans to turn NO into Disneyland by refusing to leave, must be punished. Let's make NO too expensive for them to continue living there." I dunno. Why not just build some big gas ovens out in Nevada or Guantanamo, you know, where no-one ever looks, and ....save a lot of time, I rickin'. God have mercy.

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    roy- well if is not weasely i do not know what is.
    And last week, Hastert, R-Ill., told the Daily Herald newspaper in Arlington Heights, Ill., that since New Orleans is located below sea level, he wasn't sure if it should be rebuilt. He later issued a statement saying: "My comments about rebuilding the city were intended to reflect my sincere concern with how the city is rebuilt to ensure the future protection of its citizens and not to suggest that this great historic city should not be rebuilt," he said.
    And how do you propose to seperate those who could not leave from those who could. How much do you think that will cost, and cost not just in $$?

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    webmacher writes:
    What were people supposed to do who had no cars and no money? What were the elderly, or those with severe health and mobility issues, supposed to do? A little imagination, and a little empathy, please...
    Oh, I don't know. Maybe we start a couple of days Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    Squeaky - Hasert was right. NO will be rebuilt with federal money. I see no reason to waste it by rebuilding in an area that will flood again. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing, but expecting different results.

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#22)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    How about fines for the Louisiana officials who failed to do their jobs in the hours leading up to the storm? Like the Mayor of New Orleans, who could have used the city's buses to move people out of the city, but instead let the buses sit and be flooded. Or the Governor, who could have declared martial law and ordered the Louisiana National Guard to forcibly evacuate the city? It certainly makes more sense than trying to fine those who didn't get out on their own. Which is, I guess, why it isn't being suggested. It's not like these people actually accepted the responsibility for these things when they ran for office, or did they?

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#23)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    webmacher-
    “Is this another case of somebody just making stuff up? Or would you care to supply a link for your source?”
    I’m not a liar; rather I’ve posted this so many god dam* times I’m sick of it. Here’s the link, and for those of you who can’t be bothered … “Researchers have estimated that prior to a “big one,” approximately 700,000 residents of the greater New Orleans area (out of 1.2 million) would evacuate. In the case of Hurricane Ivan, officials estimate that up to 600,000 evacuated from metropolitan New Orleans … The fact that 600,000 residents evacuated means an equal number did not. Recent evacuation surveys show that two thirds of nonevacuees with the means to evacuate chose not to leave because they felt safe in their homes … Residents who did not have personal transportation were unable to evacuate even if they wanted to. Approximately 120,000 residents … If Ivan had struck New Orleans directly it is estimated that 40-60,000 residents of the area would have perished.” Shirley Laska ,Center for Hazards Assessment, Response and Technology, University of New Orleans. Why would you simply assume everyone who stayed had no choice? It seems like a extremely unreasonable assumption. Also, it looks like I made an error; rather ~ 4 in 5 could leave but chose to stay.

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#24)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    Roy is right; you can’t make a law to retroactively punish folks. Incidentally, Mayor Nagin is now having the National Guard remove people by force after many have refused to leave and have rebuffed rescuers who are there at substantial personal risk. Here in Utah we have a similar but more persistent problem. When avalanche danger is high folks are repeatedly warned to stay out of the backcountry, or even in bounds at the resorts. Some ignore the warnings and need to be rescued at an enormous cost. In the summer several are pulled off the mountain after getting lost or injured. It’s my understanding all this is free. When someone negligently starts wildfires here (happens every year) they are billed for the cost. I don’t see much difference in negligently starting a fire during fire season or negligently starting an avalanche in avalanche season. The cause is willful negligence and the result is a huge drain on public resources.

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#25)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    Anyone think that these people have been punished enough?

    U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said in a weekend interview that people who do not heed evacuation warnings in the future may need to be penalized, but clarified his remarks this evening, saying he did not mean people who lack cars or other resources.
    Translation: It was brought to the Senator's attention recently that not everyone can afford a basic necessity like a car. He said "You're kidding right?" Then added "Sheeit, time for a clarification."

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#27)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    With so much to use against him, if the Dems cannot defeat Santorum in 06 then there is clearly something very, very wrong with the people of PA. His reaction to NO, his photo-ops and soundbites at Hannity's lemonade stand during the Shiavo fiasco, and his admitted hatred for gay people are actually pretty minor examples of what the voters might consider. This is not a decent human being by any reasonable standard whatever.

    OK, you're not a liar, thank you for the link. You left out something. Your source also says this:
    Other nonevacuees with means relied on a cultural tradition of not leaving or were discouraged by negative experiences with past evacuations. For those without means, the medically challenged, residents without personal transportation, and the homeless, evacuation requires significant assistance. The medically challenged often rely on life support equipment and are in such fragile states of health that they can only be moved short distances to medically equipped shelters. While a large storm-resistant structure with appropriate equipment has yet to be constructed or retrofitted, the Superdome was used to shelter nonevacuees during Ivan. Residents who did not have personal transportation were unable to evacuate even if they wanted to. Approximately 120,000 residents (51,000 housing units x 2.4 persons/unit) do not have cars.
    You're just not a very good reader and only see what you want to see.

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#29)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    webmacher-
    “You're just not a very good reader and only see what you want to see.”
    That’s a pretty broad (and insulting) claim; care to elaborate? The point is, contrary to your unsupported assertion, most of the folks who remained in New Orleans were likely able to leave and chose not to. None of what you posted says differently, so exactly what did I miss or misrepresent?

    unfortunately, in the zest to blame Bush, the left has the blinders on to multiple causes. don't we want bigger bureaucracies, even if that makes them unresponsive to local needs? isn't bigger always better? Santorum's only sin is poor timing-why shouldn't the able bodied who stayed behind and sapped resources be called out? how about the predators who stayed behind for their own gain? frankly, the only agency that has competently fulfilled their mission to date has been the military and the private aid agencies.

    That’s a pretty broad (and insulting) claim; care to elaborate? The point is, contrary to your unsupported assertion, most of the folks who remained in New Orleans were likely able to leave and chose not to. None of what you posted says differently, so exactly what did I miss or misrepresent?
    Aw, did I hurt your feelings? (You have feelings?) I'm not sure how you can say "most of the folks who remained in New Orleans were likely able to leave and chose not to." The same article -- again, the part you ignored, which I quoted -- said that people with health problems or disabilities impairing their mobility could be moved a short distance, but not out of the city. 80% of New Orleans residents evacuated. By what strange math do you reckon that people stayed behind out of choice? Also, it's not my "unsupported assertion" -- it's a quote from the friggin' article you cited. 120,000 people in New Orleans don't (or didn't) have cars. So, to sum up, you 1) left out the parts of the article that contradicted what you want to believe 2) are bad at math. Read your own article. You posted it.

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#32)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    webmacher-
    “Aw, did I hurt your feelings? (You have feelings?)”
    There’s no need to be petty.
    “I'm not sure how you can say "most of the folks who remained in New Orleans were likely able to leave and chose not to."”
    What I get out of the article is that of the 1.2 million residents of the greater New Orleans area 600,000 thousand evacuated. From the article … “The fact that 600,000 residents evacuated means an equal number did not”. Of the 600,000 that stayed we need to know how many could not leave. Again, from the article … “Approximately 120,000 residents … do not have cars.” So, of the 600,000 folks that stayed 120,000 didn’t have the transportation to leave; that’s 4 in 5. And as the article points out, there are folks whose health is such that they cannot be moved by conventional means. I couldn’t really tell if they were included in the no-car group or not, so I used the approximate (~) symbol. I doubt their numbers are so significant as to skew the ratio significantly, but make the argument if you want. So, when I say most folks I mean 4 in 5, and when I say likely able to leave I mean that the Ivan survey is likely representative of the Katrina evacuation.
    “80% of New Orleans residents evacuated. By what strange math do you reckon that people stayed behind out of choice?”
    I don’t see how you get 80%. The line … “The fact that 600,000 residents evacuated means an equal number did not” indicates that 50% left. Are you referring to a count from hurricane Katrina?
    “Also, it's not my "unsupported assertion" -- it's a quote from the friggin' article you cited.”
    You misunderstood. I was referring to the first post I responded to, the one where you claimed most of the people who stayed behind could not leave. I hadn’t posted the article yet so it couldn’t have been supported by that source, not that it supports your claim now.
    “So, to sum up, you 1) left out the parts of the article that contradicted what you want to believe 2) are bad at math.”
    I didn’t leave out any parts of the article; I gave you a link to the entire manuscript. Still, post exactly what I have said and what part of the article contradicts it. I did make a mistake, it was 4 in 6 and not 5 in 6; I clarified it the moment I realized. An arithmetic mistake hardly makes me bad at math. I’m actually quite good at math.

    OK, l'il wiggly piggy... Trying to change the subject? Wanting to take a nostalgic walk down memory lane to Hurricane Ivan, the storm that let New Orleans get away? *I'm* talking about Hurricane Katrina. And most of the people who didn't leave didn't stay because they thought it would be fun -- they stayed because they couldn't leave! You claimed that they could have left, because, after all, according to a survey after Hurricane Ivan, a percentage of them said they could have left but chose to stay. Obviously, we were meant to conclude you were extrapolating from that to explain the motives of the left-behinds during Hurricane Katrina. You ignored the fact that in that same article, it said 120,000 people didn't have cars, and some other unspecified number of them had health and mobility issues. According to this article, there are 480,000 people in New Orleans, and 80% of them were estimated to have evacuated. That leaves, gosh, about 100,000 people. Again, 120,000 people in the article you cited didn't have cars last year. Maybe 20,000 of them bought cars in the last year. I dunno. I'm sure things changed and this was a different storm, after all -- and the warnings to get out of Dodge were much more frantic this time. I remember reading the weather forecasts the day before the storm hit and was struck by how almost emotional they sounded -- and this was the weather service!
    I was referring to the first post I responded to, the one where you claimed most of the people who stayed behind could not leave. I hadn’t posted the article yet so it couldn’t have been supported by that source, not that it supports your claim now.
    Wow, so you're not much at writing either. What did that paragraph even mean? Dude, it's pretty darn obvious that the overwhelming majority of people stuck in New Orleans during Katrina were poor. There's been no shortage of coverage on the subject. Your article was just one of them. Anyhoo, I think you just didn't want to post the link because you knew it included some information that contradicted your attempts to blame the victims. Shame on you.

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#34)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    webmacher-
    “Trying to change the subject? Wanting to take a nostalgic walk down memory lane to Hurricane Ivan”
    Well, that was the topic of the article. After accusing me twice of not reading it I assumed you had.
    “Obviously, we were meant to conclude you were extrapolating from that to explain the motives of the left-behinds during Hurricane Katrina.”
    Did you even read my first post? Once again … “Well, if the polling of NO after Ivan is representative then ~ 5 in 6 could leave but chose to stay.” ?
    “You ignored the fact that in that same article, it said 120,000 people didn't have cars, and some other unspecified number of them had health and mobility issues.”
    No I didn’t. I have consistently used that number, even explaining in detail how I used it in my last post.
    “According to this article, there are 480,000 people in New Orleans, and 80% of them were estimated to have evacuated.”
    I see the confusion. New Orleans proper does have a population of ~480,000. Greater New Orleans is indistinguishable from New Orleans proper; here’s a map. Just like the city I live in, the city boundaries are an artifact; the city has long consumed areas that were once townships or bedroom communities.
    “What did that paragraph even mean?”
    The point isn’t worth it.
    “Dude, it's pretty darn obvious that the overwhelming majority of people stuck in New Orleans during Katrina were poor.”
    Look, you keep up the wild speculation; I was just trying to ground the conversation with some numbers from New Orleans’ past experiences with evacuation.
    “Anyhoo, I think you just didn't want to post the link because you knew it included some information that contradicted your attempts to blame the victims. Shame on you.”
    I posted it immediately when you asked (not to mention three previous occasions over the week). That’s a malicious distortion; shame on you. It’s pretty clear that when disagreed with you become combative and insulting. Pretty lame.

    Pig, Gee, I got you riled? Please spare me your delicate feelings. Not that I want to make this a conversation about your emotional reactions. Let's make it real simple. The title of this thread is "Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who Stayed Behind". It's not about Hurricane Ivan. It's about Hurricane Katrina. The point of Santorum's comments were to blame the poor who couldn't leave. So yeah, your article on Hurricane Ivan was relevant. It pointed out that there's a lot of poor people in New Orleans that weren't going to be able to get out when the worst happened. You ignored that part and focused on a survey that doesn't strike me as terribly relevant -- Ivan was not as big a hurricane, and New Orleans had been through storms before -- and ignored the part that was relevant -- all the poor people that can't evacuate on their own. Look, you want to find people that agree with you, go over to Free Republic or one of the many other discussion boards full of heartless people that believe if you die in a disaster, it's your own damn fault. If you show up here and try to make the same point, expect to be argued with, and expect anger -- especially on a thread about what a heartless **** Santorum and his like are.

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    PPJ-NO is a city because it connects the heartland of America to the world. Hastert hates blacks gays and democrats, that is where his comment (that he retracted) came from. We as a country need NO. It did not form by accident, but out of need. PW-to compare the few people risking their lives for sport who need rescue at great expense to those (hundred of thousands) who are home and FOR WHATEVER REASON chose not to leave is insane and not honest.

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#37)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    webmacher-
    “Gee, I got you riled?”
    No, I’m frustrated though. It’s difficult having a conversation with someone who can’t be bothered to critically read my posts and responses.
    “Not that I want to make this a conversation about your emotional reactions.”
    Then why do you keep bringing it up?
    “It's not about Hurricane Ivan. It's about Hurricane Katrina.”
    I understand your embarrassment at missing that the linked article and subsequent posts were about the evacuation during hurricane Ivan. Take it as a lesson; read the post critically.
    “You ignored that part and focused on a survey that doesn't strike me as terribly relevant”
    If you didn’t find the portion of the survey detailing the number of folks who did and couldn’t leave relevant, what portion was?
    “Look, you want to find people that agree with you, go over to Free Republic”
    The point of posting here is to avoid the backslapping and atta boys in an echo chamber. I prefer to have my ideas challenged; posting where everybody agrees with me seems lazy, an intellectual fraud.
    “If you show up here and try to make the same point, expect to be argued with, and expect anger”
    I always expect to be argued with, but spare me the tantrum. Trust me, my feelings are fine. I don’t know you, and frankly don’t have much regard for your opinion anyway.

    No, I’m frustrated though. It’s difficult having a conversation with someone who can’t be bothered to critically read my posts and responses.
    No, you just don't like the answer you got.
    If you didn’t find the portion of the survey detailing the number of folks who did and couldn’t leave relevant, what portion was?
    Well, how about the fact that 120,000 people were too poor to have cars, and therefore weren't going to be able to leave town? If you won't acknowledge that fact, what's to discuss? No tantrum here -- just just deep disappointment that poor people's lives are casually dismissed with the notion that it's their choice to stay and die, and their own fault. And yes, anger at the system that let them die, and people like you that defend it. I just wish you had the honesty to say that that's your point.

    My husband, who is a more reasonable person than I, suggests a compromise. You're right. There were probably about 1,000 people who could have left on their own and didn't. He says I should cede that point to you. They totally suck. Shame on them. Wasting FEMA's time like that. The 120,000 people who couldn't get out of town, however, because they lacked their own transportation, dwarf those 1,000 sucky people. Those 120,000 got the shaft. How's that for a compromise?

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    wm-the only other thing is that Homeland Security will have to detain the 121,000 people in pens designed by Haliburton indefinitely until they root out the 1,000 or so sucky trouble makers.

    Re: Santorum Calls for Fines on NOLA Residents Who (none / 0) (#41)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    webacher- Your ‘compromise’ is fabricating a number to support your original assertion; and you consider this reasonable? This has become ridiculous.