# Lawmakers search for a wealthy Katrina corpse **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 19, 2005, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmakers-search-for-a-wealthy-katrina-corpse/322396 "2005-09-19T18:21:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmakers-search-for-a-wealthy-katrina-corpse/322396/121 "2005-09-23T17:03:06Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Gorblimey. It’s a simple question. “Who’s being punished?” requires a 2-part answer - who it is, \*and \* that they’re being punished. \*\*Unc \*\* insists that providing only 1 part of the answer is the same as providing a complete answer. It ain’t. Wasted enough keystrokes on it yet? Not quite yet. Firstly, it could be argued that a question that **requires** a two-part answer, is, by definition, _not_ a simple question. Secondly, AFAICT, this post is the first time you have asserted in so many words that you see the question as requiring a two-part answer. I don’t see that **UncleBeer** is obliged to make that assumption, if it is not explicitly stated. Believe me, I’m more sympathetic to your position in this overall argument than I am to his. But, on the subject of things getting stuck in craws, it sticks in mine a little when someone is being accused of evading a question, when the slightest legitimate variance in the reading of the question can absolve the person of the charge; and when with only a little effort, you can acknowledge the fact of the original answer, and pose the second part of it explicitly. Do that, and you can hold **UncleBeer** ’s feet to the fire. I won’t say a word. Be advised, however, that you may be operating with different qualitative definitions of the word “punitive.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmakers-search-for-a-wealthy-katrina-corpse/322396/122 "2005-09-23T17:12:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Firstly, it could be argued that a question that requires a two-part answer, is, by definition, not a simple question. It \*could \* be argued as you say, perhaps, but not by someone who has graduated from elementary school. If you can show where the punishment (which is inherent in the word “punitive”, you could look it up and save yourself a lot of time) is occurring, or where \*\*Unc \*\* showed it for that matter, go right ahead. Otherwise you need to get a fucking grip. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmakers-search-for-a-wealthy-katrina-corpse/322396/123 "2005-09-23T17:53:04Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > No, I suspect we have an equally low threshold for sermonizing from hypocrites (or from anyone else, for that matter). What is troubling is that the assumption is automatically made that the heirs are layabouts, Paris Hilton-esque, and somehow have character flaws. This, of course, doesn’t add anything at all to the discussion of how best to tax inheritance. It merely throws the bugaboo of rich, spoiled, pampered kids into the equation for effect - “But if you don’t tax inheritance all the heirs will continue their Gatsby-like lifestyles, riding around in limos and saying ‘Let them eat cake.’” That sort of generalization is just as bad as the stereotype of the welfare mother made by the right. It adds nothing to the discussion and brings us liberals down to the level of the scare-mongering conservatives. total non-sequiter nitpick Gatsby was a self made man - self made probably by some combination of graft and or theft (Gatsby’s friend and business partner Meyer Wolfsheim is supposedly based on the guy who fixed the World Series) - a man incapable of enjoying his own wealth because he only aquired it in order to get a woman - he doesn’t even attend his own parties. Now the Buchanan’s - you have a point. ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmakers-search-for-a-wealthy-katrina-corpse/322396/124 "2005-09-23T19:01:43Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If you can identify a partisanly-blinkered statement I’ve made here, you haven’t done so. You wouldn’t be the first to fail, though. Not here in this thread, but your _posting history_ dictates your partisanship. So when I saw your comment… > [@](#): > > Speaking of whom, no, debaser, I don’t “hate” you. I pity your frequent eagerness to wear partisan blinkers, but that’s all. …it’s still the funniest thing in _this_ thread. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmakers-search-for-a-wealthy-katrina-corpse/322396/125 "2005-09-23T19:13:41Z")
IOW you ain’t got shit either. Go back and take your seat with the other lamers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmakers-search-for-a-wealthy-katrina-corpse/322396.md?page=6)