So where is the opposition to Bush anyway ? by GinoBiffaroni

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Meanwhile, according to NBC Nightly news "FEMA's portable housing remains hundreds of miles away unused."

If this doesn't piss you off, you're not rational.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 12:11 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Meanwhile, according to NBC Nightly news "FEMA's portable housing remains hundreds of miles away unused."

If this doesn't piss you off, you're not rational.

FEMA's portable housing is conventional three bedroom mobile homes. To effectively use these, you need a site with water, electric, sewer, and maybe natural gas. They aren't used for first-response housing, but to help folks who can't find a permanent residence during the recovery period. There are about 500 in Florida still inhabited by people left homeless by Hurricane Charlie last year.

If they don't have them deployed in another month, maybe I'll be pissed off then...but less than two weeks after the storm, while bodies are still being recovered? I don't think so.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 12:19 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
GEEZER, it seems it was at least partly the FEDS who tried to block news coverage of dead recovery:

"U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison issued a temporary restraining order against a "zero access" policy announced earlier Friday by Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who is overseeing the federal relief effort in the city, and Terry Ebbert, the city's homeland security director."

Isn't that what (sort of)I said?

"It was the New Orleans authorities who asked for a ban on pictures of the dead, not Reagan or the Bushes. The Federal involvement was to implement that request."

You see it as a coverup, I see it as trying to respect the dead (as stated by Mr. Ebbert in the article quoted by SignyM).

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 12:27 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Thank you Geezer for your wisdom in setting an appropriate timetable for emergency housing. It's so clear to me now - you are the ultimate authority to whom we should all defer.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 1:03 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I don't like facts to get buried under Geezer's decoys, so here they are again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/national/nationalspecial/11response.
html?hp&ex=1126411200&en=cd7ee70e1622076b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

... an initial examination of Katrina's aftermath demonstrates the extent to which the federal government failed to fulfill the pledge it made after the Sept. 11 attacks to face domestic threats as a unified, seamless force.

Federal Emergency Management Agency officials expected the state and city to direct their own efforts and ask for help as needed. Leaders in Louisiana and New Orleans, though, were so overwhelmed by the scale of the storm that they were not only unable to manage the crisis, but they were not always exactly sure what they needed. While local officials assumed that Washington would provide rapid and considerable aid, federal officials, weighing legalities and logistics, proceeded at a deliberate pace.

FEMA appears to have underestimated the storm, despite an extraordinary warning from the National Hurricane Center that it could cause "human suffering incredible by modern standards." The agency dispatched only 7 of its 28 urban search and rescue teams to the area before the storm hit and sent no workers at all into New Orleans until after Katrina passed on Monday, Aug. 29.

On Tuesday, a FEMA official who had just flown over the ravaged city by helicopter seemed to have trouble conveying to his bosses the degree of destruction, according to a New Orleans city councilwoman.

"He got on the phone to Washington, and I heard him say, 'You've got to understand how serious this is, and this is not what they're telling me, this is what I saw myself,' " the councilwoman, Cynthia Hedge-Morrell, recalled.

State and federal officials had spent two years working on a disaster plan to prepare for a massive storm, but it was incomplete and had failed to deal with two issues that proved most critical: transporting evacuees and imposing law and order.

The Louisiana National Guard, already stretched by the deployment of more than 3,000 troops to Iraq, was hampered when its New Orleans barracks flooded.

Partly because of the shortage of troops, violence raged inside the New Orleans convention center, which interviews show was even worse than previously described. Police SWAT team members found themselves plunging into the darkness, guided by the muzzle flashes of thugs' handguns, said Capt. Jeffrey Winn.

Oliver Thomas, the New Orleans City Council president, expressed a view shared by many in city and state government: that A NATIONAL DISASTER REQUIRES A NATIONAL RESPONSE.

Richard A. Falkenrath, a former homeland security adviser in the Bush White House, said the chief federal failure was not anticipating that the city and state would be so compromised. He said the response exposed "false advertising" about how the government has been transformed four years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"Frankly, I wasn't surprised that it went the way it did," Mr. Falkenrath said.

PLEASE DON'T THINK THEY GIVE A SHIT.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 1:10 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Lynch

You are getting more desperate as the crowd around you silently melts away ...

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International.
Sept. 8-9, 2005. "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"
Approve 38
Disapprove 55
Unsure 7

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 1:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
"I think you need to adjust your meds and fix your tin foil hat too."

Lynch, you opened the door. I made no personal comments about you, I cited facts. So now, see the signature below: PLEASE DON'T THINK THEY GIVE A SHIT.

That means YOU - callous, opportunistic and partisan beyond excuse. Able to rationalize the death of thousands in defense of an ideology. Just like your masters. Which you pathetically call "Doing the right thing".

I'm looking forward to the day when you will be called to an account.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 1:36 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So, let's hear it AJ, and let's start out with the first question:

Explain to me how the unecessary death of thousands is acceptable.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 1:44 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Thank you Geezer for your wisdom in setting an appropriate timetable for emergency housing. It's so clear to me now - you are the ultimate authority to whom we should all defer.

Just trying to apply a little logic, like the fact that mobile homes aren't worth much without the infrastructure to support them. That has to be put in place before it does any good to move the emergency housing in. Since the New Orleans area is still mostly under water, It seems silly to drop mobile homes in and watch them float away.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:

I would rather have a principled, competent, effective, and sometimes unpopular President Bush than an unprincipled, incompetent, ineffective, but always popular President Bush.

Where to begin once again, again?
Ah, an ad hominem...
Andrew, you dumass!
What you have is an unprincipled, incompetent, ineffective, AND NOW unpopular President Bush.

I feel for you, no, really.

Hey, at least he's got job security for the next three years, despite the lies.
Yes, Andrew, the man lies.
And some little part of you lies too.
To yourself.

Stop lying to yourself, and apologize, RIGHT NOW!

Chrisisallontheattack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 2:08 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So, let's hear it AJ, and let's start out with the first question:

Explain to me how the unecessary death of thousands is acceptable.

Oh, and have you stopped beating your wife?

Or:

Rue. Are you still turning tricks down at 42nd and Main?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 2:32 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Geezer,

Yes, you post a mean straw-man argument:

Quote:
Since the New Orleans area is still mostly under water, It seems silly to drop mobile homes in and watch them float away.

Do you really think I was saying these homes are to be placed in New Orleans? Can you stop twisting your ethics up in knots long enough to engage in an clean debate?

A huge number of refugees from NO will not be able to return home for a long, long time - at least until the city is pumped out (weeks to months) and, for those structures ruined beyond repair, not until they are rebuilt. Without putting a number on it, it is far beyond the available FEMA mobile housing available. In other words, there is an undeniable demand.

This large number of people will need to be housed somewhere for the foreseable future. Will the two weeks you want to 'wait and see' change that?

Please don't think they give a shit - especially not Geezer.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 2:37 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I don't like facts to get buried under Geezer's decoys, so here they are again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/national/nationalspecial/11response.
html?hp&ex=1126411200&en=cd7ee70e1622076b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

... an initial examination of Katrina's aftermath demonstrates the extent to which the federal government failed to fulfill the pledge it made after the Sept. 11 attacks to face domestic threats as a unified, seamless force.

Federal Emergency Management Agency officials expected the state and city to direct their own efforts and ask for help as needed. Leaders in Louisiana and New Orleans, though, were so overwhelmed by the scale of the storm that they were not only unable to manage the crisis, but they were not always exactly sure what they needed. While local officials assumed that Washington would provide rapid and considerable aid, federal officials, weighing legalities and logistics, proceeded at a deliberate pace.

FEMA appears to have underestimated the storm, despite an extraordinary warning from the National Hurricane Center that it could cause "human suffering incredible by modern standards." The agency dispatched only 7 of its 28 urban search and rescue teams to the area before the storm hit and sent no workers at all into New Orleans until after Katrina passed on Monday, Aug. 29.

On Tuesday, a FEMA official who had just flown over the ravaged city by helicopter seemed to have trouble conveying to his bosses the degree of destruction, according to a New Orleans city councilwoman.

"He got on the phone to Washington, and I heard him say, 'You've got to understand how serious this is, and this is not what they're telling me, this is what I saw myself,' " the councilwoman, Cynthia Hedge-Morrell, recalled.

State and federal officials had spent two years working on a disaster plan to prepare for a massive storm, but it was incomplete and had failed to deal with two issues that proved most critical: transporting evacuees and imposing law and order.

The Louisiana National Guard, already stretched by the deployment of more than 3,000 troops to Iraq, was hampered when its New Orleans barracks flooded.

Partly because of the shortage of troops, violence raged inside the New Orleans convention center, which interviews show was even worse than previously described. Police SWAT team members found themselves plunging into the darkness, guided by the muzzle flashes of thugs' handguns, said Capt. Jeffrey Winn.

Oliver Thomas, the New Orleans City Council president, expressed a view shared by many in city and state government: that A NATIONAL DISASTER REQUIRES A NATIONAL RESPONSE.

Richard A. Falkenrath, a former homeland security adviser in the Bush White House, said the chief federal failure was not anticipating that the city and state would be so compromised. He said the response exposed "false advertising" about how the government has been transformed four years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"Frankly, I wasn't surprised that it went the way it did," Mr. Falkenrath said.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 2:51 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer,

Yes, you post a mean straw-man argument:
Quote:
Since the New Orleans area is still mostly under water, It seems silly to drop mobile homes in and watch them float away.
Do you really think I was saying these homes are to be placed in New Orleans? Can you stop twisting your ethics up in knots long enough to engage in an clean debate?

A huge number of refugees from NO will not be able to return home for a long, long time - at least until the city is pumped out (weeks to months) and, for those structures ruined beyond repair, not until they are rebuilt. Without putting a number on it, it is far beyond the available FEMA mobile housing available. In other words, there is an undeniable demand.

This large number of people will need to be housed somewhere for the foreseable future. Will the two weeks you want to 'wait and see' change that?

Please don't think they give a shit - especially not Geezer.

Way to quote something out of context.

Geez. No matter where you want to put them, mobile homes need some basic infrastructure to be usable. If it isn't there, they are useless. The vast majority of people displaced by Katrina are somewhere where they can receive at least basic services: food, water, somewhere to sleep, medical attention. Would mobile homes without any hookups be better? Probably be more worthwhile to spend some time making sure any folks not in livable conditions get moved to them.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 3:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Explain to me how the unecessary death of thousands is acceptable.

Oh, and have you stopped beating your wife?

Where to begin ?
Ah, an ad hominem...
Geezer, you dumass!
What are they then, necessary deaths?

Chrisisall, who really likes all his dumass brothers, even though he calls them such

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 3:42 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Explain to me how the unecessary death of thousands is acceptable.

Oh, and have you stopped beating your wife?

Where to begin ?
Ah, an ad hominem...
Geezer, you dumass!
What are they then, necessary deaths?

Chrisisall, who really likes all his dumass brothers, even though he calls them such

OK then. Let's examine the statement "Explain to me how the unecessary death of thousands is acceptable."

This assumes, without any verification:

1. There are thousands of deaths.
2. they were all unnecessary.
3. anyone stated they were acceptable
4. (implied) they are all specifically Bush's fault.

And you talk about ad hominem?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 5:21 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"No matter where you want to put them, mobile homes need some basic infrastructure to be usable. If it isn't there, they are useless." No shit, Sherlock. And if they aren't installed, utilities and all, they are also useless. But that's beyond FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers.

Let's see, why don't we house people for months on end on cruise ships? That makes a whole lot of sense, doesn't it?

Better yet, have FEMA pay long-term hotel bills. That way at least business can get a slice of the action.

And Halliburton can do the response restoration. They're so good at it. Why, just look at Iraq ...

Please don't think they give a shit - especially Geezer.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 6:09 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Geezer, this was a conversation between Lynch and myself. But since you saw fit to intrude, here is what you are defending:

First is information regarding FEMA's mandate and the authority of the President to call up the Nation Guard during a serious emergency (and absent a declaration of insurrection):

FEMA's mandate:

http://www.fema.gov/library/drcys.shtm
http://www.fema.gov/library/stafact.shtm
http://www.fema.gov/library/stafact.shtm#sec401

All requests for a declaration by the President that a major disaster exists shall be made by the Governor of the affected State. Such a request shall be based on a finding that the disaster is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and the affected local governments and that Federal assistance is necessary.

In any major disaster, the President may --

1. direct any Federal agency, with or without reimbursement, to utilize its authorities and the resources granted to it under Federal law (including personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, and managerial, technical, and advisory services) in support of State and local assistance efforts;

2. coordinate ALL disaster relief assistance (including voluntary assistance) provided by Federal agencies, private organizations, and State and local governments;

3. provide technical and advisory assistance to affected State and local governments for--
A. the performance of essential community services;
B. issuance of warnings of risks and hazards;
C. public health and safety information, including dissemination of such information;
D. provision of health and safety measures; and
E. management, control, and reduction of immediate threats to public health and safety; and

4. assist State and local governments in the distribution of medicine, food, and other consumable supplies, and emergency assistance.

Work and services to save lives and protect property
B. search and rescue, emergency medical care, emergency mass care, emergency shelter, and provision of food, water, medicine, and other essential needs, including movement of supplies or persons;

Second, the role of The National Guard:

http://www.arng.army.mil/about_us/protecting_our_world.asp
http://www.ang.af.mil/
During national emergencies, however, the President reserves the right to mobilize the National Guard, putting them in federal duty status. While federalized, the units answer to the Combatant Commander of the theatre in which they are operating and, ultimately, to the President.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RS21024.pdf
soldiers are often placed simply at the disposal and direction of the civil authorities as a kind of supplementary police, or posse comitatus ...
(Or) in the event “the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.” Such use of troops may be under the management of federal civilian authorities ... (such as FEMA)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
Homeland Security
TITLE 6 CHAPTER 1 SUBCHAPTER VIII Part H Sec. 466. Congress finds the following:
4. Nevertheless, by its express terms, the Posse Comitatus Act is not a complete barrier to the use of the Armed Forces for a range of domestic purposes, including law enforcement functions, when the use of the Armed Forces is authorized by Act of Congress or the President determines that the use of the Armed Forces is required to fulfill the President's obligations under the Constitution to respond promptly in time of war, insurrection, or other serious emergency.
5. Existing laws ... grant the President broad powers that may be invoked in the event of domestic emergencies, including an attack against the Nation using weapons of mass destruction, and these laws specifically authorize the President to use the Armed Forces to help restore public order.

For good measure, here is Louisiana's Department of Homeland Security documentation. If you read through it, you will notice that it is almost completely geared to terrorism response. There are only a few brief mentions of disaster response. However, they clearly cede authority for major disasters: http://www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/homeldsecurity/hlsstrategyopt.pdf
• Local response will be the initial responders and should further assess the incident. If the scope of necessary response is beyond local capabilities then Regional assets could be deployed. • The Regional effort would be the next tier of a measured response and within two to four hours provide the necessary resources to the incident scene. • Based upon the scope of the incident the next tier, State Response, would further support crisis management. These state resources would be available within four to eight hours. • The final level of a tiered response concept would be the involvement of Federal Response resources. If necessary, these resources would be available on the incident scene in eight to twenty-four hours.

Now, here are some quotes from Lynch

Quote:
In short, there simply is no way for the New Orleans and Louisiana state governments (and by extension the Democratic party) to escape scrutiny and end up on the losing side of the "Blame Game".

Here he said that the state and local governments would be shown as worse than the Feds, who, nevertheless, CLEARLY had jurisdiction.

Quote:
The federal government is quite limited in rolling into a state's jurisdiction and taking over. FEMA is not a first responder and can't be under the current laws.

Again he misrepresents the Federal role via FEMA and its jurisdiction.

Quote:
I believe Gov Blanco has quite a bit of answering to do for her role in preventing a rapid federal takeover of this "ultra catastrophe" as SecHS Chertoff described it.

Now here he misrepresents Federal authority over the National Guard, which Bush could have deployed under FEMA without declaring an insurrection.

Quote:
I think FEMA and President Bush's biggest failure here was depending on those local and state officials who apparently were not capable of conducting a functioning response.

He reiterates the lie that FEMA was not, is not, and cannot be, a lead agency, despite its clear legal mandate.

Most people did not die during the hurricane. THEY DIED WAITING FOR AID. FEMA was clearly the lead agency managing the disaster. In other words, most people died waiting for FEMA.

Add in to the mix that FEMA was clearly interfering with other assistance rather than coordinating it ("coordinate ALL disaster relief assistance (including voluntary assistance) provided by Federal agencies, private organizations, and State and local governments").

And yet Lynch thinks the federal response was adequate, and any criticisms are merely political.

So the first question is, is there room for criticism? Or is the death of thousands acceptable?

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 6:11 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
OK, so are you saying that President Bush is doing or has done illegal things but somehow no one is able to detect in spite of literally thousands of people searching for it? You know that arguably the most public figure in the world is doing illegal things which cannot be detected?

No AJ. A LOT of people can detect the illegality of Bush's actions. Billions, in fact. Just not you. heh heh heh

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 6:32 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer- just for your information, the more I research the responsibilities and legalities involved in the NOLA disaster, the more I think Nagin actually did everything he could, while LA Dept Homeland Security made one serious error in keeping out the Red Cross. The rest belongs in FEMA's lap. Figuring this all out will require deep investigation. But the impetus will come from the average American recognizing the cost of those errors, and that recognition will come from seeing the dead.

Frankly, I don't care if the demand to not photograph the dead came from Honore or from LA Dept of Homeland Security. It was an illegal and unethical request as far as I'm concerned. I have no reason to gloat over the dead, but I think we all deserve to know the full truth. Don't you?

BTW- What do you think of Barbara Bush's comment about all thsoe evacuees in the Astrodone being better off there than at home? Seems about in-line with Bush going off the attend a b'day party the day after the levees broke, huh?

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 6:33 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Lynch

Quote:
Explain to me how the unecessary death of thousands is acceptable.

Quote:
I am not going to defend a position that is not my own. I have not stated nor implied such a thing.

(See my extended references and quotes for supporting documentation):

Most people did not die during the hurricane. THEY DIED WAITING FOR AID. FEMA was clearly the lead agency managing the disaster. In other words, most people died waiting for FEMA.

And yet you think the federal response was adequate, and any criticisms are merely political.

So the first question is, is there room for criticism? Or is the death of thousands acceptable?

Edited to add: Lynch, have you considered what it must be like to die of thirst? Can you imagine yourself stranded after a storm, unable to get out, and waiting, waiting, waiting for a simple drink of water in the most powerful country on the face of the earth - helpless and waiting till you die?

If you cannot empathize with dark faces, imagine they are simply young ones, like children you might care for. Or imagine they are old ones, like your parents, or even you in a few years. Or imagine it's you, law-abiding, dutiful, trusting, but simply in the wrong place and the wrong time, and therefore, slated to die by neglect.

The most callous often are those who've seen little death. And those who know what hell it is to die, can be the most humane. Which are you?

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 6:38 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Thank you Geezer for your wisdom in setting an appropriate timetable for emergency housing. It's so clear to me now - you are the ultimate authority to whom we should all defer.

Just trying to apply a little logic, like the fact that mobile homes aren't worth much without the infrastructure to support them. That has to be put in place before it does any good to move the emergency housing in. Since the New Orleans area is still mostly under water, It seems silly to drop mobile homes in and watch them float away.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

No, but they could be placed in Baton Rouge, or Houston, or elsewhere to get people out of stadiums and such

Don't think they give a shit

I'm with Signy and Rue

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 6:41 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quit dancing around the core issue folks.

Bush *is* in charge of the country.

This would mean it's his damned responsibility and he either abrogated it illegally, or simply screwed the pooch so badly it's hard to wrap one's mind around.

The buck stops there, he's IN CHARGE, at the top, and it's HIS JOB (you know, that we elect and pay him for?) to handle this kind of thing.

As for the legalities, between FEMA and the whole slew of executive orders (some of debateable legality, but none ever challenged, ergo they are indeed in force.) sufficient authority was present for the things that needed to be done - it's a whole lot better to apologize to survivors than to explain to their next of kin.

In short - he's in charge, it's his responsibility, and his job, and HE BLEW IT.

It's every bit as simple as that.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 3:09 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"No matter where you want to put them, mobile homes need some basic infrastructure to be usable. If it isn't there, they are useless." No shit, Sherlock. And if they aren't installed, utilities and all, they are also useless. But that's beyond FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers.

Please go back and actually read what I said, rather than taking a chunk out of context so you can make a smart-ass remark. If they aren't being put in place within a month, I'll be concerned. Right now other things take priority, like recovering survivors and bodies, clearing roads, and repairing bridges. Everyone who is out of the immediate disaster area is housed somewhere, with basic services in place. The mobile homes are used during the recovery phase to house folks who can't find anywhere else to live.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 3:46 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer, this was a conversation between Lynch and myself. But since you saw fit to intrude, here is what you are defending:

---clipped to save space---

And yet Lynch thinks the federal response was adequate, and any criticisms are merely political.

So the first question is, is there room for criticism? Or is the death of thousands acceptable?

What's really funny about this is that you assign a position to myself, Lynch, Hero, and Finn, that is not true. All of us have stated in various threads that we think that the response was not adequate. None of us have said that the Federal government's response was adequate. We all recognize that things could hae been done better. We're all sorry that people have died. Hero has gone to great lengths within his community to obtain relief supplies, transport, and money to help the survivors. I've thrown as much money as I can spare to the Red Cross. I suspect Finn and AJ have done stuff as well.

The difference, as I see it, between us and you, SignyM, Chris, Ruxton, et.al., is that we think that the inadequacies are due to the unfortunately normal amount of mis-communication, mis-understanding, inefficiency, general Peter Principle management population, politics on all levels, from local to Federal, etc. A disaster much greater than anyone has actually faced just magnifies these faults. Planning only goes so far. Humans are only human and make mistakes.

You seem to think that it's a carefully planned evil plot, organized and directed by the White House alone, to do...something. I'm not quite sure what. Kill poor people, or black people, or poor black people? Prepare the way for a police state takeover of the country? Just generally screw things up then sit back with a martini and laugh? Line the pockets of the bottled water trust? (C'mon. You knew that one was coming)

Your side have made it obvious what you think of me, in various insulting language, although I disagree with your characterization. I consider you all paranoid crack-pots (but in the nicest possible way) and you probably disagree with my characterization as well.

I know there's not much point in writing this, since you probably won't read it through, and if you do will not believe it. Here it is anyway. Rant on.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 3:48 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quit dancing around the core issue folks.

Bush *is* in charge of the country.

This would mean it's his damned responsibility and he either abrogated it illegally, or simply screwed the pooch so badly it's hard to wrap one's mind around.

The buck stops there, he's IN CHARGE, at the top, and it's HIS JOB (you know, that we elect and pay him for?) to handle this kind of thing.

And why hasn't he mowed my lawn? Or at least sent someone to do it.

(Just kidding. Cheney was out yesterday, and did a great job.)

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 4:28 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

No, but they could be placed in Baton Rouge, or Houston, or elsewhere to get people out of stadiums and such

Don't think they give a shit

I'm with Signy and Rue

The FEMA trailers are used as relatively long-term housing when people have returned to their hometowns and need a place to live while they rebuild or find new housing. They aren't first-response shelters. As I noted earlier, people are still living in FEMA trailers in Florida since Hurricane Charlie last year.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 5:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer- Let's look at the top three appointees in FEMA. The top three appointees to FEMA are political hacks (college roommates, drinking buddies and publicists) with no disaster response experience whatsoever. EDITED TO ADD: The former head of FEMA was no better- he was Bush's campaign manager. END EDIT What does that tell you about Bush's basic motivation? You seem to think this is just normal fuckup. But while levees were breaking and people were drowning, Bush continued in his meet-and-greet schedule, while Condi saw Spamalot and bought $3000 Ferragamo shoes, Cheney was on vacation, and Michael Brown... well, who knows what Michael Brown was doing? He was in over his head, figuratively.

You don't get it. You really think that these people care. But all you have to do is look at the bankruptcy bill, Bush's Social Security "reform", and his appointees to FDA and FEMA to realize that we are SO FAR DOWN on his priority list that anything else comes first.

So, do I think that these people get together in a cabal and think about ways to screw the average person in the United States? YEP. Absolutely... when it suits their needs, like the Iraq invasion. But mostly, they just really really really don't give a shit. This disaster was created by neglect... starting by w/drawing funds from levee construction, continuing with putting old college rommate's and publicist's need for a cozy government spot ahead of the life, health and welfare of the entire US population, and ending with the Commander in Chief being TOO BUSY eating cake, playing golf, and making speeches to actually attend to an unfolding disaster of historic proportions. So....

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 5:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Quit dancing around the core issue folks.
Bush *is* in charge of the country.
This would mean it's his damned responsibility and he either abrogated it illegally, or simply screwed the pooch so badly it's hard to wrap one's mind around.
The buck stops there, he's IN CHARGE, at the top, and it's HIS JOB (you know, that we elect and pay him for?) to handle this kind of thing.

Geezer- And why hasn't he mowed my lawn? Or at least sent someone to do it.

This is trite beyond belief. You're so concerned for the dignity of the dead that you don't want photos, but you make this kind of trivializing and demeaning comment???? Wow, Geezer. You aren't the reasonable, caring, balanced person you think you are. You're just another mind-bent follower. And now everyone can see it. Except you.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 5:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
we think that the inadequacies are due to the unfortunately normal amount of mis-communication, mis-understanding, inefficiency, general Peter Principle management population, politics on all levels, from local to Federal, etc. A disaster much greater than anyone has actually faced just magnifies these faults. Planning only goes so far. Humans are only human and make mistakes.

You seem to think that it's a carefully planned evil plot, organized and directed by the White House alone, to do...something. I'm not quite sure what. Kill poor people, or black people, or poor black people? Prepare the way for a police state takeover of the country? Just generally screw things up then sit back with a martini and laugh?

Ad hominem aside,
Geezer, don't you see (I guess not...),
The truth is smack dab in between the two scenerios above!!!

The first absolves everyone, 'cause that's just the way it is.
The second says it's all according to an evil master plan.

And that's the way we keep playing it over and over here. 'We're' not saying what 'you' think we are, and possibly, 'you're' not saying what 'we' think you are.

If we can't just examine the facts (see RUE for those), I must conclude the arguments on this board are for entertainment purposes only, since it's obviously more fun to argue than to agree.

This is my last civil post if that's going to continue to be the case.
I will unleash Ad Homineman.

EDIT: I try to lean something here once in a while- you seem to want to do nothing but spew.

Reasonable Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 6:11 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- Let's look at the top three appointees in FEMA. The top three appointees to FEMA are political hacks (college roommates, drinking buddies and publicists) with no disaster response experience whatsoever

From the FEMA site:

http://www.fema.gov/about/bios/bio.shtm

Under Secretary Brown has led Homeland Security’s response to more than 164 presidentially declared disasters and emergencies, including the 2003 Columbia Shuttle disaster and the California wildfires in 2003. In 2004, Mr. Brown led FEMA’s thousands of dedicated disaster workers during the most active hurricane season in over 100 years, as FEMA delivered aid more quickly and more efficiently than ever before.

Previously, Mr. Brown served as FEMA's Deputy Director and the agency's General Counsel. Shortly after the September 11th terrorist attacks, Mr. Brown served on the President's Consequence Management Principal's Committee, which acted as the White House's policy coordination group for the federal domestic response to the attacks. Later, the President asked him to head the Consequence Management Working Group to identify and resolve key issues regarding the federal response plan. In August 2002, President Bush appointed him to the Transition Planning Office for the new Department of Homeland Security, serving as the transition leader for the EP&R Division.

So Mr. Brown has been involved in emergency services at least since Sept. 2001, and had at least one entire hurricane season at the helm of FEMA.

Patrick James Rhode, Chief of staff, has a solid background in management and administration, which is pretty much a Chief of Staff's role, regardless of what the organization does.

Scott Morris, the Deputy Chief of Staff, filled that position in the Small Business Administration prior to moving to FEMA, so he's no rookie either.

And somehow I don't find it strange that a President would appoint people he knows and trusts, rather than complete strangers,to positions of authority.

Quote:
But while levees were breaking and people were drowning, he continued in his meet-and-greet schedule, while Condi saw Spamalot and bought $3000 Ferragamo shoes, Cheney was on vacation, and Michael Brown... well, who knows what Michael Brown was doing. He was in over his head, figuratively.

Leaving aside the hyperbole in this statement...we have telephones nowadays, and email, teleconferencing, cell phones, teletypes, etc. The President doesn't have to send dispatch riders from the White House stable any more. There is probably no one on earth more wired into the communications net than the President, no matter where he is. Condi is the Secretary of State. First response is not her job. She was active at least by Monday night (saw her speak on TV) after the storm.

Quote:
You don't get it. You really think that these people care.

Actually, yes I do.

Quote:
So, do I think that these people get together in a cabal and think about ways to screw the average person in the United States? YEP. Absolutely... when it suits their needs, like the Iraq invasion.

I disagree. I can't see how anyone could expect that the administration would expect anything good for them to come out of the Katrina disaster. The'y know that the press would be all over them no matter what they did.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 6:29 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Quit dancing around the core issue folks.
Bush *is* in charge of the country.
This would mean it's his damned responsibility and he either abrogated it illegally, or simply screwed the pooch so badly it's hard to wrap one's mind around.
The buck stops there, he's IN CHARGE, at the top, and it's HIS JOB (you know, that we elect and pay him for?) to handle this kind of thing.

Geezer- And why hasn't he mowed my lawn? Or at least sent someone to do it.

This is trite beyond belief. You're so concerned for the dignity of the dead that you don't want photos, but you make this kind of trivializing and demeaning comment???? Wow, Geezer. You aren't the reasonable, caring, balanced person you think you are. You're just another mind-bent follower. And now everyone can see it. Except you.

Please don't think they give a shit.

Good. Back to the normal insults.

Of all the bogusities bandied about here, the "The President's in charge so it's all his fault" is the most bogus. I was just pointing that out.

The President doesn't have unlimited powers (and you wouldn't want him to). He has to work within the constraints of our government, such as how much money he has to work with, what Congress allows him to do with it (Congress makes the laws, remember, and even if he has a majority by party, they don't always give him what he wants), and various rules and regulations.

He's also constrained from interfering with state and local governments except in certain strictly defined situations. Local pre-planning for disaster is a local and state responsibility, since they should know best their problems and resources.

Responsibility only comes with authority. If you don't have the authority, how can you be held responsible?

I find it strange that you want to give the person you don't think should be running the country direct power over the day to day operation of the country at every level.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 6:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So Mr. Brown has been "involved in" emergency services at least since Sept. 2001, and had at least one entire hurricane season at the helm of FEMA.

As far as Brown's experience as FEMA Counsel: We have "Counsel" in our organization. That does not prepare them to be CEO. Counsel is what keeps the CEO from getting in legal doo-doo, they have a limited duty, and they are prohibitive not proactive. The other appointees were all from "Tier C" positions... definitely NOT in FEMA's league.

Quote:
Leaving aside the hyperbole in this statement...we have telephones nowadays, and email, teleconferencing, cell phones, teletypes, etc. The President doesn't have to send dispatch riders from the White House stable any more. There is probably no one on earth more wired into the communications net than the President, no matter where he is. Condi is the Secretary of State. First response is not her job. She was active at least by Monday night (saw her speak on TV) after the storm.

First of all- WHAT hyperbole? I was merely stating facts- Bush continued his schedule. Condi saw Spamalot and went shoe-shopping, Cheney was on vacation, and Brown was... wherever Brown was. The point of is was motivation, not duties and responsibility. A person who cares will be involved whether it's in their mandate or not. Just look at all the volunteers. Bush spent a total of 156 words on Katrina in a 16,900 speech (Word Count. A great invention!) in Arizona the day the levees broke. Wired?? He sure didn't appear to be. Just check out his schedule and his speeches. You just can't get any more disengaged than that, Geezer! Cheney? He was in his ranch in Montana. What do you think he would have done, if he really cared? Did he do anything at all? Same with Condi. If you're in a position of national authority, what would YOU be doing the day of a disaster? Gosh, I thought is was awfully nice of her to fit in a speech in-between shoe shopping and going to the theater! And then there is Barbara Bush... in no position of authority but whose attitude may have some influence on W Bush... the evacuees were underpriviledged anyway, they were far better off in the Astrodome!

Quote:
So, do I think that these people get together in a cabal and think about ways to screw the average person in the United States? YEP. Absolutely... when it suits their needs, like the Iraq invasion. -Signy

I disagree. I can't see how anyone could expect that the administration would expect anything good for them to come out of the Katrina disaster. They know that the press would be all over them no matter what they did.- Geezer

You missed the part where I said that I didn't think that this was a conspiracy to screw people, that it was very much a problem of neglect. It sure would be nice if you would STOP misquoting people! Can you please try to be more accurate? It's getting really annoying to have to constantly correct your deliberate misrepresentations.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 6:44 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You missed the part where I said that I didn't think that this was a conspiracy to screw people, that it was very much a problem of neglect. It sure would be nice if you would STOP misquoting people! Can you please try to be more accurate? It's getting really annoying to have to constantly correct your deliberate misrepresentations.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, do I think that these people get together in a cabal and think about ways to screw the average person in the United States? YEP. Absolutely... when it suits their needs, like the Iraq invasion. But mostly, they just really really really don't give a shit. This disaster was created by neglect... starting by w/drawing funds from levee construction, continuing with putting old college rommate's and publicist's need for a cozy government spot ahead of the life, health and welfare of the entire US population, and ending with the Commander in Chief being TOO BUSY eating cake, playing golf, and making speeches to actually attend to an unfolding disaster of historic proportions. So....

So the neglect you accuse them of, which you claim screwed a bunch op people, wasn't part of any plan, just incompetence?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 6:53 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No, it's a matter of priorities. Why is it so hard for you to make that distinction? There are incompetent people who care, people who care who ARE competent, and people who are competent but don't care. Bush IMHO is an idiot. He doesn't care AND he's incompetent. But many in the administration (Rove, Cheney, Rice) are very competent... brilliant in fact. They just don't care. They REALLY don't care. They have so many other things in their lists of priorities that are ahead of the average American that as far as I can tell we're pretty nuch just a resource for their other plans.

I added this to my previous post, I'll repeat it here: "First of all- WHAT hyperbole? I was merely stating facts- Bush continued his schedule. Condi saw Spamalot and went shoe-shopping, Cheney was on vacation, and Brown was... wherever Brown was. The point of is was motivation {and priorities} not duties and responsibility. A person who cares will be involved whether it's in their mandate or not. Just look at all the volunteers. But Bush spent a total of 156 words on Katrina in a 16,900 speech (Word Count. A great invention!) in Arizona the day the levees broke. Wired?? He sure didn't appear to be. Just check out his schedule and his speeches. You just can't get any more disengaged than that, Geezer! Cheney? He was in his ranch in Montana. What do you think he would have done, if he really cared? Did he do anything at all? Same with Condi. If you're in a position of national authority, what would YOU be doing the day of a disaster? Gosh, I thought is was awfully nice of her to fit in a speech in-between shoe shopping and going to the theater! And then there is Barbara Bush... in no position of authority but whose attitude may have some influence on W Bush... the evacuees were underpriviledged anyway, they were far better off in the Astrodome!"

What I see is an Administration doing the MINIMUM to stay out of political trouble. Throwing out crumbs late and under pressure. This is not a picture of an Administration that has a great deal of concern for the American people. So...

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 6:54 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Ad hominem aside,
Geezer, don't you see (I guess not...),
The truth is smack dab in between the two scenerios above!!!

The first absolves everyone, 'cause that's just the way it is.
The second says it's all according to an evil master plan.

And that's the way we keep playing it over and over here. 'We're' not saying what 'you' think we are, and possibly, 'you're' not saying what 'we' think you are.

The way I see it, the first says that people screwed up and we need to improve for next time. Several of "we" have agreed that investigations do need to be made and lessons learned implemented.

As to the second, when I see statements like this:

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
What if this whole disaster fiasco is a test of how much control can be forced upon us?
Is it too much to believe?
Turning away help, coming down on pilots and crew of ships that pick up survivors because that wasn't their orders? Turning away firefighters from other states, because this is a FEMA operation?

When is the 'United States Police Force' gonna be formed, tomorrow? Military control of the whole shebang, that's what I see.

Or:

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, do I think that these people get together in a cabal and think about ways to screw the average person in the United States? YEP. Absolutely... when it suits their needs, like the Iraq invasion.

it gives me a pretty strong inpression that you might be in the "evil plan" camp.

I suspect a lot of this is an expression of emotion and the rather free-wheeling give-and-take of the internet. I would hope that if we sat face to face, and could pick up those subtle cues that expression and body language provide, we'd be less divided.

In the end, I think we all want to get to the same place, a better response the next time an event like Katrina occurs. We just see different routes to that place.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 7:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer, you keep taking my statements out of context. Will you PLEASE show some honesty, if not courtesy, and place my quotes in the context where they belong??? So I'll repeat myself- YES, the Administration WILL go out of it's way.. HAS gone out of its way... to screw the average American. But Katrina was not one of those instances. Just...

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 7:08 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, you keep taking my statements out of context.

In the lexicon, under "The pot calling the kettle black" they should have the above quote.

Time for the Redskins game. Back later.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 7:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ah, so you DID take my statement out of context! Awfully nice of you to admit it.

As far as me doing the same- show me, dude. At your convenience.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 7:30 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

No, but they could be placed in Baton Rouge, or Houston, or elsewhere to get people out of stadiums and such

Don't think they give a shit

I'm with Signy and Rue

The FEMA trailers are used as relatively long-term housing when people have returned to their hometowns and need a place to live while they rebuild or find new housing. They aren't first-response shelters. As I noted earlier, people are still living in FEMA trailers in Florida since Hurricane Charlie last year.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Sounds like you are on the same wavelength as Barbara Bush

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_c
ontent_id=1001054719

" Barbara Bush said today, referring to the
poor who had lost everything back home and evacuated, "This is working very well for them.""

I suppose the poor will be discouraged from remaining in Texas... after all, that could really tilt the demographic come next election...

Better just to pile them into cramped quarters until you can convience most of them to leave...

I'm seeing your point

Don't think they give a shit

I'm with Signy and Rue

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 9:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
What if this whole disaster fiasco is a test of how much control can be forced upon us?
Is it too much to believe?
Turning away help, coming down on pilots and crew of ships that pick up survivors because that wasn't their orders? Turning away firefighters from other states, because this is a FEMA operation?

When is the 'United States Police Force' gonna be formed, tomorrow? Military control of the whole shebang, that's what I see.

Or:

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, do I think that these people get together in a cabal and think about ways to screw the average person in the United States? YEP. Absolutely... when it suits their needs, like the Iraq invasion.

it gives me a pretty strong inpression that you might be in the "evil plan" camp.

These two excerpts indicate how low we each believe the government can sink to, or might possibly slide into to achieve the goals of the people in power at this moment. Results speak louder than words.

911: "we had no way of stopping it"
WMD's: "we had intel indicating their existence"
Katrina: "no one could have predicted it"

I'm not saying they have horns on their heads, but they obviously don't give enough of a shit to want to do their jobs in protecting us effectivly. Or, in a darker scenerio, they're all just dirt stupid, and maybe a little psychotic.

Try as I might to be diplomatic, EVERY thing I see infuriates me more. Barbara Bush was the last straw. I don't believe I'm way out there in my understanding of the political agendas the drive the present leaders of this country.

This madness is yours.

You have no idea what I wanted to post here Chrisisall, trying like all heck to be civil

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 10:47 AM

REALLYKAYLEE

in response-

so when did liking God and being conservative come to mean that i like/ worship the ground Bush walks on?
there are social and economic conservatives out there who deal with the federal government one issue at a time- doing their best to keep personalities out of it. as in i won't smash hilary for not divorcing bill if you stop saying that Bush is a horrible person "just because"
this is politics guys and the sad fact of the matter is that if we let it divide us too much the smaller fractions will get stepped by the mass followers of the two party system.

i still love everyone

but sometimes i'd rather believe that it's possible for someone to like me not depending on my politics.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 11:10 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
This madness is yours.

You have no idea what I wanted to post here Chrisisall, trying like all heck to be civil

I consider the madness yours. Post what you like. It can't be any worse than the insults, innuendo, mis-guided assumptions, and calumnies your cohorts have tossed at me previously.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 1:08 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by reallykaylee:

i still love everyone but sometimes i'd rather believe that it's possible for someone to like me not depending on my politics.

All politics aside, I might like you.

How much money do you make?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 1:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reallykaylee:

i still love everyone but sometimes i'd rather believe that it's possible for someone to like me not depending on my politics.

I, for one, despise politics. The whole idea that you should choose a 'side' and back them blindly is ridiculous to me. Each issue should be handled according to it's urgency, and it's ability to be addressed.
The real emotion seems to kick in when someone put in authority gets people killed, then it's not just a game of who controls what, or where money should be allocated.
To me, if someone likes Bush because of an idea that he is a caring man, I can still deal with them on many levels.
If they think he is a caring man after knowing all the facts, the number of dead in his wake is hard to remove from the picture.
I would similarly have a hard time being friends with someone who beat his wife, no matter how nice he seemed in public.

It's not politics, it's reality.

Now worshiping God, I got no problem with.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 1:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Post what you like.

Geezer, you're an intelligent, educated man (with mad verbal skills), it just boggles my mind that you could defend the android Bush! I can't even comprehend what he would have to do for you to see him as even a questionable leader!!!

You said to post what I like, well, get ready, buddy, here it comes!!!!

You....DOPE!!!!!!

That's right, I said it, uh huh Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 1:26 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I, for one, despise politics. The whole idea that you should choose a 'side' and back them blindly is ridiculous to me. Each issue should be handled according to it's urgency, and it's ability to be addressed.

So how do we, in a country of 200 million plus, decide which issues are urgent, and their ability to be addressed? Internet chat rooms? Politics is an unfortunate companion of a representative democracy. If you can explain how to run one without politics, I'd be interested to hear.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 1:38 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Post what you like.
Geezer, you're an intelligent, educated man (with mad verbal skills), it just boggles my mind that you could defend the android Bush! I can't even comprehend what he would have to do for you to see him as even a questionable leader!!!

You said to post what I like, well, get ready, buddy, here it comes!!!!

You....DOPE!!!!!!

That's right, I said it, uh huh Chrisisall

I don't defend Bush about very much. I disagree with many of his policies and politics. Talk about reproductive rights, gender equality issues, the excessive influence of the religious right, and I'm on him like a pit bull. That stuff just never comes up here for some reason.

In the Katrina series of threads, all I've been saying is that, IMHO, the Federal Government does not bear all the onus for mistakes made - while acknowledging that mistakes were made - and that some other posters here are quite willing to rush to judgement before all, or even most, of the facts are in because of personal bias. Some get awful shrill about it and don't quibble at personal insult. Am I not supposed to respond to that? I'd like to keep it on a higer level, but some folk just get my goat. That failing I'll cop to.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 11, 2005 2:09 PM