1
   

Is This Another of Bushs' Bitches Or What?

 
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 05:28 am
Baldimo wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
[quote="BaldimoDon't forget that I'm an armed cable guy! Shocked


keep wishing and hoping Francis and maybe you'll finally get a chance to kill someone.....
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 06:45 am
September 14, 2005

A Fatal Incuriosity
By MAUREEN DOWD

I hate spending time in hospitals and nursing homes. I find them to be some of the most depressing places on earth.

Maybe that's why the stories of the sick and elderly who died, 45 in a New Orleans hospital and 34 in St. Rita's nursing home in the devastated St. Bernard Parish outside New Orleans, haunt me so.

You're already vulnerable and alone when suddenly you're beset by nature and betrayed by your government.

At St. Rita's, 34 seniors fought to live with what little strength they had as the lights went out and the water rose over their legs, over their shoulders, over their mouths. As Gardiner Harris wrote in The Times, the failed defenses included a table nailed against a window and a couch pushed against a door.

Several electric wheelchairs were gathered near the front entrance, maybe by patients who dreamed of evacuating. Their drowned bodies were found swollen and unrecognizable a week later, as Mr. Harris reported, "draped over a wheelchair, wrapped in a shower curtain, lying on a floor in several inches of muck."

At Memorial Medical Center, victims also suffered in 100-degree heat and died, some while waiting to be rescued in the four days after Katrina hit.

As Louisiana's death toll spiked to 423 yesterday, the state charged St. Rita's owners with multiple counts of negligent homicide, accusing them of not responding to warnings about the hurricane. "In effect," State Attorney General Charles Foti Jr. said, "I think that their inactions resulted in the death of these people."

President Bush continued to try to spin his own inaction yesterday, but he may finally have reached a patch of reality beyond spin. Now he's the one drowning, unable to rescue himself by patting small black children on the head during photo-ops and making scripted attempts to appear engaged. He can keep going back down there, as he will again on Thursday when he gives a televised speech to the nation, but he can never compensate for his tragic inattention during days when so many lives could have been saved.

He made the ultimate sacrifice and admitted his administration had messed up, something he'd refused to do through all of the other screw-ups, from phantom W.M.D. and the torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo to the miscalculations on the Iraq occupation and the insurgency, which will soon claim 2,000 young Americans.

How many places will be in shambles by the time the Bush crew leaves office?

Given that the Bush team has dealt with both gulf crises, Iraq and Katrina, with the same deadly mixture of arrogance and incompetence, and a refusal to face reality, it's frightening to think how it will handle the most demanding act of government domestic investment since the New Deal.

Even though we know W. likes to be in his bubble with his feather pillow, the stories this week are breathtaking about the lengths the White House staff had to go to in order to capture Incurious George's attention.

Newsweek reported that the reality of Katrina did not sink in for the president until days after the levees broke, turning New Orleans into a watery grave. It took a virtual intervention of his top aides to make W. watch the news about the worst natural disaster in a century. Dan Bartlett made a DVD of newscasts on the hurricane to show the president on Friday morning as he flew down to the Gulf Coast.

The aides were scared to tell the isolated president that he should cut short his vacation by a couple of days, Newsweek said, because he can be "cold and snappish in private." Mike Allen wrote in Time about one "youngish aide" who was so terrified about telling Mr. Bush he was wrong about something during the first term, he "had dry heaves" afterward.

The president had to be truly zoned out not to jump at the word "hurricane," given that he has always used his father's term as a reverse playbook and his father almost lost Florida in 1992 because of his slow-footed response to Hurricane Andrew. And W.'s chief of staff, Andy Card, was the White House transportation secretary the senior President Bush sent to the rescue after FEMA bungled that one.

W. has said he prefers to get his information straight up from aides, rather than filtered through newspapers or newscasts. But he surrounds himself with weak sisters who don't have the nerve to break bad news to him, or ideologues with agendas that require warping reality or chuckleheaded cronies like Brownie.

The president should stop haunting New Orleans, looking for that bullhorn moment. It's too late.

E-mail: [email protected]

* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 10:43 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
As far as Roberts being Bush's bitch goes, every president has a perfect right to appoint judges who agree with his views. This is what has usually been done in the past and it is entirely proper. This thread would be more properly named "I Wish My Side Had Won the Election."


oh, it's much more than that, brandon. what you are saying is just the approved response from the rnc.

the supreme court effects every american, not just Lib-ugh-rulllls Laughing .

you might want to consider the old saying;

"if they'll do it with you, they'll do it to you".
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 10:48 am
I'm still in Robert's corner. I think he'll do a good job in the SC.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 04:30 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
[quote="BaldimoDon't forget that I'm an armed cable guy! Shocked


keep wishing and hoping Francis and maybe you'll finally get a chance to kill someone.....


I sure hope I don't have to kill someone. Besides my names Toney not Francis!
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 04:35 pm
The bits I've heard from these hearings are a snooze. Sounds like a bunch of senators posturing, even more than usual, knowing that they have a much bigger audience right now. Let's get it over with--he's gonna be approved.

What these guys do once they're on the Court always remains to be seen...
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 04:38 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
My side DID win the election....

Please explain what this means, since it appears to be blatantly false.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 04:40 pm
D'art, You are absolutely correct; we don't know how they will perform once they're on the Court. However, I kinda have faith that Roberts will do a yeoman's job. I'm also certain that I prolly won't agree with all his position on issues, but that's to be expected.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 05:17 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
D'art, You are absolutely correct; we don't know how they will perform once they're on the Court. However, I kinda have faith that Roberts will do a yeoman's job. I'm also certain that I prolly won't agree with all his position on issues, but that's to be expected.



hope so... he's answered most of the questions that i had as well as a person can without blatant pandering.

which is why i'm still suspicious of the ultra righties on the committee.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 05:23 pm
I think Roberts said it best when he said he will not agree to questions that would favor the right or the left just to get votes. Most, if not all, the nomineees going through this process did the same thing, but Roberts does it more skillfully. Wink
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 05:29 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
As far as Roberts being Bush's bitch goes, every president has a perfect right to appoint judges who agree with his views. This is what has usually been done in the past and it is entirely proper. This thread would be more properly named "I Wish My Side Had Won the Election."


oh, it's much more than that, brandon. what you are saying is just the approved response from the rnc.

the supreme court effects every american, not just Lib-ugh-rulllls Laughing .

you might want to consider the old saying;

"if they'll do it with you, they'll do it to you".

I don't care who's approved response it is. It's my opinion. The fact that the Supreme Court has a large impact on the country in no way alters the truth of my assertion that the elected president has a perfect right to appoint judges who share his beliefs. You have said nothing to challenge this.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 05:32 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
My side DID win the election....

Please explain what this means, since it appears to be blatantly false.


I took that to mean he's a closet Republican.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 05:35 pm
"...president has a perfect right to appoint judges who share his beliefs..." can just go so far, and constrained by the Constititution and stare decisis. Just because a president may believe in issue A, that does not necessarily follow that the appointed judge must agree with issue A. .
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 05:38 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
"...president has a perfect right to appoint judges who share his beliefs..." can just go so far, and constrained by the Constititution and stare decisis. Just because a president may believe in issue A, that does not necessarily follow that the appointed judge must agree with issue A. .


I am saying that it is perfectly reasonable for the president, who was the winner in an election, to appoint judges who share his views. He doesn't have to, but he may quite properly do so.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 05:39 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
As far as Roberts being Bush's bitch goes, every president has a perfect right to appoint judges who agree with his views. This is what has usually been done in the past and it is entirely proper. This thread would be more properly named "I Wish My Side Had Won the Election."


oh, it's much more than that, brandon. what you are saying is just the approved response from the rnc.

the supreme court effects every american, not just Lib-ugh-rulllls Laughing .

you might want to consider the old saying;

"if they'll do it with you, they'll do it to you".

I don't care who's approved response it is. It's my opinion. The fact that the Supreme Court has a large impact on the country in no way alters the truth of my assertion that the elected president has a perfect right to appoint judges who share his beliefs. You have said nothing to challenge this.


maybe i have, maybe i haven't...

but your statement knocks a big frickin' hole in the bottom of the boat named "no activist judges legislating from the bench because we want a strict constructionist that follows the constitution, not personal ideology".
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 05:43 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
As far as Roberts being Bush's bitch goes, every president has a perfect right to appoint judges who agree with his views. This is what has usually been done in the past and it is entirely proper. This thread would be more properly named "I Wish My Side Had Won the Election."


oh, it's much more than that, brandon. what you are saying is just the approved response from the rnc.

the supreme court effects every american, not just Lib-ugh-rulllls Laughing .

you might want to consider the old saying;

"if they'll do it with you, they'll do it to you".

I don't care who's approved response it is. It's my opinion. The fact that the Supreme Court has a large impact on the country in no way alters the truth of my assertion that the elected president has a perfect right to appoint judges who share his beliefs. You have said nothing to challenge this.


maybe i have, maybe i haven't...

but your statement knocks a big frickin' hole in the bottom of the boat named "no activist judges legislating from the bench because we want a strict constructionist that follows the constitution, not personal ideology".

First of all, I will state the obvious fact that presidents generally appointing judges who agree with them. As for your comment, I guess the idea is that a judge should try hard to make all decisions according to what the law actually says, but that inevitably, the judge's opinion will have some effect.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 05:44 pm
I agree with "the president has a perfect right to appoint judges..." "...who share his beliefs..." is a non sequitur. Supreme Court judges are supposed to be non-partisan in their judgements.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 05:49 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I agree with "the president has a perfect right to appoint judges..." "...who share his beliefs..." is a non sequitur. Supreme Court judges are supposed to be non-partisan in their judgements.

I think your assertion that a president doesn't have the right to appoint judges who share his world view is absurd. Hasn't this been done since the beginning of the country?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 06:02 pm
You're missing the point - completely! "...who share his world view..." is absolutely absurd! I don't share "world view" with my siblings or wife!
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 12:05 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
You're missing the point - completely! "...who share his world view..." is absolutely absurd! I don't share "world view" with my siblings or wife!

Are you alright? You're not making sense, even granted that you disagree with me. The presidengt has a total right to appoint judges that share his political outlook, and this has been the usual practice since America came into existence.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/22/2025 at 08:33:49