Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
In the USA what the president proposes and what the president gets are two different things. The president cannot put a single item into the budget. That is purely the prerogative of Congress.

True, so it's also the responsibility of Congress that, eg, there was a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana's chief hurricane protection project.

However, that does not change the fact that President Bush himself worked for exactly that result, by himself proposing only "a sixth of what local officials sa[id] they need."

One can lay the responsibility for his very own proposals at the President's feet, no? "It's not really my fault that the budget for the chief hurricane project was slashed because, well, I may have proposed exactly that but, like, they could have opposed me, couldn't they?" - just doesnt come across like too convincing a defence to me.

Isn't the marvel that is the North Sea Wall in your neck of the woods? Surely you realize that had the Eye of Katrina passed just a little bit West; they would have been praying for the Levees to break... just to let some water out. New Orleans was spared the worst of it and the whole idea of blaming Levee spending or wasting more money to rebuild them strikes me as ridiculous. Doing so is ignoring the FACT that the next Katrina may very well drown the entire city like rats. New Orleans is an unsafe city, much like Galveston, and will remain so until and unless we build something like a North Sea Wall... and that's likely never going to happen.

Blaming Bush is sillier still. Katrina did the damage, not Bush... and it was a weakened Katrina that didn't even hit directly at that. A direct hit by a Cat 5 storm is catastrophic, no matter what the hell you do. Neither the old levies nor any plans for future levies could protect a sea-side city, below sea level in the face of a storm of that magnitude. Those who choose to live there do so at their peril. No shortage of studies have predicted the effects of a Cat-5 storm in that area and I assure you few people who live under the threat of the Atlantic Hurricane Season are unfamiliar with the dangers. It may sound a little cold-hearted, but in this case it really is appropriate to lay some blame at the feet of the victims. You wouldn't catch me within a hundred miles of a Cat-5 storm under any circumstances. There was more than enough warning to evacuate and the vast majority of the victims chose not to. Sadder still; this will come up again.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Isn't the marvel that is the North Sea Wall in your neck of the woods? Surely you realize that had the Eye of Katrina passed just a little bit West; they would have been praying for the Levees to break... just to let some water out. New Orleans was spared the worst of it and the whole idea of blaming Levee spending or wasting more money to rebuild them strikes me as ridiculous. Doing so is ignoring the FACT that the next Katrina may very well drown the entire city like rats. New Orleans is an unsafe city, much like Galveston, and will remain so until and unless we build something like a North Sea Wall... and that's likely never going to happen.

Blaming Bush is sillier still. Katrina did the damage, not Bush... and it was a weakened Katrina that didn't even hit directly at that. A direct hit by a Cat 5 storm is catastrophic, no matter what the hell you do. Neither the old levies nor any plans for future levies could protect a sea-side city, below sea level in the face of a storm of that magnitude. Those who choose to live there do so at their peril. No shortage of studies have predicted the effects of a Cat-5 storm in that area and I assure you few people who live under the threat of the Atlantic Hurricane Season are unfamiliar with the dangers. It may sound a little cold-hearted, but in this case it really is appropriate to lay some blame at the feet of the victims. You wouldn't catch me within a hundred miles of a Cat-5 storm under any circumstances. There was more than enough warning to evacuate and the vast majority of the victims chose not to. Sadder still; this will come up again.

Amen. What we have here is a prime example of a dysfunctional generation, not just in New Orleans, but all across the nation, a generation that is immature, does not wish to take responsibility for their own actions, and wishes the government to take care of their every need, and worst of all, wishes to blame virtually everything on one man, George Bush. Obviously, this does not include everybody, but the percentages that apply are becoming an alarming problem that does not look like it will reverse itself anytime soon. This sounds harsh, but even though I live a thousand miles from there, the warnings were clear and they were urgent for days leading up to the disaster, and there was no question about what any wise person would do, leave. I remember some of the people being interviewed proudly proclaiming they would rather die right there than anywhere else and then laughing about it. It did not turn out to be very funny.

Actually, I should perhaps somewhat tone down my accusation of people in general, as I think the worst segment of society seeking to blame Bush is the liberal element and the news media. If you actually talk to the people from New Orleans, a good percentage totally understand it was not the fault of George Bush, at least not to the extent that the media and some politicians would like to lead you to believe for the advantage of their own political agenda.

Furthermore, the people responsible for evacuating the city were not George Bush or Brownie, that responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the mayor and the governor. There is no question that they had all the information needed to make the correct decison but failed. It finally got to the point that Bush had to call the governor to advise her to evacuate. And we all know that if he had "ordered" her to do it, he would probably have caught heck for overstepping his authority and acting like a dictator. Buses and trains were available to help get people out, but the governor and mayor failed to enact a long standing plan meant for such a scenario. The news media can keep up their drumbeat to try to rewrite history in an effort to blame guess who, George Bush, but sorry, some of us remember it all too clearly.

Now this little tidbit of news:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186688,00.html

0 Replies

Damn you miscreants to hell for actually saying blame those people who didn't leave for their won fate. If there is any justice in this life, perhaps one day you will find yourself in as hopeless a circumstance, with the only help available coming from people who think like you do now.

0 Replies

I think history's appraisal of George W, Bush, like mine of the present, won't be kind. The truth is George doesn't know how to lead. He's seen some leaders and he tries his best to act like them, but it's not in his nature.

For one thing, he hates to hear bad news so subordinates don't tell him things until just before the boiling point. The best bosses I have ever had have told me that they want to know everything, I still get to manage the messes, but they want to know what's going on, good, bad or indifferent. Sadly, not George W.

Second, he believes in miracles. That's a nice thing, I know, it shows he has a positive attitude and all, but the thing of it is, it leaves him (and us) unprepared when reality strikes. It's not possible to govern through the power of wishful thinking no matter how much one wishes for it. It always strikes me as odd that the members here most stridently backing George are always urging others to face reality for themselves, but they never seem to expect the same from George. Leaders look reality in the eye and are comfortable doing it, right Bill? Right, Tico? Right, okie?

Lastly, though there are many more points I could add, and this is perhaps the saddest, he knew from the beginning that he wasn't up to the job. He was just another fratboy trying to hold on to enough of his family's money when this politics thing came up. Thing was, it turned out to be kinda hard work for George. It was more than just glad handing the rubes to govern Texas and it was tuckering him out and then the President thing came up. They told him (and us) that he would be surrounded by really smart people who would do all the work, so he took the job, but then forgot he wasn't up to the job and he decided, hey-what the heck- to lead by telling the smart people to shut up and pursue his vision(s) of reality.

So we have a war that is not miraculously resolving itself, we have the dual disaster of Katrina, the natural one and after-the-event debacle and various pipedreams of reforming Social Security, permanent tax cuts for the super rich and a Medicare Drug Program that may kill your grandma.

Joe(nobody could have foreseen that)Nation

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Damn you miscreants to hell for actually saying blame those people who didn't leave for their won fate. If there is any justice in this life, perhaps one day you will find yourself in as hopeless a circumstance, with the only help available coming from people who think like you do now.

These people have to live with themselves. That is punishment enough.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
woiyo wrote:
And what exactly was the government closest to the people doing to protect their citizens again???

It isn't ignorance of facts that causes people to just look to the feds to solve all mankinds problems. It stupidity.

Funny that the real morons are the ones alkways accusing everyone of being stupid.

Again, what exactly was the government closest to the people doing to protect their citizens???

Gee, if I wasn't so stupid I could figure out how to link it. Look it up yourself.

Red herrings, blame-shifting and denials is all you got, even someone as stupid as I am can see that.

So is THAT what the government closest to the people were doing? Blame shifting, denials?

Is that the best you can do? A feeble non-sequitur attempting to change the meaning of what I said. And you call others stupid?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Quote:
S.F. supervisors ask lawmakers to impeach Bush
- Edward Epstein, Charlie Goodyear, Chronicle Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 1, 2006

San Francisco's supervisors jumped into national politics Tuesday, passing a resolution asking the city's Democratic congressional delegation to seek the impeachment of President Bush for failing to perform his duties by leading the country into war in Iraq, eroding civil liberties and engaging in other activities the board sees as transgressions.

...

Supervisor Chris Daly, one of the most progressive members of the board, sponsored the resolution, which also calls for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. Daly said the measure is justified in light of the administration's case for and handling of the war in Iraq, the federal government's inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina and recent revelations about a domestic wiretapping program.

LOL. You have to give San Francisco credit for being on the cutting edge of the leftist wacko fringe in this country.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. The true wackjobs are those who would ban science not those, the majority of the country, who would ban Bush.

0 Replies

Nothing you say has no meaning. You a "simpleton" who can not be objective enough to see that both the local government and the fed messed up big time.

So keep spouting your "BLAME THE FEDS" and continue to ignore the problems at the local level.

0 Replies

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KATRINA_VIDEO?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-02-21-00-56

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- As Hurricane Katrina loomed over the Gulf Coast, federal and state officials agonized over the threat to levees and lives. Hours after the catastrophic storm hit, Louisiana's governor believed New Orleans' crucial floodwalls were still intact.

"We keep getting reports in some places that maybe water is coming over the levees," Gov. Kathleen Blanco said shortly after noon on Aug. 29 - the day the storm hit the Gulf coast.

"We heard a report unconfirmed, I think, we have not breached the levee," she said on a video of the day's disaster briefing that was obtained Thursday night by The Associated Press. "I think we have not breached the levee at this time."

"That video "makes it perfectly clear once again that this disaster was not out of the blue or unforeseeable," Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said Thursday. "It was not only predictable, it was actually predicted. That's what made the failures in response - at the local, state and federal level - all the more outrageous."

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Nothing you say has no meaning.[sic] You a [sic] "simpleton" who can not be objective enough to see that both the local government and the fed messed up big time.

So keep spouting your "BLAME THE FEDS" and continue to ignore the problems at the local level.

Too funny. Hey, Einstein, I don't live in Louisiana, their local government is not under my control. The Federal Gubmint is. Let Louisiana solve their own problems, just pointing out the ineptness of the Bush Administration is plenty more than I can deal with.

0 Replies

Nobody has suggested that FEMA's response to Katrina was exemplary but then no FEMA has ever had to deal with the kinds of multi-state devastation Katrina caused either. The fact is that the state and local government in Louisiana didn't do their jobs, they declined federal assistance when it was initially offered, and then, like others are doing, blamed the Feds for everything when all went wrong.

No government will ever be able to keep people safe from every imaginable peril and no government will ever be able to provide people with all that they need. Those that attempt it doom their populations to unimaginable poverty.

I do believe some of the people of New Orleans were unable to escape on their own. However, another generation would not have waited for the government. They would have been demanding transportation out of the city and, if none was forthcoming, would have been out there hotwiring those busses or doing whatever it took to get their families to safety.

O'Bill is absolutely right. Even if the local government had used the available federal money to shore up the levees--much they had diverted to other purposes--and even if they had done everything they were supposed to do in advance of a dangerous hurricane, a direct hit from a Cat 5 storm would most likely have obliterated New Orleans.

But hey, let's don't cut the President any slack whatsoever people. It's another chance to blame him for everything that is wrong in the world. If he achieved world peace, cured world hunger, and cured the common cold this week, those who hate this man would condemn him for being too slow in doing so.

0 Replies

I don't believe that Bush could have kept the Levees from being breached, but they could have responded sooner if they had been more prepared, starting from the President on down to the local level.

However, I was just pointing out another lie from the President. He said no one could have foreseen the levees being breached and unless he was asleep during the conference, he should have at least had it in his mind that it could have happened and been prepared to deal with fall out from it.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Isn't the marvel that is the North Sea Wall in your neck of the woods?

Hey Bill, have you heard about the

Quote:

Dutch Answer to Flooding: Build Houses that Swim

The Dutch are gearing up for climate change with amphibious houses. If rivers rise above their banks, the houses simply rise upwards as well. Such innovation could be good news for hurricane and flood-stunned America. But are water lovers prepared to live on swimming family arks? ...

Here's a picture of what a "swimming city" might look like:

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,522143,00.jpg

0 Replies

If you look carefully at the word 'breached' in that conference, they were talking about the spin from the hurricane pushing the lake water over the top of the levees. They were not talking about the levees breaking.

The thing is, the levees did break at a point where they had already been reinforced with Corps of Engineers monies and they did not break where that kind of work was still to be done. It takes years for projects like that and if they local government was so concerned, they could have used the monies allocated for the levies to reinforce the levies.

Again, the responsibility does not start with the President--it starts with the local government and moves up the chain in our system of government. In advance of the hurricane, the President called the governor of Louisiana and was assured no federal help was needed at that time and all was under control.

OE, at what cost would those 'swimming houses' be accomplished? Who pays for it?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

OE, at what cost would those 'swimming houses' be accomplished? Who pays for it?

Don't know. It seems they are not more expensive than other houses. I guess that those people living in the houses are paying for them. Why?

(Just wanted to point out that building levees is just one measure. Building swimming houses is another one, and, considering, maybe even a cheaper one.)

(Did you read the article? I found it really fascinating....)

0 Replies

Quote:

At this stage, such model houses cost more than conventional housing. The amphibious buildings in Maasbommel cost approximately 250,000 to 300,000 for a 120 square meter home. This is due in part to the flexible nature of the construction which also plays a role in creating feed lines for gas, electricity, drinking water and drainage. Like the foundation, they, too, have to be able to adapt to the changes in height of the premises.

But, when the floating construction model goes more mainstream, the price of a one family "ark" should drop dramatically. "At the end of the day, we will save on a lot of the costs conventional building methods incur doing things like securing foundations in soft ground. We won't have to contend with that," Olthuis points out. It remains an utter mystery to him why water-proofed construction is not yet common practice.

0 Replies

Really interesting OE and something to think about for inland properties on the flood plains. But would you want to be in one of these arks on our eastern or southern coastline during a Cat 5 hurricane? Can you imagine what that would be like?

0 Replies

Breach
An opening, a tear, or a rupture.
A gap or rift, especially in or as if in a solid structure such as a dike or fortification.
A violation or infraction, as of a law, a legal obligation, or a promise.
A breaking up or disruption of friendly relations; an estrangement.
A leap of a whale from the water.
The breaking of waves or surf.

0 Replies

The conservative message to Americans is clear : you are on your own. Your nation is not here to provide you with anything. Fend for yourself. Embrace the pioneer spirit of your forbearers. Good luck and good night.

Oh, and you really don't need those other things you've been relying on for the past eighty years or so--
Social Security, you'd be better off investing your money. You don't know how? Too bad.
Unemployment Insurance, a real burden on small business (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) without it people will look for jobs faster. Shake a leg.

and you don't need a big, federal plan like Medicare or Medicaid to protect the health of your aged parents, just buy them some healthcare on your own. Atta boy.

For too long now Americans have been getting soft, entertaining thoughts like if we joined together we could make a better workplace. Shucks, that kind of thinking brings about unionism, something that should never be protected by law. Good solid business principles protect the workers and their jobs. Mine owners think about safety everyday up in their offices.
Well, they do.

And no government ought to be meddling in the way good people live. If a man doesn't want a certain kind of people in his business establishment, that's just his business. They can go elsewhere. And if people don't want a bad element in their neighborhood or schools, they should have the right to stand up for themselves and draw the lines.

And as for natural disasters, they are the work of the Almighty, we cannot deny the Spirit of the Lord and if his wrath should fall upon you, pray for deliverance, your nation will not lift a finger. That would weaken you in the end.

[We conservatives are looking into why it is that we are spending so much money even providing weather warnings, it seems futile, wasteful and perhaps an offense against the greater wisdom of the Lord.]

Just so you understand this :American is a Democratic Republic, but those are just words.

Joe(Make sure your children have rich parents)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

The conservative message to Americans is clear : you are on your own. Your nation is not here to provide you with anything. Fend for yourself. Embrace the pioneer spirit of your forbearers. Good luck and good night.

The liberal message is, Daddy please call me and tell me to put my raincoat on before I go outside because I'm too stupid to know if its raining outside.

Obviously my example of a message is extreme, but so is yours Joe Nation. Honestly with a straight face tell us the people in New Orleans hadn't been warned for decades in general, and for days specificly concerning Katrina. And in case you haven't learned anything about something called, "freedom," it does require a little bit of something called "thinking for yourself" and "being on your own" instead of blaming the government for every last problem. We are not talking about the government defaulting on paying you social security after you've paid into it. We are talking about something so simple as people having enough sense to get out of the way of a Cat 5 potential hurricane, something that they had known would be disastrous for decades, and for days before it got there. Sheesh.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know