Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

okie wrote:

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.

Oooooo just shoot me! You can't even get your moronic thesis right. The liberal would ask his mommy not daddy. Don't you KNOW anything. I mean ANYTHING?

Conservatives lean to a strong father, liberals look to the loving mother. This is why you narcisstic conservatives accuse a compassionate governmnet as being a nanny state.

I am proud to be a loving, caring and compassionate, Christian-Buddhist woman who believes it is society's responsiblity to help the unfortunate.

0 Replies

Yep, conservatives are reason based, liberals are emotion based. Liberals also like to talk about the responsibility of society. Where is your consideration of individual responsibility, which is the main theme of conservatives, yes individual freedom coupled with individual responsibility. Compassion is appropriate and necessary, but people can make it a whole lost easier on themselves and society by being responsible.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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

Roughly, yeah. And ever since the 1953 flood, no Dutch government would EVER choose dykes, levees and dams as object of budget-slashing. We know how vulnerable our cities are, below sealevel, so protection against the water is just not something anyone sane would choose to propose for a 80% budget cut.

Of course, if the natural phenomenon is extreme enough, even our dykes wont help - but that it is paramount to at least do the very best we can is just a given. The danger is too close to home. I guess New Orleans, on the other hand, was far away from home for those in Washington., DC

0 Replies

It was not far away from the Louisiana delegation to Washington, however, and they had no objections to or requests to amend the budget Congress passed.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

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?

Foxfyre wrote:

So it doesn't matter to you that the Louisiana delegation didn't think it important enough to fight for? That Louisiana wasn't using the monies they had already been allocated to shore up the levees? The president should just ignore that and arrange his priorities in favor of Louisiana anyway?

Nonsequitur?

I already wrote that yes, its also the responsibility of Congress that there was a significant reduction in funding - so yes, ergo, the Louisiana's delegation inactivity does also matter.

But the way I see it, if hurricane protection funding was slashed because a) Bush proposed it and b) the state delegation didnt fight for it, that makes TWO guilty parties - the Louisianians' inactivity doesnt excuse the President for having proposed it in the first place.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It was not far away from the Louisiana delegation to Washington, however, and they had no objections to or requests to amend the budget Congress passed.

It shouldnt have been too bleedin far away for the president either, since its his citizens that would end up dying.

It was a shame to ever propose to massively slash hurricane protection funding in the first place, and yes, it was also a shame that the La. delegation didnt do enough to block it.

Anyone reasonably objective would thus have cursed both their houses, but you seem to be in the business of getting one party cleared by having the other party get all the blame.

0 Replies

The ******* point is if you have a problem with Louisiana government, move your ass there to fix it if you are so concerned.

I doubt whether I would support Blanco or Nagin, especially Blanco who at times seemed and I hate to use this word but it appplies, hysterical. But that is precisely why we need the cavalry.

I lived through Hurricane Andrew and I know how little the local government can accomplish when hit with this kind of disaster. YOU NEED THE F##KING CAVALRY.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It was not far away from the Louisiana delegation to Washington, however, and they had no objections to or requests to amend the budget Congress passed.

I hear thet there are lots of jobs in NO, go there and help them fix their problems if you so obsessed with Louisiana's failings.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Yep, conservatives are reason based, liberals are emotion based.

Bullshit. Liberals are compassionate, loving. empathetic and considerate. Conservatives are fearful, hateful, greedy, intolerant, selfish and self-centered. Every bit as emotional but the WRONG emotions.

Chrissakes, kiddo, you would think you would get tired of getting your ass handed to you. Do you ever think about your post before you hit submit. And do you talk out of your ass like this in real life?

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Liberals are compassionate, loving. empathetic and considerate.

Roxxxanne wrote:

Chrissakes, kiddo, you would think you would get tired of getting your ass handed to you. Do [..] you talk out of your ass like this in real life?

You're not a liberal, I suppose, are you?

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

okie wrote:
Yep, conservatives are reason based, liberals are emotion based.

Bullshit. Liberals are compassionate, loving. empathetic and considerate. Conservatives are fearful, hateful, greedy, intolerant, selfish and self-centered. Every bit as emotional but the WRONG emotions.

Chrissakes, kiddo, you would think you would get tired of getting your ass handed to you. Do you ever think about your post before you hit submit. And do you talk out of your ass like this in real life?

You claim to be compassionate, but your posts indicate you to be one angry individual. Please don't sugarcoat your opinion.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

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.

You need more than "enough sense" to get out of the way of a Cat 5 hurricane. You need a car and some credit cards. And even if you got out of the way, you'd still have to deal with the fact that your home, children's school, and workplace, didn't.

I'm all in favor of personal responsibility, but we're getting into "let them eat cake" territory here.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

nimh wrote:
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?

Foxfyre wrote:
So it doesn't matter to you that the Louisiana delegation didn't think it important enough to fight for? That Louisiana wasn't using the monies they had already been allocated to shore up the levees? The president should just ignore that and arrange his priorities in favor of Louisiana anyway?

Nonsequitur?

I already wrote that yes, its also the responsibility of Congress that there was a significant reduction in funding - so yes, ergo, the Louisiana's delegation inactivity does also matter.

But the way I see it, if hurricane protection funding was slashed because a) Bush proposed it and b) the state delegation didnt fight for it, that makes TWO guilty parties - the Louisianians' inactivity doesnt excuse the President for having proposed it in the first place.

Hurricane funding was NOT slashed because Bush proposed it. It was slashed because a) it was not requested and b) Louisiana hadn't been using the monies they had already been allocated for that purpose.

Maybe things work differently where you live, but here the President of the country doesn't have time to oversee every detail of every problem or potential problem that exists. It was the Louisiana delegation's responsibility to make their needs know. If they had made this need known and the president vetoed it, then you can say he slashed the budget. They didn't. He didn't.

It is the President's job to convey to Congress how he thinks available monies should be allocated and all he can do is suggest. It is everybody else's job including the Corps of Engineers, the Congress, the governors, etc. etc. etc. to state what their needs are and fight for a different allocation if the one they get is not satisfactory. And it is Congress who passes the final budget.

And you know what? There is rarely EVER as much money available as what everybody asks for. And no matter WHAT the president suggests, somebody is going to say he shortchanged the program or project or whatever.

The lack of objectivity, by some, in what actually went down in the case of New Orleans is just amazing.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

okie wrote:
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.

You need more than "enough sense" to get out of the way of a Cat 5 hurricane. You need a car and some credit cards. And even if you got out of the way, you'd still have to deal with the fact that your home, children's school, and workplace, didn't.

I'm all in favor of personal responsibility, but we're getting into "let them eat cake" territory here.

Or, a friend with a car, a tank of gas and the FEMA hotline phone number, or RED Cross toll free number, or the number of just about any other charitable organization. Mnay had experienced hurricanes before, just the many residents of Florida who do not leave their homes, they thought they would be able to stick it out.

Who can really say though why many didn't leave. The fact remains they stayed. There was ample warning of the approaching storm.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

okie wrote:
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.

You need more than "enough sense" to get out of the way of a Cat 5 hurricane. You need a car and some credit cards. And even if you got out of the way, you'd still have to deal with the fact that your home, children's school, and workplace, didn't.

I'm all in favor of personal responsibility, but we're getting into "let them eat cake" territory here.

If you want to blame somebody for not helping the people leave, then blame the people that were responsible for it. What do you have to say about the mayor and the governor? Buses sat idle. Trains were offered, but turned down. They did nothing until the time was almost gone. They were the officials in charge of ordering an evacuation, not Bush.

I am more than willing to blame Bush for things he is responsible for, like the prescription drug plan, but I will defend him when he is unjustly blamed for virtually everything.

0 Replies

Snood; you're damning me for suggesting people should take some responsibility for their own decisions and actions (or lack thereof)? Interesting position, that. Perhaps you would prefer it if the State took care of making decisions on the deciding factors in individuals lot in life (both positive and negative)? I would not. Until last year; I lived on the water in West Palm Beach and knew only too well the dangers in doing so. The benefits include beautiful weather almost year round the dangers are clear. I never understood why my neighbors thought it was fair for the entire country to contribute to their lot in paradise. Mother Nature is a somewhat predictable enormous expense that surfaces once in a while. Shouldn't those who reap the benefits of this beautiful location be required to pay the necessary insurance to rebuild it when this happens? Why should a snow shoveling landlocked Jon Doe in South Dakota be forced to pay to rebuild somebody's beach house in paradise? I do my share of charity work, believe me, but I'm no less offended when the recipient insists on it at the point of a gun. I don't owe anybody anything that isn't part of a mutual agreement to the benefit of us both. Choosing to ignore a Cat-5 hurricane warning, while living in a bowl, defies logic to the point of idiocy. Those who couldn't leave, are worthy of our pity and support. Those who could and didn't got what they bargained for. If you want to live someplace dangerous, like Key West for instance; periodic evacuations are part of the bargain. If this doesn't fit your budget; then it's time to dwell someplace that does. Those who choose to reap the rewards of living someplace dangerous, without the ability to leave when the situation calls for it, will occasionally suffer the predictable risk. There is an undeniable risk/reward ratio to consider in virtually every decision we make. Choosing wisely or unwisely is the individual's prerogative. This prerogative comes with responsibility. As well it should.

Yes Joe, I do believe leaders should look reality in the face. I do so every day. I also believe followers should look reality in the face. Many do so every day.

Nimh, I can't agree with your levee argument. The population behind the North Sea Wall requires the use of a great deal of recovered lands. Ours does not. We have more than enough space. The levee in question could just as easily have kept that water in, had the storm retained its strength with a tiny change in trajectory. Rebuilding it is a farce, that will do nothing to change the predictions of what will happen if N.O. is ever hit head on by a Cat -5 Storm. This has been happening for millions of years and it's not going to stop just because we live here now or build a levee. A beefed up levee system around N.O. will accomplish nothing but to give the city's inhabitants a false sense of security. If they somehow missed the earlier warnings (which I find hard to believe), they damn sure couldn't have missed the warning that was Katrina. Those who choose to ignore such warnings; do so at their peril.

OE; they touched on the floating city concept during the program I watched about the North Sea Wall. They also have provisions to flood certain areas on purpose, to save others if it becomes necessary. The Dutch seem so much more realistic and prepared for the worst. Apparently, they've reclaimed so much land from the sea they have no choice. Brilliantly intuitive, but I'd bet they wouldn't do it either if they didn't have to.

This part was very well said, Joe.

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.

The rest will need a good deal of tweaking, but that's a pretty good start.

okie wrote:

Liberals also like to talk about the responsibility of society.

So does the church. So does the State. So does just about every other entity with its collective hand out. The problem is that every time I try to figure out what they mean by society; it's always roughly the same. Society is defined by "everyone but me". Those who mean to make your decisions for you tend to believe:
1. Everything you do for yourself is selfish and bad.
2. Everything you do for someone else is selfless and good.

Absent is the recognition of the fact that those doing things for themselves are generally the ones with pockets worth pilfering. Ask a former Soviet how good it is to have the State take care of all of your needs. It's impossible to do that much pilfering when "society" lacks the pockets of the capitalist's greed.

nimh wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
Liberals are compassionate, loving. empathetic and considerate.

Roxxxanne wrote:
Chrissakes, kiddo, you would think you would get tired of getting your ass handed to you. Do [..] you talk out of your ass like this in real life?

You're not a liberal, I suppose, are you?

That's definitely a 5 on the Laughing

scale!

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

nimh wrote:
But the way I see it, if hurricane protection funding was slashed because a) Bush proposed it and b) the state delegation didnt fight for it, that makes TWO guilty parties - the Louisianians' inactivity doesnt excuse the President for having proposed it in the first place.

Hurricane funding was NOT slashed because Bush proposed it. It was slashed because a) it was not requested and b) Louisiana hadn't been using the monies they had already been allocated for that purpose.

So basically you're saying that when the papers wrote, for example:

"In early 2004, [..] President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain [..]"

or:

"The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana's coast, only to be opposed by the White House....In its budget, the Bush administration proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana's chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they need."

They were flat-out lying?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Of course the press is frequently misrepresenting the issue too. Watch for many to say that Bush knew the levees coule likely be 'breached'. But if you look closely, the worry was that the lake would top the levees, and there was less worry that the levees would break.

Also if one watches closely, it is obvious the President was concerned, asked many questions, and was assured FEMA etc. had it under control.

Fox, did you see this video yet?

(nb: this is my translation from Dutch (progressive/Christian) newspaper Trouw , so individual quotes, having been translated from English to Dutch and now by me back to English again, will probably not be literally the original ones):

Quote:

President was warned about hurricane Katrina
by Frank Kools

The American president Bush has been politically embarassed by leaked video images.

The recordings prove that he was warned empathically at the eve of hurricane Katrina that the levees in the city of New Orleans could falter.

[..] The president said four days after the hurricane on American television: "I think that nobody foresaw the breaching of the levees." But recordings from a video conference, held on the eve of Katrina, appear to contradict this.

In them, Max Mayfield, the head of the Hurricane centre, told Bush, who took part in the conference from his ranch in Texas, that he was "very, very concerned" about whether the levees of New Orleans would be able to withstand such a destructive hurricane. He added: "I want to make it crystal clear that especially in the coastal areas a large loss of human life might occur." 1300 people died during Katrina. [..]

Until now it was director Michael Brown of the national office for emergency support Fema who was the target of criticism. He even had to resign over incompetency.

Yet in the video conference Brown warns Bush in hard to misunderstand words. "This is, to put it softly, the big one." He also tells him that thousands of inhabitants of New Orleans have sought refuge in the Superdome. They were not safe there because the sports complex was four meters under water level. "I really don't know what we should do about that and I'm also worried about that roof." [..]

Bush did not react and did not ask any questions. At the end he spoke up to reassure everyone. "I want to assure the folks in the [coastal] states that we are fully prepared to not just help you during the storm, but also to lead all the resources we have available after the storm."

Although Congres had already released the transcripts of these discussions previously, the recordings provoked fierce reactions in the US after all. [..]

Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans was shocked. "It seems that they were aware of everything. Then why was the reaction so slow?"

So much for "asking many questions". "Folks, just sleep easily, we are prepared for everything" - was that national leadership?

And for one, what was that again about the federal government supposedly only finding out about the refugees in the Superdome on the day or second day after the hurricane struck, when even the media had already reported on it?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
nimh wrote:
But the way I see it, if hurricane protection funding was slashed because a) Bush proposed it and b) the state delegation didnt fight for it, that makes TWO guilty parties - the Louisianians' inactivity doesnt excuse the President for having proposed it in the first place.

Hurricane funding was NOT slashed because Bush proposed it. It was slashed because a) it was not requested and b) Louisiana hadn't been using the monies they had already been allocated for that purpose.

So basically you're saying that when the papers wrote, for example:

"In early 2004, [..] President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain [..]"

or:

"The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana's coast, only to be opposed by the White House....In its budget, the Bush administration proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana's chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they need."

They were flat-out lying?

Not lying as much as not presenting an accurate portrayed of the situation.. Your apparent conclusion that 'it was all Bush's fault' won't hold water for reasons already stated. The President and his staff look at thousands of funding requests every year, some critical, some less critical, some valid, some frivolous. There is not enough money in the world to fund what everybody requests. And neither you nor I have a clue whether the funds requested were to shore up those levees. It would take much more than 60 million to significantly widen or make them higher.

I can guarantee you the Louisiana state govenrment runs into the same kinds of issues as does every state governor, every county, every municipality, every school district, every organization, every church, every business. There isn't enough money to go around to meet all the stated needs, much less all the wants. And everybody knows it. They ask, anyway, hoping to get lucky. And whomever is in charge of administering the budget does the best they can to allocate available funds as expeditiously as possible.

But the thing you can't seem to get through your head is that what the President proposes, except in a national emergency, is rarely ever what the Congress allocates. You seem to badly want to let the local officials, elected representatives, and the Congress off the hook and blame Bush when all he did was suggest allocations.

It is a very large country. Some wonder why it should be the federal government's responsibility for flood control projects in Southeast Louisiana at all. And again, had the entire Federal budget been allocated to the Louisiana levees in 2004, it would not have made one bit of difference in what happened to New Orleans. The levee that broke was one that had already been repaired.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Nimh, I can't agree with your levee argument. The population behind the North Sea Wall requires the use of a great deal of recovered lands. Ours does not. We have more than enough space.

Well, we were talking about before Katrina, right? About whether it was responsible or not of the administration and Congress to slash budgets for hurricane protection in the years before Katrina.

I think it wasnt. The fact is that millions of American citizens did live in New Orleans and surrounding towns; and the government does have the responsibility to safeguard its citizens against external threats as well as it can. So if its a hurricane area and you allow your citizens to live in it, then you have the resposibility also to protect them as well as you can. Slashing budgets for hurricane protection isnt, in my mind, even close to "protecting them as well as you can".

Now I understand your argument, I think - you're saying: it was hopeless anyway. The state could not be expected to safeguard citizens who lived in coastal cities in hurricane areas, because that would have been an unfeasable promise. Well, if thats the case than the government should have said so, no? Bush: "folks, you can choose to live in New Orleans, it's a free country, and we wish you the best -- but you gotta know that we wont actually be able to help you, you know". Thats not what happened. Even in that video apparently Bush is still reassuring the states in question, on the eve of the hurricane, that the state is "fully prepared".

Irresponsible.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know