One Year Later.

[D_Barbi_Queue]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jonb &#064; Nov 6 2005, 08&#58;06 PM) [post=358718]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TexAssgirl &#064; Nov 3 2005, 07&#58;31 PM) [post=358089]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
"August 29: Hurricane Katrina hits the Gulf Coast. The damage is severe, but became much worse when the levees in New Orleans failed -- just a year after BushCo cuts the funding needed to maintain them."

I don&#39;t think you can blame that one soley on Bush: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...9/7/90925.shtml
[/b][/quote]
Newsmax is a tabloid owned by someone who thinks Clinton killed two Arkansas teens with a train&#33;

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Onslow &#064; Nov 4 2005, 08&#58;00 AM) [post=358211]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jonb &#064; Nov 3 2005, 11&#58;47 PM) [post=358042]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>

Actually, we have solutions. First and foremost: Impeach Bush, and revoke his cabinet&#39;s citizenship wholesale. Secondly, go back to the Clinton-era way of doing things.
[/b][/quote]
If the Clinton era had been as fantastic as you pretend then your pals Al Gore or John Kerry (one or both) would have been able to win an election and win it handily without any questions of ballot irregularity or anything else.
[/b][/quote]
Ballot irregularity means that someone on your side probably lost. I didn&#39;t say Clinton was perfect, but ANYTHING would be better than Bush.
[/b][/quote]

Jon, I actually read it first in my local paper weeks ago, but since I can&#39;t find that article, I just googled it and this was the first reference I found. Are the facts any less true or do you prefer this one?: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46132 or CNSNews.com or a different CNSNews.com article. The Newsmax article was actually taken directly from CNS.

 

[jonb]

You realize the &#39;C&#39; was originally for conservative. They&#39;re from the Media Research Center. Even most right-wingers these days admit &#39;liberal media bias&#39; is the same as yelling at an umpire. MRC regualrly invites people like Ann Coulter as guests.

 

[B_HappyHammer1977]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr Rock &#064; Nov 4 2005, 08&#58;17 PM) [post=358261]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
because nobody in a position of authority should be trusted with it THAT far. "doing well" is a question of perspective; for example there are, honestly, still people out there who believe that the current president has "done a good job" or however you wanna put it. if EVERYONE agreed on the same criteria for a government, then we wouldn&#39;t need to bother with a farcical "election" process to convince everyone that their vote somehow matters a crap in the first place.
[/b][/quote]

By saying that, you&#39;re sugesting democracy doesn&#39;t work then? If it doesn&#39;t, then surely the president isn&#39;t actually a president (as defined)...a dictator? (see previous posts&#33

 

[DC_DEEP]

TAG, just a comment on your list of "good things" that have happened during the Bush administration. You mention several congressional acts that have been passed into law (the energy thing, for instance.) Please, don&#39;t just go by what someone tells you any of these laws do - read them for yourself. The energy bill is not really a good thing. And the bush administration has the worst record in US history for taking semi-annual reports from various agencies (EPA, others) and sending them back to agency directors with the instructions "do not publish this until you make the following changes." Yes, most of these agencies are supposed to report directly to Congress and publish their reports, available to the public. But the bush administration has ordered many of these agencies to furnish their reports to bush staffers BEFORE reporting to congress, so that the administration can maintain EDITORIAL CONTROL. If the semi-annual report from the EPA doesn&#39;t look good, it is "polished up" before publication. Even the Inspector General for each of these agencies is prevented from taking action, when it should be taken. It is frightening, truly something right out of "1984" or "Brave New World." And the very agencies that should be our watchdogs, protecting the American Public, have been emasculated, to the point of being little more than another cog in the propaganda machine.

 

[Dr Rock]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(HappyHammer1977 &#064; Nov 7 2005, 10&#58;29 AM) [post=358853]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>By saying that, you&#39;re sugesting democracy doesn&#39;t work then? If it doesn&#39;t, then surely the president isn&#39;t actually a president (as defined)...a dictator? (see previous posts&#33[/b][/quote]
well shit sherlock, i think we all knew THAT already.

 

[D_Barbi_Queue]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jonb &#064; Nov 6 2005, 09&#58;25 PM) [post=358746]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
You realize the &#39;C&#39; was originally for conservative. They&#39;re from the Media Research Center. Even most right-wingers these days admit &#39;liberal media bias&#39; is the same as yelling at an umpire. MRC regualrly invites people like Ann Coulter as guests.
[/b][/quote]

*sigh* No, I didn&#39;t realize that but this is starting to piss me off. Are you trying to say that the article is completely wrong just because of it&#39;s source? I personally don&#39;t care what the source is, as long as it has verifiable facts, and this one does.

My intention for pointing that out in the first place is that Bush shouldn&#39;t get ALL of the blame lfor this like everyone seems so keen to do (especially for EVERY FUCKING THING that happens wrong). I agree that he probably deserves some of the blame though.

Here&#39;s yet another article, but I&#39;m sure that MSNBC isn&#39;t liberal enough for you either.

Even so, the fact remains: Even IF they received all of the funding they wanted, the levees were only meant to support a level 3 hurricane. Katrina was a 4. And the inadequate flood-protection was a problem years before Bush was in office. By one of the articles I posted earlier, you can see that even Clinton was cutting funds for that already or delaying projects by holding key reports.

"State and local governments could have made up the difference by issuing municipal bonds. There&#39;s a simple reason why the federal government gives buyers of bonds issued by state and local governments massive tax breaks (they are free from federal, state and local taxes). The object is to promote the building of infrastructure, like roads, bridges and yes, when the Feds can&#39;t provide all the funding, local levees."

You&#39;ll read in some of the Bush-blaming articles that the state claimned that they didn&#39;t have the funds available to do so, but:

"By 1998, Louisiana&#39;s state government had a &#036;2 billion construction budget, but less than one tenth of one percent of that -- &#036;1.98 million -- was dedicated to levee improvements in the New Orleans area. State appropriators were able to find &#036;22 million that year to renovate a new home for the Louisiana Supreme Court and &#036;35 million for one phase of an expansion to the New Orleans convention center."

and 12 days before Katrina hit, the state completed negotiations for a new 500,000 square foot expansion to the Super-Dome totally &#036;315 million.

and "The Corps&#39; New Orleans district in 2003 spent about &#036;409 million on construction contracts, dredging and maintenance for the state&#39;s waterways, real estate purchases, private sector design contracts and in-house expenditures, according to the Corps. That more than doubles the &#036;200 million the district spent in 1991."

and The Chicago Tribune also states:

"The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said Thursday that a lack of funding for hurricane-protection projects around New Orleans did not contribute to the disastrous flooding that followed Hurricane Katrina.
In a telephone interview with reporters, corps officials said that although portions of the flood-protection levees remain incomplete, the levees near Lake Pontchartrain that gave way--inundating much of the city--were completed and in good condition before the hurricane.

However, they noted that the levees were designed for a Category 3 hurricane and couldn&#39;t handle the ferocious winds and raging waters from Hurricane Katrina, which was a Category 4 storm when it hit the coastline. The decision to build levees for a Category 3 hurricane was made decades ago based on a cost-benefit analysis."

But now I feel like I&#39;m beating a dead horse.....

 

[jonb]

It&#39;s not so much &#39;liberal&#39; as it is &#39;sane&#39;. And FYI, NBC&#39;s run by General Electric.

Simple fact of the matter is, as soon as New Orleans was declared a disaster area, the federal government assumed all responsibility for Katrina.

 

[D_Barbi_Queue]

Bush assumed responsibility for the slow response. I haven&#39;t read anything that says that he accepts the sole responsibility for everything else. But feel free to enlighten me with a source.

Regardless, my above stated facts (that show that the local govts and past presidents were just as responsible for the lack of levee-funding) still remain.

 

[cruztbone]

Texass girl, and stop passing the buck. Every time he finds one , he sticks it in his growing Saudi Arabian bank accounts and thinks it was left for him to make a profit.

Hurricanes are not state events; they are NATIONAL DISASTERS. That means the leader of the National government is responsible.

A president who cant ever admit he is capable of making an error is a FOOL.

A voter who insists on reelecting this escaped village idiot from Crawford is an even BIGGER FOOL.

Wake up! The emperor not only has no clothes, he has no brain cells left undamaged by either alcohol or cocaine.

Then, work on your state's homophobic paranoia. It does not reflect well on the Lone Star state.

 

[madame_zora]

Well, then there's the unemployment statistics. Under the new system, after a person is unemployed for a certain amount of time, I believe it is six months, they drop off the scales! Anyone who was unemployed but is now in the armed servies is no longer unemployed, even though they have no job waiting for them when they come home. Under this administration, many better paying jobs have been lost to companies relocating overseas and the jobs created have been primarily minimum wage, so just because there is "job growth" doesn't mean there has been an imporvement in incomes for Americans.

While bushco might not be responsible for every fucking thing, they are indeed responsible for the shifty reporting measures and report washing.

Oh yeah, Teri Schiavo (one person) was important enough for bush to cut a vacation short, but New Orleans being wiped out was not. The guy's a fucking prick and anyone supporting him is an idiot.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

I agree, John Kohn "Kerry" would have done a much better job.

 

[madame_zora]

I agree, John Kohn "Kerry" would have done a much better job.

It's an easy assumption, since it would be difficult to do a worse job.

 

[Shelby]

TexAssgirl your avatars just keep getting hotter! (I wish it were bigger)

Your 'not all bad', 'not all good' approach is much better reasoned than the rest. I'm conservative yet found much to admire about Slick Willie. The hysterical Bush hating is tiresome at best.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

I'm conservative yet found much to admire about Slick Willie. The hysterical Bush hating is tiresome at best.

Even more tiresome is the hysterical Clinton bashing (like references to Slick Willie) because it continues to this day.

I wonder if the conservatives who are so offended about the ongoing bad mouthing of a sitting president were equally upset about it when it happened during the Clinton years. For consistency's sake, I'll take it on faith that they were.

SG

 

[B_Hung Muscle]

The guy's a fucking prick and anyone supporting him is an idiot.

Okay, I take back every single admonishment I ever gave you, Madame, about name-calling. This is exactly how I feel. You could have been hoodwinked in 2000, even 2004 (although I find that hard to believe), but if you're STILL supporting this guy, I really do think you need to consider a long vacation, or at least check your moral compass.

 

[Shelby]

Hello! I said I found much to admire. My calling him Slick Willie is a nod to his gift for oratory. If it conjures other images for you that's your problem.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Hello! I said I found much to admire. My calling him Slick Willie is a nod to his gift for oratory. If it conjures other images for you that's your problem.

I guess I have at least one answer.

SG

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Oh yeah, Teri Schiavo (one person) was important enough for bush to cut a vacation short, but New Orleans being wiped out was not. The guy's a fucking prick and anyone supporting him is an idiot.

Mme Zora:

Believe me, I share your frustration and anger at the administration's antics in Washington DC. But when a post calls anyone who supports GWB an idiot I am disappointed and discouraged because I want the conservative LPSG participants (Pecker, TAG, BnD, Onslow and others) to be referred to respectfully. I think they are basically trying to do the same in return. So, I'm asking everyone (including myself) to avoid using blanket flame terms.

SG

Cheers.

 

[Dr Rock]

I want the conservative LPSG participants (Pecker, TAG, BnD, Onslow and others) to be referred to respectfully.

a good way to get respect would be not to align onesself with jackass politicians in the first place, i'd say.

 

[madame_zora]

a good way to get respect would be not to align onesself with jackass politicians in the first place, i'd say.

I can respect them as people without respecting their continued allegiance to an obviously failing president, not that I assume any of them in particualr IS still supporting bush. If they are, I am admosihing that support, not them as people. I should have been more clear.

How's this: It is an idiotic CHOICE to continue supporting bush.