Four years have elapsed since one of the most amazing cases of Republican-bashing media bias in the television era began. The media elites laugh when preachers say immorality causes God to send hurricanes, but they suggested with straight faces that Hurricane Katrina was a death sentence President Bush and his cronies brought to the less fortunate.
In the early spin, race-baiting rapper Kanye West and "objective" anchors like Brian Williams were in rhetorical sync: George Bush didn’t care about black people. On "The Daily Show," Williams said "everyone" knew Bush would have done better if white people were endangered: "Everyone watching the coverage all week, that kind of reached its peak last weekend, kept saying the same refrain: ‘How is this happening in the United States?’ And the other refrain was, ‘Had this been Nantucket, had this been Boston, Cleveland, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, how many choppers would have –’"
Williams couldn’t finish. The liberal audience drowned him in applause.
A year later, Williams was pressing Bush about being a bigot, harboring a "social or race or class aspect" in the federal response, then inviting in radical professor Michael Eric Dyson to denounce the Bush family as "clueless patricians."
It didn’t matter how many tens of thousands were saved by federal, state, and local first responders in helicopters and boats. The never-ending political commercial called the "news" was in heavy rotation. Today, it’s not considered the least bit impolite or inaccurate for hard-left blogs like the Daily Kos to proclaim New Orleans the scene of a mass murder: "We let the Republicans kill a major U.S. city. We let them laugh about it and walk away."
But here’s the amazing part: four years after the hurricane, the networks are still trashing the federal government for failing people who still live in federal trailers. None of them can manage to wonder when these "victims" will be responsible in any way for their own housing and circumstances. Or ponder for even a second the possibility that it’s now taxpayers who are the victims.
On the August 31 "CBS Evening News," investigative reporter Armen Keteyian was hot on this hackneyed story, and still projecting all the outrage onto the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), even though there was no mention of the healing, messianic force of President Obama.
"Two years after FEMA began moving people out of the trailers, contaminated with the toxic chemical formaldehyde," he proclaimed dramatically, "case workers tell CBS News the thousands left in the trailers aren’t trying to beat the system; they are victims of a system that’s proved incapable of helping them get out."
So the system that couldn’t put them in housing fast enough is now to blame for not letting them out?
Keteyian claimed to be an investigator, but he never spent any air time investigating precisely how many billions the taxpayers in Montana and Delaware and South Dakota have sent to the Gulf for Katrina aid, and he failed to devote one second to the concept that at some point, Katrina "victims" have proven themselves "incapable" or incompetent in fixing their own situation. The "news judgment" of the major networks implies there is no such thing as individual responsibility.
One of Keteyian’s victims, Kendall Deschamp, suggested all he needs is a little more taxpayer money. "A disabled state highway worker, Deschamp collects just $1,368 a month in benefits -- not enough, he says, to afford the sheetrock and new hot water heater he needs for the permit allowing him to move back into his four-bedroom home, which stands just a few tantalizing feet away."
A little Googling would show Keteyian that the name Kendall Deschamp shows up on a list of Mississippi recipients of taxpayer money in 2003 – $25,500 – two years before Katrina hit. The website doesn’t explain the reason for this subsidy. But wouldn’t it be fascinating to take one individual like Deschamp and ask how much this person has cost the taxpayer over the last four years? The networks wouldn’t dream of doing that.
Keteyian can only sing from the liberal songbook, that the federal government must provide a never-ending flow of support. "Today, these travel trailers stand as a symbol of a recovery gone wrong. A hurricane of coverup, chaos and incompetence. A system that remains, in the words of one FEMA worker on the ground here in Mississippi, one big disgusting mess."
The networks will also never wonder if this doesn’t punch a huge hole in their liberalism. If the federal government is a "hurricane of coverup, chaos, and incompetence," why should we hand over health care to them? Are the networks on this story really exposing what’s wrong? Or enabling it?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
So, sounds like Williams
September 1, 2009 - 22:19 ET by balboaSo, sounds like Williams brought up class more than race, if I'm reading this right. Which I think is a good argument, and not one solely for Republicans. There's always a feeling that people with money get preferential treatment.
A poor argument
September 1, 2009 - 22:40 ET by Unsane...except that it is a pretty stupid argument. A better one to make would be one of comparative analysis.
Take a look at all the states and cities and towns that sit on the Gulf Coast. All face the exact same threat: the occasional hurricane, some of which can be quite nasty. Last year I was a good 100-200 miles from Ike when it hit. When it marched up I-45 I was watching it carefully in case it touched off any tornadoes or severe thunderstorms, which it didn't (in my area). I was raised in the U.S. city that was most severely damaged by Hurricane Gilbert, when it spawned 16 tornadoes that struck it.
Texans know all about hurricanes - we get hit by them on occasion. Perhaps not as famously as FL, as it is surrounded on three sides by tropical waters - but we get our fair share. Every Texan that has spent their seventh grade year here goes through a course called Texas History, where, among other things, we learn that Galveston was the biggest TX port and one of its most important cities (if not THE most important) until a hurricane hit it 109 years ago this month which made Katrina look like a Sunday picnic. So devastating was this hurricane, Galveston never fully recovered. The city had a seawall built to help protect it, while the Corps of Engineers widened Buffalo Bayou in order for it to handle ocean-going vessels. People immediately saw that Houston, being 50 miles inland, offered more protection from hurricanes, and that town took off and became the city it is today, eclipsing Galveston.
Texas knows about hurricanes and thus local governments as well as the state itself spends much time and effort into preparing for them. If you hit the coast here, you will see signs of the preparation everywhere, from improved infrastructure, hurricane evacuation routes, and contraflow lanes on Interstates to facilitate evauations.
This isn't exclusive to TX. Virtually every state on the Gulf Coast has its own share of hurricane horror stories and thus they work on preparing for them. All, that is, except ONE place: New Orleans. And the question has NEVER been asked: why is this?
Do people remember that MS actually got the WORST of Katrina? Hardly anyone does. MS is the poorest state in the union, yet for some odd, strange reason, it recovered faster than New Orleans did. Closer to home, I visited Galveston earlier in the summer and while I found signs of Ike's visit, the city was otherwise fully functioning and taking in tourists as it is known to do each and every year. I had no problem going to hotels, restaurants, and other favorite haunts there.
I guarantee you that when you watch Texans' games this year, you won't hear announcers wringing their hands and crying about how Houston has such a long way to go to recover. I was in Houston four months after Ike and I could scarcely find signs that it was hit by a hurricane.
All of these towns, cities, counties (and parishes for those in LA) and states have all figured this out - some of whom don't have money by any stretch of the imagination - and have prepared adequately for hurricanes. Yet New Orleans has not. Why?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Well Unsane
September 1, 2009 - 23:07 ET by general companyDo people remember that MS actually got the WORST of Katrina?
Hardly anyone does. MS is the poorest state in the union, yet for some
odd, strange reason, it recovered faster than New Orleans did.
Wind, and maybe rain sure, but they were not flooded for weeks. The worst of Miss was on the coast and other not so populated areas. N.O. and the "NorthShore" is where most of us in La live.
Look I will be honest, I get awfully tierd of folk bashing us or refering to us poorly. I have never lived through, or worked so hard or for so long, every time we have a Hurricain warning it cost us lots of money, time and effort. For folks to think it is simply trivial?,,,,,,maybe I am just jaded?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Preparation
September 2, 2009 - 08:08 ET by UnsaneAm I bashing New Orleans? I hope not. I'm sure the people there are just fine. I haven't been there in about three decades now. I'd like to go back one day. But fact is that the city government, and the State of Louisiana, could have done so much more to prepare for the hurricane, and they did not.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Sorry Unsane
September 2, 2009 - 09:45 ET by general companyAm I bashing New Orleans?
Didn't mean to suggest you were, I meant in general. Every-time a Katrina story pops up, its like it happened yesterday. The folk here get made to look like beggars on the street, with no responsibility for ourselves, it simply isn't true. Sure many of our local reps let us down, but some showed real leadership, one of them is currently our Governor.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I'm not down on the people so much
September 2, 2009 - 11:53 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonOn the other hand, for the residents to sit back and say it's all the governments fault, WHO elected their government leaders?
The citizens of NO RE-ELECTED nagin, the biggest cause of their problems.
If they want someone to blame, the closets mirror is the best place to look.
http://gjresult.com
Yea true, but
September 2, 2009 - 15:27 ET by general companyI tend to think is was more the citizens from Houston and Memphis who got Negan re-elected? They did finally run off cold cash Jefferson. And your right, a mirror would do wonders for many of them, but a lot of us dont live in the city, but still get painted with that brush.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
The Mayor of Bay St Louis
September 2, 2009 - 07:35 ET by danboThe Mayor of Bay St Louis Mississippi was often complaining that the Musicians of New Orleans got more help than his entire city.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Had it been Boston.....
September 1, 2009 - 22:21 ET by superconand a CAT 5 hurricane was coming people would have evacuated. I remember vey clearly how G.Bush came on T.V. and said to LEAVE New Orleans. I remember an Army corp of engineers guy saying he thought the levees could collapse. I remember seeing the whole gulf of Mexico filled with that storm before it hit. They were warned.
Many people overlook the fact that in Gulfport people got the hell out of Dodge and the loss of life was much lower. What about all the midwest flooding. Those floods covered several states and not just one city. I don't recall thousands of people getting trapped on their roofs like in New Orleans. They should have left.
" if Republicans are able to stop Barack Obama on health care, 'it will be his Waterloo, it will break him...." -Sen. Jim DeMint
amazing...L.A is almost
September 1, 2009 - 22:22 ET by jkwtradingamazing...L.A is almost burned and the press is still wondering about New Orleans..
I live in Florida and had 4 hurricanes pass without one chopper from Bush, all those canes were before Katrina.
Bush did Helicopter tours of Florida
September 2, 2009 - 00:43 ET by 007memoMinor point, but of course Bush did the helicopter tours of Florida's hurricane devastation. All presidents do this as it's a wonderful photo op.
Brian Williams = fraud
September 1, 2009 - 22:35 ET by Jonah JohansenBrian Williams = fraud
If you are going to lie Brian, why limit yourself. Why not accuse President Bush of blowing up the levees in the first place. Since facts and logic don't count, why not go for the really big lie.
Bush Bashing Again, and again and again, and again etc.etc.etc.
September 1, 2009 - 22:52 ET by merlin61When oh when are they going to stop. This is just an excuse to continue their hatred for Pres. Bush, non-stop criticism is getting old. I lived through Hurricane Charlie in 2004, and I evacuated to a safe hotel before it hit. Nagin had an opportunity to force them to evacuate and use the school buses instead of leaving them to flood. Other states have had bad hurricanes and they had more destruction than New Orleans. This is just ridiculous the way they go on about this. They were warned, and warned and they waited, not believing what they were told and had to suffer the consequences. Their Mayor and Governor are more guilty of fault than Pres.Bush. The Nat'l Guard couldn't get in there till after the storm to bring in their equipment, just like in any hurricane. You can't get in there while the hurricane is in progress. Stop the w hining.
100 lb, soaking wet, news girlies made it in.
September 2, 2009 - 00:52 ET by 007memoMerlin61, my sides are splitting over this one:
"The Nat'l Guard couldn't get in there till after the storm to bring in their equipment, just like in any hurricane."
But all of the 100 lb, soaking wet, news girlies made it in no problem.
Maybe it's just that FEMA was so disorganized they failed to deploy the National Guard efficiently.
007memo... The 100lb news
September 2, 2009 - 00:57 ET by Clear thinker007memo...
The 100lb news girlies were already in NO, whereas the Coast Guard was on stand-by waiting for orders to go to where they were needed most.
LMAO!
http://iamnotaracist.wordpress.com/
ClearThinker, You're clearly not thinking
September 2, 2009 - 09:16 ET by 007memoWho said anything about the Coast Guard?
But since you brought it up, the Coast Guard's performance was the one shining light of the Federal response to Katrina.
While the National Guard was standing-by for several days waiting for FEMA to tell them what to do, it was the US Coast Guard that deployed relatively rapidly, saving countless lives.
It's my turn to LMAO over your pathetic explanation as to how the news girlies outshined FEMA, "The 100lb news girlies were already in NO". You mean they new to prepare ahead of time to be in the right place at the right time?
Nonetheless you are inacurate and rewriting history. There were countless national news reports by reporters who showed up on the scene before during and after the storm who asked, thoroughly bewildered and dumbfounded over the lack of help for NO, "if we made it here, why can't the National Guard get here?"
So scooting in a few news
September 2, 2009 - 09:30 ET by SickofLibsSo scooting in a few news trucks is the same as deploying a massive contingent of National Guard troops and equipment?
007: Talk about rewriting
September 2, 2009 - 09:37 ET by QueenMum007: Talk about rewriting history. The National Guard was standing by waiting for the governor of Louisiana to order their deployment.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
Dem Governors Fault
September 2, 2009 - 10:07 ET by 007memo"The National Guard was standing by waiting for the governor of Louisiana to order their deployment."
Yes, I remember Carl Rove's spin machine going into overdrive during Katrina, trying to place all the blame for the pathetic Bush Admin respose to the disaster on the DEMS. Too bad FEMA couldn't have worked as efficiently.
The claim that the LA governor didn't ask for help is as preposterous then as it is now. The spin worked on people of your ilk though.
But, you don't remember Republican Joe Scarborough reports from Mississippi asking where the heck the National Guard was. No, because that was a state with a Republican Governor.
007: I refer you to
September 2, 2009 - 10:23 ET by QueenMum007: I refer you to Unsane's comments below. I guess you're ignorant of the concept of states' rights and the chain of command. You believe that the power of the President is unlimited. This explains the charges against Pres. Bush and the Obama worshippers' acceptance of everything the Dear Leader proposes despite the fact that his ideology is in conflict with the Constitution. So at least you're consistent.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
QueenMum, I guess you are
September 2, 2009 - 11:44 ET by 007memoQueenMum, I guess you are ignorant of propagandists rewriting history.
I'm well aware of States Rights and Chain of Command. And I specifically remember Carl Rove et als at the time of the crisis attempting to excuse their incompetence by blaming the LA Gov for that incompetence. That propoganda worked on you.
Your ignorance is reinforced by blogs like this that help you reconcile the Bush Admin's utterly incompetent repsonse to Katrina with your own reality.
But the reality based media reports the truth. Oh, but you dismiss the other 99% of the media's reporting as a grand, librul, conspiricy .
"Your doin a heck of a job Brownie"!
Do the math memo.
September 2, 2009 - 12:02 ET by KarmaNO mayor is to blame for 51% of the failure.
LA governor is to blame for 49% of the failure.
As you can plainly deduce, your assertion that the federal government should shoulder any of the blame just doesn't add up. Go buy a calculator for goodness' sake.
Healthcare...Food...Education...Housing... - What sprouted as free for some is maturing into a free-for-all.
Calculators - Found at the extreme right wing of the Mall, Karma
September 2, 2009 - 12:11 ET by 007memoI'd have to go find that calulator at the extreme right wing of the Mall of the Americas.
So what?
September 2, 2009 - 12:23 ET by KarmaGet shopping. As a bonus, you will learn that that section of the Mall is the safest, has the best pricing, has the friendliest workers and does not require a membership.
Healthcare...Food...Education...Housing... - What sprouted as free for some is maturing into a free-for-all.
Presidential Power Unlimited, QueenMum
September 2, 2009 - 12:12 ET by 007memo"You believe that the power of the President is unlimited. This explains the charges against Pres. Bush and the Obama worshippers' acceptance of everything the Dear Leader proposes despite the fact that his ideology is in conflict with the Constitution."
This is quite a tangent from the discussion of the Bush Admin's incompetent handling of Katrina. But since you bring it up...
Bush and Cheyney made one of the widest, if not the widest, ranging Executive Branch power grabs in US History. I always wondered at the time why Republicans were so docile over this occurrence.
The question that Bush's Republican enablers failed to ask was, "What happens when Hillary Clinton (she had been pre-ordained as the next President at the time) becomes President and all that power that had been amassed by the executive branch, was now for wielding by a Democratic President? "
These are not acceptable powers to be held by Republican nor Democratic President.
The question that Bush's
September 2, 2009 - 12:36 ET by QueenMum"The question that Bush's Republican enablers failed to ask was, "What
happens when Hillary Clinton (she had been pre-ordained as the next
President at the time) becomes President and all that power that had
been amassed by the executive branch, was now for wielding by a
Democratic President? "'
OH MY GOSH, 007. I hadn't thought of THAT. Forgive me, but my tin foil hat is out for cleaning. Well, now you've convinced me. (sarc off)
Seriously. The best defense you have at this point is that Obama is only trampling the Constitution because he's following the Bush playbook? HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! I guess that proves that Obama has no leadership skills of his own.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
No Defense for Trampling the Constitution, Queen Mum
September 2, 2009 - 13:21 ET by 007memo"Seriously. The best defense you have at this point is that Obama is only trampling the Constitution because he's following the Bush playbook? HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! I guess that proves that Obama has no leadership skills of his own."
There's No Defense for Trampling the Constitution, Queen Mum and no defense for Obama maintaining any of the powers Bush grabbed. Don't pretend my attack on Bush is a defense of Obama. When did I defend Obama?
But as far as Obama's trampling of the constitution is concerned, I must ask you what you mean by that. I don't want to assume you are an idiot, nor tin foil hatter who believes in whacko conspiracy theories.
Maybe you could name the
September 2, 2009 - 12:48 ET by Jack BauerMaybe you could name the powers vested in the Legislature by the constitution that Bush "grabbed". Is that the power to beam yourself into every school in America in Big Brother fashion?
As a matter of fact, when it comes to using Executive Power Bush comes way behind Democrats...
Exectutive Orders:
One of many, Jack Bauer
September 7, 2009 - 02:38 ET by 007memoOne of many, Jack Bauer.
Grover Norquist, in his criticism of Bush's unprecedented use of Signing Statements: "If you interpret the Constitution's saying that the president is commander in chief to
mean that the president can do anything he wants and can ignore the laws you
don't have a constitution: you have a king." He adds, "They're not trying to
change the law; they're saying that they're above the law and in the case of the
NSA wiretaps they break it."
From the American Bar association, recommendations in reference to Bush's use of signing statements:
"To be sure, it was the number and nature of the current President’s (Bush) signing statements which generated the formation of this Task Force and compelled our recommendations. However,
those recommendations are directed not just to the sitting President, but to all Chief Executives
who will follow him, and they are intended to underscore the importance of the doctrine of
separation of powers. They therefore represent a call to this President and to all his successors to
fully respect the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.
For the entire report: http://www.abanet.or...
I said name ONE enumerated
September 7, 2009 - 04:21 ET by Jack BauerI said name ONE enumerated power the constitution invested in the legitature "grabbed" by President Bush.
You have not done do. Because there is none.
Maybe you don't have the intellectual capacity to distinguish between the pathetic "example" you give, based on an interpretation of legislation passed by the legislature, and the powers of the constitution vested in the three branches of geovernment.
I also pointed out that far from your hysterical untrue assertions about the use of Executive power; that, in fact, President Bush was the most circumspect in the actual use of Exectutive Orders.
That would the device by which the President "does stuff" -- I hope that's in language you understand.
That 00 for 2 so far. Now go back to sleep. Or try to learn some basics of the US constitution.
Now, show me where in the US constitution, President Obama has the power to take over private companies and set executive pay?
You see, it's President Obama who making a power grab extra-constitionally. Maybe you could care to address that. As Bush is actually -- uh -- OUT OF OFFICE.
QueenMun I refer you to William Safire
September 2, 2009 - 12:50 ET by 007memoWilliam Safire wrote a commentary about the Bush Admin "Seizing Dictatorial Power" way back on Novemebr 15, 2001. He was also prescient in warning against the Bush Admin's future power grab.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/15/opinion/essay-seizing-dictatorial-power.html
Perhaps you'll say it's my imagination but I rarely heard from Safire in the MSM, other than in the NYT, after that attack on Bush. Safire, a Republican iconoclast was marginalized because of his disagreement with, using your own words QueenMum, Bush "worshippers' acceptance of everything the Dear Leader proposed".
In fact, the rise of the radical right as spokesmen for the Republican Party and the marginalization of all others in the Party was pathetically lamented in Christie Todd Whitman's book, "It's My Party Too".
I refer you here...
September 5, 2009 - 21:24 ET by UnsaneI refer you to HR 3200, which, if passed, will take a LOT of freedoms from you so the government can baby you and give you something you really should manage to get all by yourself anyway.
His Majesty The Shahinshah is aching to sign this, because He is not remotely interested in governing the United States but rather in ruling it.
This doubtless suits you just fine, being a Leftist propagandist.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Proper Healthcare is a Right not a privilege of the wealthy
September 7, 2009 - 12:39 ET by 007memoProper Healthcare is a Right not a privilege of the wealthy.
Despite the fearmongery and propaganda from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries that universal healthcare "will take a LOT of freedoms from you", it won't.
No one's gonna kill grandma, no one's gonna euthanize your handicapped child, and no one's gonna sterilize Republicans with the swine flu inoculation. America will be healthier for it.
007moron, "rights" don't cost money.
September 7, 2009 - 12:53 ET by R D HelmWhen you employ the police power of government to forcibly take money away from someone who earned it and give it to someone who didn't, you aren't talking about a "right," you are talking about an "entitlement."
Suppose I decide I like the car you drive and I am going to take it from you. I then come over to your house, point a gun to your head, and demand you hand over the keys.
If I did that, you would think I was a horrible person, wouldn't you?
Why do you want the government to do the exact same thing to others? Is stealing acceptable you you?
Apparently it is.
Sorry, but people do not have a right to claim part of my life for themselves simply because they made poor decisions in life.
-Dave
Even when the government tries to kiss you, it is just a prelude to a good screwing. -Neal Boortz
007memo the Socialist
September 7, 2009 - 13:23 ET by UnsaneProper Healthcare is a Right not a privilege of the wealthy. It didn't take long for your Socialist tendencies to come out.
WRONG. Food isn't a right. I need food every single day.
Water isn't a right. I need right every single day.
Clothing isn't a right. I need clothing every single day.
Shelter isn't a right. I need shelter every single day.
I do not need health care every single day. Humanity has only had modern medicine for - really, about the last 200 years or so. How, pray tell, did humanity get here without health care? How did we survive 6000 years? (Yes, I know that there has been a medical profession of sorts for years, but nothing like on the scale of the present.)
And you extreme hatred of people who have a dime more than you do is quite evident here. What's worse is that you are dense enough to believe that if the government dedicates itself to punishing achievement and stealing from the productive in society, and uses that stolen money to coddle and baby people, that somehow all society benefits. Right. People will just have horrific health care, and those wealthy people you so deeply despise? They'll get over anyway. Ask Belinda Stronach and Silvio Berlusconi, political figures in nations where the government is the Big Nanny.
It's laughable to me. You scream about how horrible it is for a society to have a productive citizenry (those evil wealthy people), yet you deeply ache for His Majesty The Shahinshah and his inner circle to have a Wandlitz of their own.
By the way, I'm not wealthy by a long shot, but I do something quite weird for medical care on the occasions when I need it. I pay for it when I need it, much as I pay for my groceries when I need them, or my water when I need them, and only pay for the electricity I use. And so on. Amazing, isn't it? Instead of paying for my dental hygienist all the time, I pay for the service when I actually need it.
Despite the fearmongery and propaganda from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries that universal healthcare "will take a LOT of freedoms from you", it won't. But you are completely wrong. Ask the Canadians that are so fed up with the waiting lists, that they head south for medical treatment. Not to southern Canada, but such places as Buffalo, Detroit, Seattle, Minneapolis, and so on. Try this article: universal babying is SO GREAT and WONDERFUL in Canada, but the Canadians STILL can't get Interleukin-2, which is something I first heard of 25 years ago!
One of the freedoms to be taken away? The right to enter a contract. Private insurance options go bye-bye under this bill. So does my ability to discuss with a doctor what my treatment options are. And so will countless other freedoms you aren't thinking about (or, you being a Socialist, will happily trade away). Take the Sikhs of Ontario, for instance, who, about two years ago, tried to get a provincial law overturned that would allow them to ride their motorcycles without helmets; of particluar concern to a group of people who would rather wear turbans. The Ontario Supreme Court said no, and their reasoning? "The province pays for your health care."
It doesn't take much imagination to see what that will translate to into the United States. Like my losing my handgun. If I want to be babied by the government - and I will have to be since after this law is passed no private insurance plans can be written - I will have to give up my handgun. And perhaps ride in a "clean, fuel-efficient car".
I know that you, as a Socialist, consider yourself to be an elitist with extreme contempt for humanity, considering yourself to be infinitely smarter than the rest of NB and humanity as a whole. Oh, if only we would all just shut up and blindly follow your dictates and those of His Majesty The Shahinshah. Why are we so oppsoed to something that is clearly in our best interest? Why, because we are all STUPID! And we MUST behoilden to those EVIL pharmaceutical and insurance companies!!! Well, if that is true, can you at least be kind enough to point me to the way where I can get my money? Because I'm not getting a dime from anyone other than my sources of income.
No one's gonna kill grandma, no one's gonna euthanize your handicapped child, and no one's gonna sterilize Republicans with the swine flu inoculation. No one will kill grandma. They will just deny her the treatment she needs because you and the rest of the Wizards of Smart have no use for grandma because she won't be paying any more in taxes. Better for grandma to die. So, you and the rest of the Wizards of Smart will be happy to get her the pain pill and encourage her with your counselors to consider how much better off she and her family would be if she just did The State a favor and died. After all, according to the former CO gov, Richard Lamm, the elderly have a duty to die. Right?
Why euthanize a handicapped child when you can have it aborted in the womb? It will happen, because you and your Wizards of Smart will calculate with actuarial tables and such that that child will be a drag on The State and its health care system and thus it will be better for The State and the family if it got whacked in the womb.
The State will decide in our best interest...
Don't believe me? Why else do the Dutch have euthanasia? The State is a Nanny there, and provides "free" health care; "free" health care that is SO GREAT that private spending on health care is hitting 40% of all health care spending there.
Universal health care violates a very simple principle: "There is no such thing as a free lunch." It will merely delude people into thinking there is one. To illustrate: why are we all striving to drive less right about now? Because the price of gasoline is rather high right now. If the government subsidized the price so that it always cost, say, 25 cents a gallon, would you be so keen on restricting your driving? No, because there would be no incentive to. But in the meantime, the cost to the government of the subsidy would continually shoot through the roof, causing them to spend more and more money to keep the price at 25 cents.The same thing will happen when you remove the price mechanism from health care, which universal health care plans seek to do. Right now people don't visit the doctor nearly as often for things they can easily treat at home, because who wants to spend the money on something they can easily take care of themselves? Once the price mechanism is removed, because health care is "free" at that point, people will hit the emergency room for paper cuts. This is human nature, and indeed happened (and is happening) in nations with "universal health coverage".
The idea of universal health care is indeed a good idea - on paper only. In practice it is a raging disaster that governments are loathe to get rid of because the electorate will scream at the proposal to re-introduce economic realities (i.e., prices) to the system. (And if you think the debt is bad now, just wait until the government nationalizes health care. France and Germany cannot meet the strictures of the Growth and Stability Pact they signed to join the euro; in fact, I don't think they've done it a single time! This due to the deficits they run to fund their nanny states, to include health care.) Take a look at the history of Britain's NHS for an example.
Another thing to bear in mind is that one of the biggest motivating factors to a Canadian is to be different from the Americans, for their biggest fear is being like their neighbors to the south. Canada owes its existence to the Declaration of Independence as much as we do, for they represent the reaction against it.I would be willing to bet that one of the reasons they love their health care system so much is that Americans do not have such a program. (And if we adopt such a system, they will say with much snootiness that they inspired the Americans into getting such a system.) But in reality, their socialistic approaches to many problems is only hurting them. While the Canadian economy has expanded, it has not expanded NEARLY as fast as the U.S. economy. And the Canadian economy has expanded due to their blessings of natural resources, not due to what even the governments prefer the driving engine to be - namely, manufacturing and industrial activity. The gap between the U.S. and Canada continues to grow and expand, in the U.S.'s favor. The Economist reports in their survey of Canada published in December 2005 that Americans made C$1800 more per person than Canadians back in 1981; but in 2003, this gap widened to C$7200. The British publication further reports that Canadians are happy to be poorer if it means keeping their social model, for they see it is better than the heartless version of capitalism to the south. I contend again that this points to the issue of national identity that Canadians continually struggle with.
Here's an admittedly unscientific measure of progression in health care: a listing of the nationalities of those who won the Nobel Prizes in Medicine from 1977 to 2004 in reverse order.
2004: U.S.
2003: U.S. /U.K.
2002: U.S. /U.K.
2001: U.K.
2000: Sweden/U.S.
1999: U.S.
1998: U.S.
1997: U.S.
1996: Australia/Switzerland (no socialized health care in Switzerland)
1995: U.S./Germany
1994: U.S.
1993: U.S./U.K.
1992: U.S.
1991: Germany
1990: U.S.
1989: U.S.
1988: U.S./U.K.
1987: Japan
1986: Italy/U.S.
1985: U.S.
1984: U.K./Argentina/Denmark
1983: U.S.
1982: Sweden/U.K.
1981: U.S.
1980: France/U.S.
1979: U.S./U.K.
1978: U.S/ Switzerland
1977: U.S.
Between 1977 and 2004, U.S. doctors won 22 Nobel Prizes in Medicine - more than the other countries shown combined. To save server space I did not list ALL the recipients, but I noticed that the Nobel prize winners in the early going were from many assorted European countries. This began to change in the 1960s, when the listing of winners trended sharply American. I wonder what motivated all of these doctors. Pure altruism? The commitment to doing work for free? Did any of these doctors give away their prize money or refuse it?And why are all of these Nobel prize winners hailing from the United States? Could it be that the system of health care here favors innovation and different approaches, due to the market-oriented system that exists here? (And rewards such innovation?) Why do I not see any Canadians listed here? Why did the last French recipient get his or her prize in 1980?
Yet more evidence that gives me pause to wonder why there are so many in the United States dedicated to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I'm Sitting on a Federally restored beach, Unsane.
September 7, 2009 - 15:25 ET by 007memoI'm sitting on a Federally restored beach, Unsane, among a crowd of of Republican Federal Aid recipients.
Tomorrow, those Republicans will go to work at the largest employer in the county, the local government. And they will continue to spew, just like you, about that *&^ @#!& Federal Government.
→ memo
September 7, 2009 - 15:31 ET by Cool ArrowI'm confused as to how your "local government" could possibly be larger than the Federal Government.
But if you say it's so, I guess we should believe you, huh?
No, I'd rather you explained that one.
We will Barry you! - Russian prophecy
County, not country, Coolarrow
September 7, 2009 - 17:07 ET by 007memoI wrote the local government is the largest employer in the county, not country.
→ OK
September 7, 2009 - 17:15 ET by Cool ArrowThat I can believe.
It's sad the private sector where you live isn't larger than the local government.
I don't know how we'd manage if our local government employed more people than the private sector.
Are you in California or something?
We will Barry you! - Russian prophecy
Here's My Paranoia, CoolArrow
September 7, 2009 - 18:08 ET by 007memoI've called a couple others here "paranoid", CoolArrow so I know of whence I speak. My paranoia, admittedly, is that one of the crazies might come after me for my contrary opinions, so I will neither confirm nor deny my location.
Here's the remainder of my reply from my last comment.
Oh, I see what you meant. My county is Republican. The Republicans are no less dependent on the local government (for their jobs and political favors) than they are dependent on the Federal Government for it's aid (beach replenishment and disaster aid, roads and bridges, and other infrastucture, Coast Guard help for recreational boaters and swimmers, etc). They are hypocrites, in this instance anyway, was my point.
But, at least in the face of a hurricane disaster, my fellow Republicans would ROFL if you suggested they depend on the local government to come to their aid. HaHaHaHaHa!!!
The adjoining Democratic County is no better mind you, but they don't pretend they are any less dependent on the Federal, or local Government for their common good.
Anyway, I don't need anyone going off on me supposedly claiming Dems are any better, nor hypocrites themselves, I don't believe it for a moment. It just so happens I live in a Republican County. It's small enough that I know who everyone is and see up close how government works, or rather doesn't work. I see the inneficiencies, who gets the jobs and the political favors and it bogggles my mind that this county functions, let alone this country.
I recognize that I may be hoist by my own petard by speaking ill of the Federal Government, but the fact that I'm no fan of government in general doesn't mean I believe it can't provide it's benefits when necesssary.
Stupidity
September 7, 2009 - 20:33 ET by UnsaneSheesh, is there NOTHING you ascribe to the federal government?
Show me where in the Constitution it says that the federal government has the explicit power to restore beaches. That is probably what all those people are bitching about. But you see, you don't get that, because you don't know one damn thing about your country's government, except that you have some idea in your head that it is supposed to completely, totally BABY you. Maybe that owes to the fact that although you are a physically mature adult - I think - you are an absolutely helpless infant otherwise.
By the way, I'm not a Republican. Not by a long shot. I do not belong to any political party, though I make no bones about being a Rightist. And I should also point out that, contrary to your belief, I have a private employer and am thus subject to the whims of the market.
But your little rant there sure beats the hell out of admitting you are childish, immature, and flat-out wrong in regards to your warped ideas about what rights are, isn't it?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
A few months before Katrina
September 2, 2009 - 07:28 ET by danboA few months before Katrina another intense but smaller hurricane had New Orleans in the cross hairs. Hurricane Dennis.
Though it eventually turned NE; for quite a while we were watching it.
Many of the people below New Orleans got out. I kept waiting for the state to make a call because it takes time to move people. And I needed to move about 80 people.
Neither Blanco's office nor Nagin would make a call. Either the parish president of Jefferson or St Tammany took it upon himself to make the call. And was loudly criticized for the decision.
Nagin didn't didn't make the call for a manditory evacuation till either late saturday or Sunday morning before Katrina.
Katrina didn't shift to the NE.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
On "The Daily Show,"
September 1, 2009 - 23:01 ET by MidAmericaOn "The Daily Show," Williams said "everyone" knew Bush would have done better if white people were endangered:
uuhhh... white people were endangered. They left town when the storm headed their way.
There's a big difference between people who take care of themselves and people who look to others for their needs.
There's Racism in MidAmerica
September 2, 2009 - 00:39 ET by 007memoThere's Racism in MidAmerica, who would have thunk it.
That's not racism. The
September 2, 2009 - 05:47 ET by MidAmericaThat's not racism. The ones who left town were watching out for themselves and they were of all colors. The ones who stayed were generally poor and government dependent. That's not a racial issue that's a cultural one.
No intended Racism from MidAmerica
September 2, 2009 - 09:45 ET by 007memoMiddie said : "uuhhh... white people were endangered. They left town when the storm headed their way."
I'll put it very gently to you MidAmerica, that is a rather racist statement.
Along with this statement: "There's a big difference between people who take care of themselves and people who look to others for their needs." But you just mean poor people who happen to be black when referring to "people who look to others for their needs", don't you?
And what is the "cultural issue" that keeps white people living, and government dependent, in beachfront communities, the Mississipi River flood plain, California's tinderboxes and earthquake zones, and Tornado Alleys of MidAmerica?
The point is that these white people are no less dependent on the government. The difference is that they can drive away from the disaster in their Mercedes.
I'll put it very gently to
September 2, 2009 - 09:55 ET by anonymous621I'll put it very gently to you 007memo, only a liberal would find that comment racist. Speaking of cultures, I have never seen a culture so determined to keep minorities down and sucking on the government teat as the culture of liberalism. Of course, your comment that white people left NO in their Mercedes isn't stereotypical or racial at all, now is it? But wait a minute, didn't the mayor of NO say it was a "Chocolate City"? What if he said it was a "White Chocolate City"? Racism is ugly, any way you slice it. Only a liberal would seek it out.
-Eric
A rock would find that comment Racist
September 2, 2009 - 11:15 ET by 007memoA rock would find MidAmerica's comment Racist. Of course, a rock can discern reality better than "you people".
And then, "you people", with the indignation and uber sensitivity of the most repressed minority, want to pretend my comment that "white people left NO in their Mercedes" is stereotypical and racist. Racist comment? Sheeeeeesh!
007memo?
September 2, 2009 - 12:07 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonYou admit to having the intelligence level of a rock?
from your posts, I really can't find an argument, but hey, you know you better than I.
http://gjresult.com
brian williams - pathetic excuse for a journalist
September 1, 2009 - 23:03 ET by NotFondOfLibsbrian williams and andrea mitchell are 2 reasons I do not watch NBC News. Those 2 cretins can throw snowballs at the Equator before I ever go to that network for a news story. Objective journalists? Not by a long shot. Both are Bush haters to the max.
It was a FRIGGIN' STORM,
September 1, 2009 - 23:41 ET by RR GOPIt was a FRIGGIN' STORM, idiots...does "act of nature" mean anything to these morons?
When you build a city at or below flood level and/or sea level, occasionally it's going to flood.
And if people are too stupid to leave, they are probably going to suffer and possibly die.
Tragic, but simple concept.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
You'd think that the
September 2, 2009 - 10:36 ET by QueenMumYou'd think that the political ideology that considers a terrorist attack a "man-made disaster" would understand the concept of an act of nature. But we've been down this road before. The story never changes. Republicans hate blacks. Obama would have boarded AirForce One immediately to begin rescuing the victims. The waters would have receeded as soon as he set foot on New Orleans soil. Then the sun would come out and dry up all the rain.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
New Orleans wasn't below
September 2, 2009 - 12:47 ET by NL207New Orleans wasn't below sea level when it was founded. In fact, it might even have been considered the "high ground" in 1707.
In the intervening 300 years, man has conspired with nature to allow the soil there to subside 30 feet. Not only is it no longer 'high ground', it is now largely at or below sea level.
Very good NL
September 2, 2009 - 15:41 ET by general companyYour right, they drained it, and then the soil dried and shrunk. This is the very same problem we are having with our southern most wetlands, it used to be higher then the sea, but when we built the levies and rerouted drain water they also dried out. Then the salt water from the gulf came in and killed the rest of it. BTW that was our Hurricain buffer, now its like an out of control car on wet grass!
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
You're wrong
September 2, 2009 - 20:50 ET by nwahsLook at any typography map. New Orleans sits in the Mississippi River delta. The only parts that were ever above sea level are the parts right by the river because of sediment deposit. Before the levee system the Mississippi River would change course, and broadening the area of sediment deposits, but still, most of the area was below sea level- its a delta ( i.e., where river becomes ocean)! The same areas safe in 1700 are still pretty safe now(the French Quarter, Algiers). The crap that flooded is what used to be swamp land. Most areas around New Orleans were at sea level which accounts for them being swamps and not lakes, land, or ocean - swamps- where land and rivers become sea.
"If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names." -Elbert Hubbard
Interesting. But, isn't
September 2, 2009 - 21:41 ET by RR GOPInteresting. But, isn't it safe to say that New Orleans like many other cities are indeed built in flood-prone areas like the others up and down the Mississippi, the Missouri, etc.?
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Yes
September 2, 2009 - 22:16 ET by nwahsYes, but for different reasons. The areas prone to flooding up river, are prone to flooding because of the river cresting at higher levels than normal. If the level was normal, it wouldn't be called flooding, it would be called cresting :) New Orleans is prone to flooding because it was once the sea. Deltas build up, not down. Now elevations in the delta will change and areas will subside, but they are always higher than they were before the river existed. The river creates the delta. Now this delta it creates can never be much higher than sea level. In fact the shape of the delta is formed because at sea level, the river's course is ambiguous, and changes creating that triangle as the river gets to sea level. So all this land New Orleans is built on, was once sea, and was created by the Mississippi River sediment over millions of years.
"If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names." -Elbert Hubbard
If the obvious escapes you....
September 2, 2009 - 22:59 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonThe gravel and larger rocks settle out long before the river meets the ocean, so what the delta is made of is the lightest, easiest to carry by the river and only depositied when the flow comes to a near stop.
Go find a delta, fill a bucket of the stuff, then dry it out and check the consistency. More like flour, than dirt in your garden.
http://gjresult.com
Good Lord! Ronald Reagan
September 7, 2009 - 15:23 ET by NL207Good Lord! Ronald Reagan was right! Liberals aren't ignorant. It's just that so much of what they know isn't so.
What topographic map of New Orleans are you looking at? My hunch is that it wasn't drawn in 1707 when the city was founded.
New Orleans sits on a river delta. River deltas compact. This one is also sinking due to overburden. "The sediments pose a particular challenge for New Orleans, causing it to sink irreversibly at a rate of about 0.4 centimeters (0.17 inches) a year"
Man unwisely pumped groundwater out of the Mississippi River delta.
Man unwisely prevented new sediments from reaching the delta.
So I was wrong, eh?
>Tap!< >Tap!< >Tap!<,
>Tap!< >Tap!< >Tap!<,
Gee, I wonder what that sound could be? Why, it's old NL nailing another fresh troll hide to his barn wall.
→ NL207
September 7, 2009 - 15:27 ET by Cool ArrowI thought it was the sound of Helen Keller screaming for help.
We will Barry you! - Russian prophecy
Cool--
September 7, 2009 - 15:31 ET by Kat Outta the BagI almost hate myself for laughing at that!
Kat... Hey, I'm laughing
September 7, 2009 - 15:33 ET by bigtimerKat...
Hey, I'm laughing as well... from NL on down, it's a natural instinct.
'Go Green...Recycle Congress'
Insane People Remember MS hit Worst
September 2, 2009 - 00:37 ET by 007memoUnsane asks: "Do people remember that MS actually got the WORST of Katrina?"
Yes, the insane people who went off their meds that day remember.
You got this from Fox News didn't you? I remember their desperate attempt to trump this supreme lie. They interviewed Haley Barbour, Gov of MS, the President, Brownie and the Governor of Alabama (whose name escapes me) at a photo op the Thursday following the hurricane in Mississippi. They tried to frame the disasterous Federal Response as a Democratic screw up in Lousiana, "but" they said, "look at our Republican states, we're in great shape."
Only the fact is, Alabama had minor damage. And MS, while having quite significant damage, it was still a fraction of the devastation that Louisiana incurred.
Who would have thought that incredible propoganda would have worked? Well, we see it worked on Unsane.
I'm pretty sure this was the same meeting where Bush said "you're doin a heck of a job Brownie." Unsane agrees that Brownie did a heck of a job.
Look ya big dope, I clearly
September 2, 2009 - 01:02 ET by Clear thinkerLook ya big dope, I clearly remember seeing the TV shots of whole neighborhoods completely wiped off the map. The only thing left was thousands of cement foundations! So don't try to come off as MS had it easy. The biggest difference was in the leadership of those two states. One state had excellent leadership, the other had a bunch of corrupt indecisive pols trying to fix what they screwed-up! LMAO!
http://iamnotaracist.wordpress.com/
ct... I've read all these
September 2, 2009 - 01:23 ET by bigtimerct...
I've read all these comments today regarding Katrina...what fun it would be to go back and put on all the various threads we had about them here years ago now...they were delicious....and nothing but the plain truth.
That was back before they rejiggered the site and we lost all that from way back when...but I remember well. ;-)
'Go Green...Recycle Congress'
The horror! bt...
September 2, 2009 - 01:36 ET by JerYou mean there was a vast repository of accumulated NewsBuster wisdom forever lost to humankind?
That's surely the worst catastrophe of its kind since the Royal Library of Alexandria burned to the ground two thousand years ago.
Jer
What the heck was that
September 2, 2009 - 01:50 ET by bigtimerWhat the heck was that supposed to mean Jer?
Oh never mind...I can already hear your response.
Evidently your wife isn't back yet...you still have free reign on the use of the computer...unless you have been sanctioned to the basement again.
'Go Green...Recycle Congress'
Btw Jer...if you had been
September 2, 2009 - 01:54 ET by bigtimerBtw Jer...if you had been included back then you would have thought it was the worst thing that happened since the RLoA burned to the ground...knowing your ego.
Leave it to you to even think of it that way.
'Go Green...Recycle Congress'
Lighten up, bt...
September 2, 2009 - 02:11 ET by JerI was just kidding. No offense intended.
Jer
I am in a good mood...don't
September 2, 2009 - 02:13 ET by bigtimerI am in a good mood...don't need to lighten up Jer. ;-)
'Go Green...Recycle Congress'
Good...Now stay that
September 2, 2009 - 02:16 ET by JerGood...Now stay that way!
G'night...
Jer
Watching Red-Eye...how can
September 2, 2009 - 02:19 ET by bigtimerWatching Red-Eye...how can I not?
'Go Green...Recycle Congress'
BT
September 2, 2009 - 02:29 ET by MrShyRed Eye's funny, but that guy's a bit too much for me. :p
Deleted by author.
September 2, 2009 - 12:28 ET by QueenMumDeleted by author.
I'm so glade we had it easy
September 2, 2009 - 07:05 ET by danboI'm so glade we had it easy in Mississippi and Alabama.
The battleship Alabama in Mobile Bay is still listing from Katrina. A friend who lives north of Biloxi bay went home to find a tug boat siting in the empty lot accross the street. (It was still there last time I looked.) Another friend in North Bay St Louis, his house is built on stilts for the normal hurricanes. The water was almost to his attic I live N of I-10 a mile from the bay on very high ground. Water flooded the house two doors away. Pretty much everything on the Mississippi coast for 3 blocks in was completely destroyed and much of the rest flooded. Even in Louisiana. Both St Bernard and St Tammany are way ahead of Orleans.
A number of months after Katrina one of the NO TV folks was doing a show from top the levee at the Jefferson/Orleans line. Behind him was Jefferson Parish. All the street lights and homes lit.
Then he turned with his back to Orleans. Total darkness.
Before Katrina, Jefferson took the federal money and raised the levee. The Orleans Levee Board renovated the Mardi Gras fountain and installed fiber optics. Orleans dredged their side of the canal, undercutting the levee. And environmental groups used the courts to block storm gates at the canal enterences.
I spent 2 days parked along side I-10 near the Louisiana/Mississippi line. I watched the convoys go by. But they never got to new Orleans. I heard on WWL radio that the state was stopping them at Gonzales or Plaqmine. Because they wanted to get the people out of New Orleans.
More than anything. Orleans was a democratic screw up.
Sorry for the Tangent. But I had to evacuate people from Louisiana then get myself out for Katrina. I lived through the recovery both in Mississippe and Louisiana. I get angry with the BS.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Katrina AFB
September 2, 2009 - 08:20 ET by UnsaneI saw and heard accounts from "Katrina AFB" that show how MS really took it on the chin. What this should show is that New Orleans could have gotten far worse than it did, and its government got off lucky, even as poorly as things happened there.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yep,
September 2, 2009 - 15:58 ET by general companyMiss and lower Plaquemines Parish got the worst of the wind. Just devistating, like someone said nothing but foundation as far as the eye could see in many places. N.O. was really spared, most folks dont truly understand how much worst it could had been. For one thing the levees that broke were from Lake Pontchartrain and the Industrial canal, now these two water ways are at about sea level. Now if the Miss River levee breaks, ussally about 20ft above sea level, then you have a compleatly different ball game. Also if the storm passes over Pontchartrain, the pressure would force the water out on all sides, again changing the game for the worst. So as bad as it was, it was still a ton better then it could had been.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Well allow me to retort!
September 2, 2009 - 08:16 ET by UnsaneYeah. How dare I listen to people who live in MS, right? Also, if you wish to scream about how I am lying, you MAY want to back it up. I have never heard anyone say anything other than the worst of the storm hit MS.
You may want to read that entire post, again, several more times. TX prepares for hurricanes. Are you sitting around, fretting and whining about how Houston has such a long way to go for recovery from Hurricane Ike? No.
You may also wish to figure out whose responsibility it is to prepare for natural disasters and emergencies such as that. For some bizarre reason, states throughout the union prepare adequately for what may hit their area (CA and other West Coast states for earthquakes and volcanoes; Gulf Coast and Atlantic states for hurricanes, midwestern states for floods and tornadoes). All but ONE place. Why is is that one city has not figured out what the rest of America long since figured out? Hell, why haven't YOU figured out what this "federalism" thing is? Why haven't YOU figured out what state and local governments do for their citizens?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Well said! And let me
September 2, 2009 - 08:33 ET by motherbeltWell said!
And let me add, for our resident genius above, that the number of people displaced, or the amount of damage, doesn't have to do with who had the worst of the actual storm. MS didn't have as much damage from flooding because they are not below sea level, like NOLA. AND they prepared better.
Neither does amount of news coverage equal amount of damage. They concentrated on NOLA because that's where the biggest mess was, because of the screwups! Whose fault were those?
And obviously Genius007 thinks that "federalism" means the "federal" government is responsible for everything.
A few more words on federalism for those who need it
September 2, 2009 - 08:46 ET by UnsaneOne of the brilliant results of federalism is that when you divide up responsibilities among several levels of government, you can get better results. Take CA and TX. CA is prone to seismic events, so it prepares for them as a result. TX is hurricane prone, so it prepares for hurricanes. (And TX residents say "Boy, I'm glad I don't have to worry about earthquakes!" and CA residents say "Boy, I am glad that I don't have to worry about hurricanes!")
Sacramento does not pay for hurricane preparedness (even western Pacific hurricanes rarely threaten even San Diego) and Austin does not pay for earthquakes. This tends to make governments a bit more responsive to emergencies.
None of this is meant to insult your intelligence as much as it is aimed at stupid Leftists who want and expect the federal government to be unitary.
But you are right, I suspect all of this is lost on Genius007.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Everyone's a Socialist in an emergency shelter, Unsane
September 3, 2009 - 01:16 ET by 007memoWhat land do you live in where the Federal Government doesn't step in to handle every single major disaster, InsaneUnsane? LaLa Land.
And who puts up the bulk of the money for a states infrastructure to protect against a natural disaster. Uncle Sam, that's who. If your state is well protected it's by virtue of the Federal Government, not the wonderful foresight and planning of your local elected officials.
But Uncle Sam failed to adequately protect NO from disaster - the Army Corps levy project was a joke. They had always known that the levies wouldn't hold when faced with a major hurricane.
And blather all you like about what states do to prepare for emergencies. When that emergency comes, the first thing your governor will do is lobby the federal governmet to declare their state a national disaster area, and beg on their hands and knees for help.
Your Republican sate and every state in this union is completely dependent on the federal government to rescue them in the wake of a major disaster. Just as they were over Katrina. What a sap.
Ignorance on parade
September 5, 2009 - 21:36 ET by UnsaneIf your state is well protected it's by virtue of the Federal Government, not the wonderful foresight and planning of your local elected officials. Your Republican sate and every state in this union is completely dependent on the federal government to rescue them in the wake of a major disaster. Really? So when Governor Perry - CinC of the TX National Guard - ordered them into action in the name of Hurricane Ike foir relief - that was just a figment of my imagination?
And as for the highways - the federal government paid for it. The right of way, that is. The upkeep is paid for by TXDoT.
Next I suppose you will tell me that the local Power Trippers, the state Power Trippers, and the local and volunteer firefighters are ALL 100% federally funded too.
A town I lived in once - where I was a volunteer firefighter - dealt with flash floods with only local preparation. Basic contingency plans were drawn up by the volunteers and the local government.
Do you need more cold water? I have plenty more.
Other than ceaselessly vomiting propaganda, what other purpose do you have here? I would suggest that it is to get an education. You seem to think that the United States is unitary, with the states doing next to nothing. Just the events over my lifetime - to say nothing of the American experiences and history you seem so willfully ignorant of - completely contradict you. Sure, the federal government does some things - such as the Army Corps of Engineers building the Galveston seawall in the wake of the hurricane of 1900. But your insistance that the federal government does it all only shows your ignorance of the government and history of this country.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Motherbelt - have another belt
September 2, 2009 - 23:39 ET by 007memoHave another belt of that Kool Aid and before long you'll be blaming Obama for the Katrina.
Says the propagandist
September 5, 2009 - 21:40 ET by Unsane...says the blind worshipper of His Majesty The Shahinshah, whose sole goal on NB is to vomit as much Leftist propaganda as possible.
Who do I blame for Katrina? Warm waters in the Gulf, the Coriolis effect, and other matters that enter the equation when building hurricanes. As for the human side of the equation - those local authorities you have such disdain for (as you seem to think our government is as unitary as, say, France's is) and their shoddy planning and execution.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Ummm, no!
September 5, 2009 - 22:53 ET by RESTLESS 1We blame Nagin and Blanco. Say it with me "Nagin... and Blanco".
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
Despicable
September 6, 2009 - 23:25 ET by UnsaneI'm pretty sure this was the same meeting where Bush said "you're doin a heck of a job Brownie." Link or slink. This is a pretty despicable statement, even by a constantly vomiting Leftist propagandist such as yourself.
And quite sorry, sweetie, MS got the worst of the storm. That is where the strong side wound up. Much like back in 1999 when a fairly sizeable hurricane hit south of Corpus Christi. The worst of it entered Kenedy County. Now, for those of you who do not know, Kenedy County has...cows. It MIGHT be inhabited. I don't know. I know that U.S. 77 goes through it and even that was a fairly recent addition. It might not have inflicted much in the way of damage to that county, but fact is, that is where the worst part of the storm wound up.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Despicable Hairsplitting, Unsane
September 7, 2009 - 01:42 ET by 007memoDespicable Hairsplitting, Unsane
Unsane, if a tree falls in the forrest and there's no one there to hear the crash, does it make a sound?
And your point is, the storm was worse in MS!!! and "It might not have inflicted much in the way of damage to that county".
So, the storm was worse in MS, but the physical damage was much worse in NO. All righty then, point taken.
As to your "link or slink" comment. You don't mean that you never heard Bush say "heck of a job Brownie"? Did I miss something? Here's the link anyway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO2xi0uLnj8
That is the Republican Governor of Alabama, Bob Riley, to the left of Bush in that video. It was that stop on the Rove Propaganda tour of Bush trying to lay blame for his incompetence on the LA Dems - which was more important to him at the time than say, concentrating on rescuing the dying victims of the storm.
The rest of America was stunned by Bush's statement, you and yours obviously thought Brownie and Bush were in fact, doin a heck of a job.
Not remotely rational
September 7, 2009 - 08:15 ET by UnsaneDespicable Hairsplitting, Unsane Nope. The truth. You just don't want to buy it because of your intense hatred of Bush which from the looks of things only animates you.
The rest of America was stunned by Bush's statement, you and yours obviously thought Brownie and Bush were in fact, doin a heck of a job. Really? The rest of America - whom you obviously speak for - was "stunned"? So why is it that this is the first I have heard of this in FOUR YEARS? I don't just follow domestic news sources, but international ones as well, and this is the FIRST I have heard of it. I still am extremely suspicious, especially coming from a poster whose whole raison d'etre is a passionate, overwhelming, intense hatred of Bush - one who seems to only have become angrier and ANGRIER and ANGRIER after the object of his hatred has left office!
It was that stop on the Rove Propaganda tour of Bush trying to lay blame for his incompetence on the LA Dems - which was more important to him at the time than say, concentrating on rescuing the dying victims of the storm. It really isn't my fault that you absolutely, positively, refuse refuse refuse to understand what federalism is. But considering your heart cannot beat without your hatred of Bush, and that from the moment you awaken to the moment you go to bed at night, all you are consumed by is an obsessive devotion of hatred towards an ex-President, it isn't all that surprising. If you successfully grappled with the nasty fact that the first people to react to a disaster such as this are the mayor and governor - as has constantly, repeatedly happened throughout American history - your entire rationale for contnuing to breathe goes out the window (at least in part), and you can't have that.
Seriously, it isn't rational.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Morons like you always
September 6, 2009 - 23:52 ET by NL207Morons like you always amuse me.
Katrina wasn't any sort of catastrophic hurricane. When it made landfall, it was a strong Cat 3 storm, with whopping 125 mph winds. Sounds bad, doesn't it? Try Camille of 1969, a genuine Cat 5 storm. It made landfall with winds of uncertain velocity. Why uncertain? Because all the instruments designed to measure wind velocity located near the eye wall of the storm were destroyed by Camille. That's right. They were destroyed. All of them. The instrument nearest the eye wall that survived recorded 200 MPH.
The people most responsible for the chaos in New Orleans as a result of Katrina were the useless Democratic leaders of that city and the equally worthless Democrat Governor. Intellectually corrupt clods like you try to blame Bush for the failure of these local officials to act. They are the first lines of defence in any emergency. These two did nothing until it was too late. The federal government is far away, both physically and statutorially and cannot be expected to be a first responder.
delete
September 2, 2009 - 03:43 ET by ConservativeRexdelete
Mississippi
September 2, 2009 - 07:04 ET by harqmanNo one cares that Mississippi took the brunt of it. There were 14,000 peoplein the lower ninth ward. Well that was the reported population prior to Katrina. Certainly they were not allhome when she hit. Katrina was not the cause of the flooding in NOLA. I live 60 miles inland from where she hit. The eye passed over us too. But twhat happened to NOLA was preventable to some degree. Had the local authorities worked their plan. The state worked their plan and so on. There was fighting as who would get to call who so come election time they could take the credit. Brian Williams doesn't care about the republicans that got hit. It is sad.
Memories...
September 2, 2009 - 08:24 ET by UnsaneI wonder if people remember Bush asking Gov Blanco if she needed anything, and that she and Mayor Nagin were basically fighting amongst themselves the whole time. The fact that Bush would have asked the governor anything first makes total sense: Bush was once a governor and knew very well how local officials took on the primary responsibility for disasters.
Nah. Bush was and is the well-spring of evil. Nothing to see here, folks, move along...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
There may be more. As I
September 2, 2009 - 08:50 ET by danboThere may be more. As I recall. Nagin wouldn't support fellow democrat in her run for the governor's mansion.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Re Memories
September 2, 2009 - 11:41 ET by slickwillie2001I've always suspected much more than incompetence from the democratics. I suspect that Blanco and the DNC conspired to keep President George W. Bush and the federal organizations including the National Guard from helping out in New Orleans until it turned into a disaster, in order to come up with a midterm election issue. They also purposely delayed evacuation advice until it was too late. It worked to some extent.
I don't think Nagin was in on it, he's just too stupid and mentally unstable to trust with any conspiracy.
To the liberals, a few deaths is a small price to pay for political victory.
I agree compleatly SW, except the part
September 2, 2009 - 16:07 ET by general companyAbout Nagen not being involved. Now you are right, he is stupid as a fence post, but he is a mental giant compaired to Blanco (never a more fitting name). The fact that they both allowed themselves to be played at the expence of their own folks tells you all you need to know about these two. People forget how many city workers and Fire Fighters and Cops quit because of these two clowns.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
slickwillie, Adjust that tin foil hat
September 4, 2009 - 15:43 ET by 007memoslickwillie, Adjust that tin foil hat: "I suspect that Blanco and the DNC conspired to keep President George W. Bush and the federal organizations including the National Guard from helping out in New Orleans until it turned into a disaster, in order to come up with a midterm election issue."
That's as assinine a conspiracy theory as those who believe Bush purposely allowed NO to drown because he's a racist.
Nonetheless, there was a "conspiracy of incompetence" by the Bush Administration.
What a joke
September 5, 2009 - 21:46 ET by UnsaneNonetheless, there was a "conspiracy of incompetence" by the Bush Administration. Nonetheless, their is an absolute refusal on your part to acknowledge that government in the United States is federal, not unitary.
If, for instance, Bush nationalized the LA National Guard - just as his old man did with the CA National Guard in April/May 1992 - you would have SCREAMED and SCREAMED and SCREAMED bloody murder about what an evil usurper he is. There is no way he can win in your eyes.
He did what any other President that was a former Governor did - he asked them if they needed anything from the federal government (owing once again to that mystifying concept called federalism). Gov Blanco and Mayor Nagin were too busy bickering among themselves like children.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
i wish
September 2, 2009 - 07:26 ET by ronwhen "journalists" make statements like this someone would make them back up what they say or else make them admit it's just their opinion.
And if wishes were
September 2, 2009 - 08:35 ET by motherbeltAnd if wishes were Chevvies, beggars would be drive....
(OK, so that's not how it really goes; I'm updating it LOL)
Ron speaks truth - Journalists shouldn't opine
September 4, 2009 - 15:32 ET by 007memoRon says: "when "journalists" make statements like this someone would make them back up what they say or else make them admit it's just their opinion."
But, then there'd be no Fox News Network.
You do touch the surface of a very valid point though Ron. These clowns are not jounalists. Especially "Journalists" like Beck, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly. They simply spew lies, opinion and innuendo which there minions take for journalism.
What don't you understand when Rush says, ya know, "I am not a journalist"? That's pretty clear isn't it? And what about Beck saying he doesn't have all the facts and urges you to fact check him and look into it for yourselves.
When they're called on their lies they innocently claim, "I told them I'm not a journalist. I told them to check the facts themselves, ya know, don't take my word for it." They can't help it if their infantile minions believe what they say.
There are credible journalists with integrity on Fox News, but none of the evening line up of bloviators is a journalist - so the bloviators are excused from being objective and truthful. I remember O'Reilly on his show, and Hannity subsequently, interviewing Sheppard Smith reporting live from NO. They both tried their best to get Smith to confirm the Rove talking Points that the survivors were in dire circumstances because of Nagin and Blanco. Smith's reply each time was "I don't know whose fault it is, I just know someone better get here with help".
The same night a retired Colonel, one of Fox's Analysts (again not a journalist), was being interviewed by O'Reilly about how incompetent the Dem Gov and Mayor were. Apparently the Colonel failed to get the memo because he was having none of O'Reilly's nonsense. He harshly stated that Bush was guilty of Dereliction of Duty for his failed response to Katrina. O'Reilly was speechless, needless to say.
I never saw that Fox Analyst again on the network.
AS to Brian Williams, I am not about to defend his lightweight brand of journalism. But this blogs quote from him is an accurate statement:
"Everyone watching the coverage all week, that kind of reached its peak last weekend, kept saying the same refrain: ‘How is this happening in the United States?’ And the other refrain was, ‘Had this been Nantucket, had this been Boston, Cleveland, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, how many choppers would have –’"
Now if you want to split hairs, not "everyone" was saying this. Cause Fox News viewers had a different reality presented to them than what the rest of the world actually saw - to them it was clearly the Dems fault. But that was only the Fox viewers, they don't count.
Snobbery
September 5, 2009 - 21:48 ET by UnsaneNow if you want to split hairs, not "everyone" was saying this. Cause Fox News viewers had a different reality presented to them than what the rest of the world actually saw - to them it was clearly the Dems fault. But that was only the Fox viewers, they don't count I COULDN'T see Fox where I was, and even then, I saw incompetent local and state government on parade.
But that is some serious elitist snobbery on your part in that highlighted portion.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Never-Ending Bias Is Right
September 2, 2009 - 09:58 ET by dboWhen it comes to natural disasters, the MSM continuously fails to mention that Barack Obama hates white people.
The municipality that
September 2, 2009 - 11:13 ET by jcollins9The municipality that received the worst impact, flooding and damage from Katrina is St. Bernard Parish, La, my home town (yes, still). I do not live below sea level. I did evacuate. Most people have no idea what happened during Katrina. I've lived here most of my life. For the last 40 years or so (up until Katrina), most people around here have become jaded to the danger that hurricanes present. During that time, we have allowed our coastline to erode and thousands of square miles of marshes have disappeared. Meanwhile, our federally built levees have been found to have been insufficiently engineered, improperly constructed, and made of substandard materials. Federal, state, and local authorities have all failed to maintain the levees as required by law. Local levee boards drifted from their purpose of helping to maintain the levees to running casinos, building parks, and other things. Federal inspectors fly in to New Orleans from washington, inspect about 150 miles of levees in about 3 hours, then spend the rest of the week in New Orleans. While all of this was going on, the corps dug a channel through my parish, hoping to spur industry and shipping, which it did not. The MRGO was constantly dredged because they neglected to build levees around it and the marshland around it kept collapsing into it and filling it in, eroding until the channel which was originally about 650 feet wide, is more than three times that in some places, and now averages about 1500 feet. It was only closed to shipping this year, after the damage was done. The eye of Katrina passed over my house, in St Bernard Parish, La. I have satellite photos and radar imagery, if you'd like to see it. There was water up to my ceiling joists for about two or three weeks. If you want to blame Bush, go ahead. But you also need to blame Clinton, Carter, Tip O'Neil, and countless nameless buerocrats. Also blame CNN, ABC, CBS, Fox, and all of the media outlets. They passed on horror stories about murder, rape and horrible things in the Superdome and Convention Center. Those things didn't happen (No one was murdered or raped in either facility). Much of the delay in getting supplies and volunteers was due to this. I know this first hand. I've spoken to people who were here. I've spoken to people who tried to get in. The devastation caused during Katrina and it's aftermath weren't because of a few poor decisions by Bush. They were caused by decades of malfeasance on federal, state, and local levels, by a populace that had become tired of leaving or bracing for hurricanes that never arrived, or, if they did come in, did so with a whimper. Also, for those of you who say all of the people in the Dome were the poor, who didn't have another way out, this is a lie, or you are uninformed. The parking lots for the superdome were filled the with cars of people who drove to the dome. I'm not saying everyone, but a decent percentage of the people in the dome had way to leave prior to the storm.
I didn't mean to be so longwinded, but I get so tired of hearing the ignorant rantings of people who want to make what happened in the aftermath of Katrina into some partisan issue.
Man is not free unless government is limited. - Ronald Reagan
jcollins9
September 2, 2009 - 12:26 ET by MrShyGood stuff.
Also, the exploitation by the left of this event -- oh, and of just about every event during Bush's tenure -- for political gain (from the KINGS of exploitation, I might add), is utterly reprehensible.
Great post Collins
September 2, 2009 - 16:17 ET by general companyThanks. BTW I am in Tangipahoa
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Bush Inauguration 2001 - Jon Stewart. Bush hating blacks begins
September 2, 2009 - 12:00 ET by Gary HallBush Inauguration 2001 - Jon Stewart. Bush hating blacks begins here.
It was all too easy for the MSM and their coharts in Hollywood to continue the vile lie.
(;~/ gary
Gary
September 2, 2009 - 12:22 ET by MrShyDisgusting Bush hating/bashing -- I tell dishonest liberals ALL. THE. TIME., who try to sell "he was okay until the Iraq war" -- was in full-force the moment 2000 was "stolen". And even if he won by some acceptable margin, something about a Republican family putting a second in their blood line in the White House infuriated them. Of course, had Teddy or JFK Jr. or Robert... or Hillary, or in the future Chelsea, you name it.... been voted in, the love would just go up another notch.
Liberals. A-holes. All of them. Yeah, I'm mad as hell, and so forth.
EDIT: And just IMAGINE, folks, if this weenie, Jon, did a "humorous" schtick even 1/10th as "risque" and overtly offensive after Obama was elected, the backlash he'd receive? Naturally, they never intended to even touch any uncomfortable Democrat stereotypes or the myriad of awful things in The One's background.
I wonder?
September 2, 2009 - 16:22 ET by general companyWas this before or after they voted Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz the most trusted name in news?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
gen co... me thinks
September 2, 2009 - 18:28 ET by Gary Hall.. it's why they voted him the most trusted name in the news.
(;~/ gary
Yea well,
September 2, 2009 - 19:00 ET by general companyProbably,
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Gary, Most Americans want President to succeed
September 4, 2009 - 16:26 ET by 007memoGary, Most Americans want their President to succeed.
There are always those few who hope the President fails, but most Americans aren't that way. Many believed and hoped that Bush was a "Uniter, not a Divider" and that he would also bring integrity back to the office.
He disapointed many - his approval rating was 23% (even Nixon's was higher, and Clinton's was 63% when he left office, Reagan's around 52%) when he left office and low approval rating plagued his entire presidency.
After 9/11 Bush had an approval rating of 90%. He had all of America in the palm of his hand, but he blew the spectacular opportunity which that goodwill had afforded him and this great country.
And we are all the more divided after his 8 years. Hopefully for all our sakes Obama can accomplish better.
Why is being divided such a bad thing
September 5, 2009 - 21:51 ET by UnsaneAnd we are all the more divided after his 8 years. I really don't see what is so bad about this division you so whine about - it shows that people don't get in lock-step behind their political leadership. If you want to live in a country that is completely united behind its political leadership, may I suggest North Korea or Cuba?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Lock-steppin Republicans, Unsane
September 5, 2009 - 22:11 ET by 007memoSo Bush's dividing the country was a good thing? In the face of crisis America has always done great things, Bush chose petty, partisan politics instead of the good of the country. Patriots expected better.
And speaking of lock-step, the Republican House and Senate voted in lock-step behind their unitary President. They abdicated their role as check and balance to the executive branch during his entire presidency.
Three Bags Full !
September 5, 2009 - 22:18 ET by Free StinkerThree Bags Full !
Hmmm,
September 5, 2009 - 22:19 ET by RESTLESS 1I seem to remember a few rino crossovers re. cap and tax.
And Bush did great things in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq has democratically elected leaders, and at least until the 0 took over, the Taliban was in check in Afghanistan.
But, then again, you thought political dissent was a good thing unti Jan. 20.
You are dismissed.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
I'm not Bush's #1 fan
September 5, 2009 - 22:29 ET by candancebut I do take exception to your claim that he chose partisan politics. He did what he wanted to do, but he didn't attack his critics, and he never once called anyone a "typical black person."
It was healthy back then when conservies here and elsewhere criticized Bush. I'm really tired of the myth that the right went blindly along with everything he did. Michelle Malkin, Neil Boortz, Glenn Beck, Jason Lewis, and Mark Levin are all on record calling for Bush to stop one thing or another. Some of us right here on NB spoke out against the Patriot Act.
McCain savaged Bush over allegations of torture. Republicans like Arlen Spector disagreed with him on a number of issues. Conservie bloggers launched a "kill the bill" campaign to attempt to stop the first bailout.
Your turn. Say one bad thing about Obama. I dare you.
candance
September 5, 2009 - 22:40 ET by MrShy"I'm not Bush's #1 fan"
!!+#&$*% [personal attack] @)$(#*% [ad-hominem here] #%#@^&*$ [profanity-laced tired] #*^%$&@ !!!!!
sorry shy
September 5, 2009 - 22:49 ET by candanceCan't get over the Patriot Act. You know how I feel about it. But I did throw your boy some love in there.
cx2
September 5, 2009 - 23:01 ET by MrShyJust ribbin' a good friend. :)
it's all good
September 5, 2009 - 23:11 ET by candancemy friends are allowed to do that...
NOW GO READ MARETH!!!
(kidding, my dear. I know you're busy. Just had to think of some ribbing to do in return. All of us artists need some ego boosting at times.)
:-D
crickets from 007
September 5, 2009 - 22:59 ET by candancejust as expected
Candance - Gotta work
September 6, 2009 - 12:37 ET by 007memoSorry, gotta work. No time yet.
Weak!
September 6, 2009 - 12:38 ET by Free StinkerWeak!
I'm not Obama's #1 fan, Candance
September 6, 2009 - 13:33 ET by 007memoThis blog bizarrely defends Bush's handling of Katrina, Candance. I haven't defended Obama nor have I said anything good about him.
Bush's entire presidency was a spectacular failure. The fact that Bush let NO drown was a conspiracy of his Administration's incompetence, not racism. The accusations that it was racism are despicable.
Bush didn't prove that America couldn't depend on the Government to come to their aid in a crisis; he proved America couldn't depend on a "Republican" government to aid in a crisis.
so tell me, 007
September 6, 2009 - 17:48 ET by candanceFor the people who died in the Kentucky ice storm (and the 200,000 who went without clean water for more than a week) the government didn't do any good under Democrat leadership either.
Neither did it help poor minorites in Chicago who were left freezing and living in squalor while their "landlord" accepted tax dollars to "fix the building" - only for that very tax money to somehow land in Barack Obama's bank account.
I don't want any government official (repeat: any of them) touching me.
Obama was in office 18 days
September 7, 2009 - 13:04 ET by 007memoObama was in office 18 days by the time of the Kentucky ice storm. In the article you link to: "As for the 25 National Guardsman who had arrived in his county, Smith said they did not have any of the equipment needed to clear away fallen trees. "Disgusted" was the word that the mayor of Leitchfield, Ky., William Thomason, used to describe his frustration with state and federal officials."
Besides the sorry state that Bush left Fema, the National Guards resources of men and machines, like equipment for clearing away fallen trees, were diverted to the middle east. The National Guard was meant to protect us at home, not bear the burden of fighting a war overseas.
We'll see if Obama does any better than Bush in the future, but 18 days in office doesn't allow a valid comparison of Obama versus Bush. He will be judged agianst Bush's performance, no doubt.
As far as this statement, candance: "only for that very tax money to somehow land in Barack Obama's bank account." That is a bat____ crazy conspiracy claim.
Easier to hate than it is to learn
September 6, 2009 - 23:13 ET by UnsaneBush's entire presidency was a spectacular failure This spectacularly stupid sentence only shows me that you are blinded by your overwhelming hatred of Bush. He actually was quite successful in the realm of foreign policy. In fact, that was his greatest accomplishment. He has also picked two good SCOTUS picks, but he nearly blew it with the Harriet Miers deal (which left me scratching my head six months later).
Where he blew it was not vetoing some budgets and demanding the Republicans in Congress be better stewards of the money flowing into the Treasury. This eventually cost the Republican party. I didn't care for No Child Left Behind or for the new prescription drug benefit for seniors.
At best, he was average.
Before you come in here screaming again about how Bush "let NO drown", I suggest you get a lot smarter about American history and governance, which is something you are constantly demonstrating you know very little about. The state and local governments of this country are responsible for events such as Katrina. Many other natural disasters occurred on Bush's watch, before and after Katrina, but NONE of them went as badly as it did. Why is that?
For instance, just the year before FL was hit by THREE hurricanes in the span of a month. FL was left reeling but they were back on their feet after a short period. Why is that? Could that have anything - anything at all - to do with the fact that FL - a STATE government - was prepared to deal with the situation???
Bush didn't prove that America couldn't depend on the Government to come to their aid in a crisis; he proved America couldn't depend on a "Republican" government to aid in a crisis. Ike, the FL hurricanes of 2004, and other natural disasters that occurred during his time in office completely contradict you. Again, this is because of that thing you seem to either hate the most or refuse to acknowledge - the fact that the United States has a federal, not a unitary, government.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You are not remotely getting it
September 6, 2009 - 23:00 ET by UnsaneAnd speaking of lock-step, the Republican House and Senate voted in lock-step behind their unitary President. They abdicated their role as check and balance to the executive branch during his entire presidency. So I take it you are likewise extremely angry with the Democratic House and Senate voting in lock-step behind your God, His Majesty The Shahinshah? What of their complete abdication of their role as a check and balance to the Executive Branch?
Congress is nothing more than a National People's Assembly, a Politburo, a Volkskammer, these days. But curiously, NOT ONE LITTLE TINY PEEP out of you about that. And...
NOT ONE LITTLE TINY PEEP about His Majesty The Shahinshah either, and He has done more to try and rule, not govern, the United States than Bush could dare dream. But you worship Him so He gets a pass from you.
(What the hell is a "unitary President" supposed to be? We know you think the United States has a unitary government, but can you clarify this?)
So Bush's dividing the country was a good thing? In the face of crisis America has always done great things, Bush chose petty, partisan politics instead of the good of the country. Patriots expected better. Huh? You just contradicted yourself. You whined earlier about Bush's 90% approval rating in the wake of 9/11/01 - a crisis if I ever saw one....and now you bitch about how he chose "petty, partisan politics"? (Again, not one PEEP from you about His Majesty The Shahinshah choosing petty partisan politics instead of the good of the country. You definitely have some serious intellectualy inconsistency going on here.) And he DID things for the good of the country, such as having our military kill a few thousand terrorists all over the globe for their misdeeds.
So Bush's dividing the country was a good thing? If you so desperately want to be in the thrall of a leader who has the entire country united behind him, I suggest you emigrate to North Korea or Cuba. This whining about President such-and-such (I don't care who) uniting or dividing the country is pure bullcrap. When we elect leaders to office in representative democracies, we are NOT all supposed to fall in line behind him or her. Respecting an election result is not the same as just shutting up, rolling over, and dying, and allowing whoever to become a dictator. I fully expect any political leader's policies to be thoroughly debated and even opposed by others. Shocking, I know.
Yes, I you have an intense, overwhelming, passionate hatred for Bush. But he's out of power now. Get over it. If you can't, seek professional counseling.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I feel nothing but relief
September 7, 2009 - 20:06 ET by 007memoI feel nothing but relief that George Bush is no longer President. Never had an ounce of hatred for the pathetic creature.
This blog and it's commenters attempt to rewrite history and absolve Bush of responsibility for an epic fail. So my setting the record straight in this context seems permissable.
The fact that I don't find an equivalency between the Bush and Obama's Presidency is logically explained away by the fact that we experienced 8 years of Bush failure yet were barely 8 months into Obama's presidency.
Double zero
September 7, 2009 - 20:07 ET by Free StinkerAre you back again?
And on a school night. Tsk tsk.
007
September 7, 2009 - 20:18 ET by FeynmanFanYou're not impressed with the amount of damage Obama has done to the country in just 8 months? Think about it: we're up to our necks in debt, we're more divided internally than ever, our allies are losing trust in us and we've made it clear to the enemies of America that they have nothing to fear from us. That's pretty damn impressive in just 8 months, don't you think?
"I support the President but not his policies" - Blonde
007... Oh yes honey,
September 7, 2009 - 20:21 ET by bigtimer007...
Oh yes honey, these 8 months now have your Dear Leader in desperation mode...we bad guys did it in no time at all, buckle your seat belt for the rest of the ride...it's going to be rough.
Of course 007, he couldn't have done this all by himself now could he have...along with his brilliant team of whiz-kid 'progressives'?
I'm just grinning about what Soros does behind the scenes as time marches on.
'Go Green...Recycle Congress'
For our resident hack Shahinshah worshipper
September 7, 2009 - 20:56 ET by UnsaneI feel nothing but relief that George Bush is no longer President. Never had an ounce of hatred for the pathetic creature. You say you have no hatred for him, but this entire thread contradicts you. That last sentence alone contradicts you.
This blog and it's commenters attempt to rewrite history and absolve Bush of responsibility for an epic fail. So my setting the record straight in this context seems permissable. Except you can't "set the record straight". The reason you can't? You simply, absolutely, positively, refuse refuse refuse to deal with the fact that the United States is NOT a unitary nation. This basic fact destroys your argument,and all of your petulant jumping up and down and SCREAMING and SCREAMING and SCREAMING that the whole Katrina business is 100% the fault of George W. Bush, who you so repeatedly assure us was and is the locus of all the world's evil, is not going to change this basic fact.
You can't deal with that, or with the fact that other disasters occurred before and after Katrina were handled much better. Not because of Bush, but because local and state authorities were equipped and prepared to go into action. Yet again, this is more evidence of the wonders of federalism, something you cannot grasp. And THAT is the epic fail.
Perhaps it would be best that before you come on here again that you head to wherever you got your civics (snicker) "education" and demand a full refund. Because clearly you have learned absolutely nothing.
The fact that I don't find an equivalency between the Bush and Obama's Presidency is logically explained away by the fact that we experienced 8 years of Bush failure yet were barely 8 months into Obama's presidency. Nope,. no irrational Bush hatred here. See above for where Bush succeeded totally (foreign policy, SCOTUS picks). Let's look at His Majesty The Shahinshah, shall we? He got $800 billion in stimulus money because if He didn't get that money the world would come to an end. Well, here it is, 7-8 months later, and unemployment is at 9.7%. This after He promised it wouldn't get above 8%. He has taken over two car companies and has seen them both lose market share to Ford and others. He is blowing it in Afghanistan, where Bush at least kept things stable (see above). He has been doing everything in His power to weaken the United States: slashing the defense budget, preventing the AF from replacing its fleet of F-15s with F-22s, and not replacing the KC-135 fleet with KC-67s and/or KC-45s (and the two latter planes are both "clean, fuel-efficient" and thus can SAVE the DoD money in fuel and maintenance costs). He has offered to endanger national security by ordering Gitmo closed and having those cute, cuddly, harmless terrorists brought into the United States for trials. He has used His position in office to blast the efforts of local Power Trippers when they were in the right. He used VC-25s to scare the crap out of New Yorkers on 15 April and did not apologize for it. (And whether or not He intended to scare them to me is neither here nor there.)
If He signs "cap and trade" into law, He will successfully shackle the world's most powerful and advanced economy and drive it into total ruin. He wants to nationalize 17% of the United States economy; the very beating heart of the world's medical research, a system people from all over the world flock to for answers and treatment. (It would cost about a tenth of the proposed $1 trillion for HR 3200 to just go out and have the government buy insurance policies for the uninsured straight up. Not that I advocate either approach; it just goes to show that HR 3200 is not meant to baby people as much as it is to micromanage, control, and rule people.) there is virtually nothing He thinks the government can do better (much like you - I'm willing to bet you think the entire reason you exist is because the federal government ordered your parents to copulate 40 weeks before your birth).
Need I go on?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
"Gary, Most Americans want their President to succeed. "
September 5, 2009 - 22:31 ET by R D HelmSorry, but that is 150% bullsh*t.
Should this Marxist fraud of a POTUS "succeed" in turning this country into Cuba, it will mean the end of freedom and liberty in this nation for now and evermore. It will also mean the end of the America we were all born into, and love.
Many millions of REAL Americans are ready to do what is necessary to prevent that from happening, and their numbers are growing daily.
You who despise freedom and liberty, and who have championed the cause of the worthless and useless societal-leech class for the last seven decades, are soon going to be in for a most unpleasant surprise.
We REAL Americans have no intention whatsoever of allowing this sham president to rob us of the things we hold dear. You can scream "terrorism" or "racism" all you want. Believe me, we don't give a flying f*ck what you and your Marxist puke friends think, say or do.
We of the productive class are about to take this country back, no matter what.
If you want to participate in the furthering of oppressive and tyrannical Marxism, then I suggest you relocate to Venezuela.
And that right soon.
-Dave
Even when the government tries to kiss you, it is just a prelude to a good screwing. -Neal Boortz
I've never understood
September 5, 2009 - 22:46 ET by candancethe point about Bush "squandering" his popularity after 9/11.
Why did the left suddenly approve of him anyway? He didn't change his postions. Didn't change his agendas. On the night of 9/11 he was the exact same person he'd been on 9/10.
And yet the left was shocked when he framed a new plan that was consistent with his old plan. How dare he continue to be a Republican! So what happens next? The love affair is quickly over, and they blame him for the breakup.
The left became patriotic, not to support Bush, but for the simple feeling of patriotism. It was in the air, it was infectious, they couldn't help feeling that way. But it didn't have anything to do with Bush. They knew darn well Bush was still a Republican and had no intention of supporting that. But they wanted to use "we're all in this together" to guilt-bomb Bush to become more like them.
Eight years later, what changed? Bush never changed. Republicans never changed. The only difference is that the left stopped pretending to support him.
Maybe this will help, candance...
September 5, 2009 - 23:05 ET by JerThe phrase "9/11 changed everything" has been repeated so often here and elsewhere that it can be reasonably regarded as a cliche`. Are you suggesting Bush failed to adapt accordingly, or that he changed to meet dramatically altered circumstances?
To illustrate, I'll offer the following specific example of his changed philosophy and policy post-9/11: Prior thereto, he had been an outspoken critic of "nation-building". Afterwards, he embraced it.
Jer
9/11 didn't change the left
September 5, 2009 - 23:19 ET by candanceThey are as isolationist, anti-military, and anti-Republican as ever.
The only way Bush changed was being more aware of terrorism and more willing to engage enemies. As far as his change on nation-building, okay, you got me on that point. But are you really going to tell me that's the only point the left was angry about?
Funny how 9/11 was supposed to change the right but not the left.
Can
September 5, 2009 - 23:25 ET by botgi find it amazing how the left equivicates a POTUS following through on National Security (a Constitutionally MANDATED responsibility) and a POTUS following through on nationalizing health care and businesses ( a NON-ENUMERATED power)
unbelieveable
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Bruce!!!
September 6, 2009 - 02:01 ET by RESTLESS 1I've been wondering where you have been. As a fellow Longhorn fan, I've wanted some backup.
I hope all is well with you and yours.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
cx2
September 5, 2009 - 23:37 ET by MrShydouble post, sorry....
cx2
September 5, 2009 - 23:36 ET by MrShyExactly. 9/11 just hardened liberals to their pre-9/11 isolationist thinking... well, by about the end of the summer of 2002, at least, when their short-attention spans forgot all about it and all the flags came down that were lining our streets here. Logical? Nope, but then, that's them.
Also, post-9/11 not-so-isolationist thinking changed Bush's mind on nation-building for the M.E. region, naturally. Good thing that happened, too.
MrShy...If 9/11 just
September 6, 2009 - 00:53 ET by JerMrShy...
If 9/11 just "hardened libs to their pre-9/11 isolationist thinking", why was there such broad support for the intervention in Afghanistan? By the way, I live in an area where my neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods are overwhelmingly conservative Republican. Their flags came down a long time ago, too.
Finally, I wasn't criticizing Bush for changing, only pointing out to candance what I believe to be an erroneous statement re Bush "never changed".
Jer
Because they wanted
September 6, 2009 - 01:05 ET by Conservative VoiceBecause they wanted cover...look at how Obama is managing the war, he isn't in it to win. Their intervention in Afghanistan is equivalent to Clintons wars...that is its a fireworks display but no real effort is made.
Are you suggesting Obama
September 6, 2009 - 01:19 ET by JerAre you suggesting Obama has adopted a defeatist attitude in Afghanistan. If that's the case, how would you characterize the previous administration's policy vis-a-vis Afghanistan?
Jer
Jer,
September 6, 2009 - 02:09 ET by RESTLESS 1Bush's reasoning for A-ghan was to remove the taliban. A-ghan was a means to rid the country of terrorist sympathisers. It worked, until recently, when our current administration, (you remember them, don't you), let it all implode.
Now, Afghanistan is becoming a distraction from the domestic beating the 0 is taking.
Remember when the 0 promised to take out OBL? Where is that testicular fortitude now?
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
Hackery
September 6, 2009 - 23:30 ET by UnsaneAh, my favorite hack...
His Majesty The Shahinshah is gutting the Defense budget. We won't be able to replace our F-15s in full with the F-22. We sure as all hell will not get any new tankers. We might get lucky and get a few more C-17s from Congress but who knows how that will go...
Every time I read of difficulties in Afghanistan under the evil Bush, it normally was along the lines of a threatened "spring offensive", which rarely if ever materialized. Why was that?
Things were at least stable in Afghanistan under Bush...The Economist recently came out with mag that had the headline "Afgahnistan: The Growing Threat of Failure" on the cover. Hmmmm....
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yea cancel the F-22 for ONE ENGINE made from unobtainium alloy
September 7, 2009 - 21:35 ET by upcountrywaterF-35 Will not work as planned, no way.... New engine every flight that will cost more than 50--- F-22's.. Still No way.
Afganistan now has an Explosively formed penetrator
Humm where are the factories that pumps these killer of Americans out?
Come on 0baman bomb em.... No blow back none... come on do a shock and awe... You gave the go ahead to blast some teenage pirates! Feel it man, you can do this, really way better than an aspirin factory....media will love you once again... Bomb bomb bomb iran.....
Unsane, just an FYI i was sitting on a runway in Honolulu waiting for a take-off and a C-5A landed man oh man what a HUGE aircraft, all them tires WOW.... Ah the age of aircraft.... love it.
State controlled health care is Tort Reform.
cd,
September 5, 2009 - 23:41 ET by R D HelmGWB was not a conservative (even though the MSM tried to portray him as such.)
Hell, he gave the left pretty much everything they wanted, as his veto stayed in the drawer for most of his two terms. It probably even dried out a few times.
I still don't get what the lefties were so upset with him about. After all, Bush essentially gave them the rope Obama is about to hang us with.
-Dave
Even when the government tries to kiss you, it is just a prelude to a good screwing. -Neal Boortz
RD Helm - No Veto for Republican Congress
September 6, 2009 - 13:00 ET by 007memoRD Helm says: "Hell, he gave the left pretty much everything they wanted, as his veto stayed in the drawer for most of his two terms." lol.
You do know that it was a Republican Senate and House during most of Bush's term, don't you?
Are you one of the 50% of Americans who don't know which party controls Congress. As soon as the Dems took over he finally took out his veto pen though.
From 2000 to 2006, Bush and the Republican Congress increased the budget 20%.
In the last year of Clinton's term, there were about 3,000 earmarks in the budget. In 2006, Bush and the Republican Congress had about 12,000 earmarks in their budget. Barney Frank made them do it!!!
Just some fun facts you're unaware of.
You are right though RD, but Bush met the definition of Republican Conservative perfectly, claiming to be fiscally conservative but actually spending money like drunken sailors. They put the libruls to shame.
Know your audience
September 7, 2009 - 08:22 ET by UnsaneUm, you DO know that R D Helm is a Libertarian, do you not?
If ANYONE has been consistent in his criticism of Bush, it is he.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I know a dishonest audience, Unsane
September 7, 2009 - 09:19 ET by 007memoI know a dishonest audience, Unsane, libertarian or not.
Pretending that the Bush and Republican Congress overspending and skyrocketing Republican pork projects were giving "the left pretty much everything they wanted", is simply dishonest. The fact is, Bush gave the Republican Congress everything they wanted, and vice versa.
Intellectual dishonesty
September 7, 2009 - 09:33 ET by UnsaneWell, I know an intellectually dishonest poster named 007memo, one who is perpetually enraged that GWB was even born to begin with, one who vomits and vomits and vomits Leftist propaganda on NB.
The Left got everything they wanted from Bush and more. Take the presciption drug benefit and NCLB, highlighted above in another post of mine. The Republican party did everything in their power to outspend the Dems. (This was a foolish move because the Dems have never seen a governmnt big enough with a large enough budget. And they paid a price for that, which is something your perpetual rage is blinding you to seeing.)
And, of course, not one little, tiny PEEP from you about the current bunch of drunken sailors.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
No rage for Bush, Unsane
September 7, 2009 - 20:23 ET by 007memoNo rage, No hatred for Bush. No matter how many times you say it Unsane.
Your argument is illogical.
Commenters like you and RDHelm make nonsensical pronouncements, pretending that the Bush and Republican Congress overspending and skyrocketing Republican pork projects were giving "the left pretty much everything they wanted", is simply dishonest and remains simply dishonest. No matter how you cut it.
Your concurrence with RDHelm that "The Left got everything they wanted from Bush and more", doesn't make it any more true.
It just confirms your Kool Aid drinking habits.
007moron, you don't know your ass from a hole in the wall
September 7, 2009 - 20:54 ET by R D HelmI am, for the most part, a (for-real) libertarian, and I only swerve from some of my isolationist libertarian brethren when it comes to isolationists vs interventionists.
In a perfect world, I would choose isolationism, but we don't exist in a perfect world.
As for GWB and his republican congress spending money like drunken sailors, no one on this site was more critical of him (or them) than I was.
Nobody.
In fact, I lost a few NB friends, as well as friends at other sites over my objections to his severe leftward lurch.
Not only that, but I have referred to GWB as a (gasp!) SOCIALIST on more than one thread here at NB.
BTW, I voted for Harry Browne in 2000, and I can prove same if you require such.
Bush gave the left far more spending-wise than even Slick Willie was able to come up with, yet, according to you, I am being less that honest by pointing that out.
Damn, you are a regular f'ing riot.
-Dave
Even when the government tries to kiss you, it is just a prelude to a good screwing. -Neal Boortz
Dear Dave, Not sure what
September 5, 2009 - 22:57 ET by mandrakeDear Dave,
Not sure what exactally you folks have in mind to take back your country. But please don''t burn down Detroit on, or about Sept 18th as I'm going to be there for a wedding.
-mandrake
mandrake
September 5, 2009 - 23:17 ET by botgyou are safe --Detroit only burns during the NBA Finals (if the Pistons get in)
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
→ Hell Night?
September 7, 2009 - 21:06 ET by Cool ArrowI think Detroit is also famous for other fires as well.
We will Barry you! - Russian prophecy
Fear not, Mandrake, as Detroit will be turned to cinders...
September 5, 2009 - 23:32 ET by R D Helm...by its rapidly expanding, illiterate 7th Century Islamic population, not by us.
By snatching both GM and Chrysler, Obama has all but ensured that the once mighty Detroit will soon be relegated to 3rd World status as a city.
Damn glad I don't live there.
If it were up to me, Detroit would now be part of Canada. No joke.
BTW, Over half of what I earn is being taken away form me by force by the government, and then given to someone else, and many of the recipients of a significant portion of my life's work are here illegally.
I've had it. This wholly unacceptable, not to mention stoopid BS, is about to stop.
One way or the other.
Count on it.
-Dave
Even when the government tries to kiss you, it is just a prelude to a good screwing. -Neal Boortz
Travel advice for Mandrake
September 6, 2009 - 23:19 ET by UnsaneJust don't go anywhere near there if/when the Tigers are in a position to win a World Series. If that happens, I'd stay the hell away - hell, I'd stay the hell away from Windsor. Because they WILL declare nuclear war on themselves if that happens. (Well, they did before, in 1984...)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Take back what you lost through incompetence? Rd Helm
September 7, 2009 - 14:56 ET by 007memoTake back what you lost through incompetence? Rd Helm
You are obviously one of the sheep incited to insanity by the millionaire charlatans you listen to on talk radio and watch on Faux News.
And they laugh all the way to the bank. Only a sap would think those bloviators believe their own vitriol.
"We REAL Americans" you say. "Non compos mentis" Americans is more like it.
"Many millions of REAL Americans are ready to do what is necessary to prevent that from happening". Sure we're always gonna have the insane haters willing to "prevent that from happening".
Go on with your insane rants, insane fears, and insane solutions. There's a padded room waiting for you and yours.
"You who despise freedom and liberty". Yes, you.
Just a reality check for you; Do you really believe that 90% of America wouldn't be fighting right along with you if any of what you fear is actually true? So why isn't any one else in that fox hole with you?
You, so full of hate. You're blinded by the right.
Double Zero
September 7, 2009 - 15:01 ET by Free Stinker00memo - I recently got back from today's Morristown, NJ Tea Party.
Guess what? It was actually better attended than the July and April Tea Parties when they had 3,000+ Your Dear Leader's takeover is going to fail.
Sorry to have to break the news to you.
You are dismissed. You may go now.
Free... That news makes
September 7, 2009 - 15:11 ET by bigtimerFree...
That news makes my heart sing.
More... not less Americans have had it...and the numbers will keep growing!
Keep talking O...keep being the best Orator we've ever had according to Matthews and his ilk...you're doing a swell job for the good guys.
'Go Green...Recycle Congress'
Bigtimer
September 7, 2009 - 15:15 ET by Free StinkerI'm starting to think the April and July Tea Parties gave lots of people the gumption to speak up at the Town Halls.
Now Obama picked a bad time for his speech, sandwiched in between this weekend's Tea Parties and the DC Tea Party.
ON TO DC !!
Obama not my dear leader, freestinker
September 7, 2009 - 20:37 ET by 007memoSo, a bunch of rubes getting together to scream about Obama the illegal alien, the Muslim, the Nazi, the Socialist, the killer of grandmas, the killer of Palin's handicapped child, the Communist, fascist, Marxist, gun takin, Flu innoculating when in fact Republican Sterilizing, student indoctrinating, fairness doctrine promoting, Youth Corp dicctator, Fema camp buildin...
These marginalized, unsoiphisticated, brainwashed rubes are supposed to concern me? These are not the best and brightest that America has to offer.
007
September 7, 2009 - 20:42 ET by FeynmanFanI think I can safely speak for the others when I say that flattery is not going to get you anywhere on this forum.
But thanks for trying...
"I support the President but not his policies" - Blonde
FF... You spoke for
September 7, 2009 - 20:49 ET by bigtimerFF...
You spoke for me.
Thank you.
'Go Green...Recycle Congress'
What a whack job
September 7, 2009 - 21:06 ET by UnsaneThese marginalized, unsoiphisticated, brainwashed rubes are supposed to concern me? These are not the best and brightest that America has to offer. You are truly showing your colors now. What extreme elitist snobbery.
And where, pray tell, does all this "sophistication" you so crave get the United States? Why, a one-way ticket to Nowhere, right behind the other Nanny States in Europe and elsewhere. (And trust me, looking back at the past 100 years of European history, their "sophistication" is something I can do without. h/t to Dr. Sowell)
Instead of being so dismissive and content to live in your cocoon, so self-assured that you are the smartest human being on the planet because you are a Socialist, I'd examine this entire thread, top to bottom. Health care is not remotely a right; neither is food, water, clothing or shelter, things I need WAY before I start worrying about a doctor. Yet you claim that it is. You also go on and on and on and on about how Katrina is 100% Bush's fault, completely ignoring the simple fact that the United States is federal, not unitary.
This among several other idiotic statements you have made here.
And you seriously believe yourself to be above the "rubes" of the Tea Parties and NB? Seriously?
You need so much professional help it is unbelievable. But perhaps this narcissistic tendency of yours explains your obsessive devotion to His Majesty The Shahinshah.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
→ Chocolate Bias
September 6, 2009 - 13:03 ET by Cool ArrowLet me see if I've got this strait.
The people of Nantucket built their homes in a ditch below sea-level?
We will Barry you! - Russian prophecy
Unsane, Love all your rants
September 10, 2009 - 13:09 ET by 007memoUnsane, I really loved all your rants. I wish I had time to rebutt them all, maybe soon.