If Bush was a Strong, decisive leader, we wouldnt see stories like this one!!!!but..of course he is not....

[mary]

Originally posted by: dude1394
ABC News

I don't think anyone is arguing the fact that local and state governments are first and second responders. That certainly doesn't absolve the federal government of any responsibilites, especially when steps where taken to declare the area in a Federal state of emergency.

Pursuant to 44 CFR § 206.35, I have determined that this incident is of
such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the
capabilities of the State and affected local governments, and that
supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect
property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a
disaster. I am specifically requesting emergency protective measures,
direct Federal Assistance, Individual and Household Program (IHP)
assistance, Special Needs Program assistance, and debris removal.

Sure, some places might've handled being completely destroyed a bit better, but there isn't a single fucking city in the United States that could've handled a disaster of this magnitute on its own. Therefore, its difficult for me to understand why people are bitching about Louisiana wanting more help from the Feds.

Sorry for the language..I"m a little bit crankier in the mornings than usual [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[Drbio]

There also isn't a single (gosh mary) city in the United States that was engineered to be underwater. Had Katrina hit Houston square on, Texas has in place response measures to respond immediately. The National Guard and federal governments role would be that of providing monetary and logistical support. I've been on response teams into Houston before personally. I disagree that no other city in the US couldn't have handled the same storm.

In the cases of Texas hurricanes, the feds in the past have provided equipment <u>past that of Texas</u>, expert personnel (needed in all cases so I would agree here), water, and MONEY MONEY MONEY. However, they arrived usually 3-5 days after the fact for the msot part. In the case of Katrina, the feds had a similar response time. They acted correctly and followed the rules of deployment.

[LRB]

Sure, some places might've handled being completely destroyed a bit better, but there isn't a single fucking city in the United States that could've handled a disaster of this magnitute on its own. Therefore, its difficult for me to understand why people are bitching about Louisiana wanting more help from the Feds.

The whole argument appears to be not aobut Louisiana needing more help from the feds, but state and local governments in Lousiana exacerbating the problem to where thousands were needlessly put in danger. Although there were federal teams in place to respond as soon as the hurricane left the area, they were insufficient to effect the immediate rescue of tens of thousands left in the city apparently because local and state officials didn't follow their own emergency evacuation plans. So instead of maybe 4 or 5 thousand needing to be rescued there was more than an order of magnitude more that needed it. It is unreasonable for federal authorities to have anticipated local government failing to follow the establish plan and immediately or nearly so have sufficient resources in place to handle the disaster that not only would have been the largest in the US without failure by local authorities, but now had been exacerbated to the point where tens of thousands of additional people needed rescued from a mostly submerged city located in the middle of a swamp that was highly inexcessable immediately except by helicopter, very small boats, and extremely limited land routes.

Further more at no time has Lousiana given full command and control over the disaster to the federal government. The Louisana governor has insisted in remaining in charge. This has limited federal response, coordination, and other efforts by having to go through and extra loop of "red tape" if you will. I'm sure the feds could have done a better job, but that doesn't mean that there was any major screw ups. I still say there isn't enough facts present to fully blame the Lousiana local government other than local leaders shouldn't be pointing at the feds for poor leadership when they still haven't seeded overall control to the feds.

[dude1394]

The "problem" here is the groups trying to make political points (ahem...democrats, liberals, msm) within days of the storm mostly wiht uncorroborated data. Much more interested in scoring their points than trying to make any sort of respnose system better.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Oh and we know the Republicans would never try and score points in politics. Glad I didn't see these ridiculous neo-con message boards before.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: DevinHarriswillstart
Oh and we know the Republicans would never try and score points in politics. Glad I didn't see these ridiculous neo-con message boards before.

So are you suggesting that everything that the republicans do is right? Wouldn't that make the dems wrong unless they become republicans?

[mary]

Screw me.

[mary]

This is the dreaded triplicate post....a pink, a yellow and an orginal is required these days.

[mary]

Sorry...make that quadruple post...I'm so embarassed

[mary]

There also isn't a single (gosh mary) city in the United States that was engineered to be underwater. Had Katrina hit Houston square on, Texas has in place response measures to respond immediately. The National Guard and federal governments role would be that of providing monetary and logistical support. I've been on response teams into Houston before personally. I disagree that no other city in the US couldn't have handled the same storm.

Doc, I think we're both aware of the geographical uniqueness of New Orleans, and the unique problems that occured there because of the "bowl effect". Therefore if Katrina had hit Houston square on, I think we can both agree that the disaster would've have been of a different (and lesser) magnitude because of different geographic circumstances.

Yes, other cities could've handled the "same storm".

My point was that other cities would not have been able to handle a "disaster of this magnitute on its own". (assuming of course that city had not been fully evacuated, which I agree the local evacuation plans should have been followed).

I'm sorry about my language earlier....that's what happens when I post before my morning shower and caffeine. I suppose I could go back and edit myself.























Ahhhh...fu....I mean screw it.

[LRB]

Holy deja blue Mary!!! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[mary]

Originally posted by: LRB
Holy deja blue Mary!!! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

I like that [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: DevinHarriswillstart
Oh and we know the Republicans would never try and score points in politics. Glad I didn't see these ridiculous neo-con message boards before.

Sure they do, I never said they didn't. I don't honestly recall the last time they tried to make political hay out of a national disaster but even if they did, they(I) should be castigated for that as well.

I see no reason that falsehoods should be allowed to stand because they are done for political cause. Criticise bush, fine, he's a big boy and can stand it, but do it with some facts behind it and not just blatant opportunism.

It's like the whole democrat party, liberal establishment, msm have taken on the tactics of the race-hucksters, Sharpton/Jackson.

Not to mention the title of this thread. So where did the point-scoring start here?

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Are you kidding me? If the Dems don't come out now, then the party is crap for good. Anything like this will always be political. Are you kidding? Bush reaped every last ounce of political points out of 9/11 that he possibly could. Jesus, the whole republican platform these days is "terrorist terrorist terrorist terrorist" I honestly hate both parties to be quite frank, but I couldn't think of a more oppurtune time for the Dems. I'm sorry, but we can't just focus on the disaster and suddenly escape the blame game. I agree that we need to focus on the crisis right now. I actually am going to volunteer at Red Cross soon. My friend worked the night shift at the convention center. However, we can't let another "gee who cares if there are no WMDs, lets just focus on democracy in Iraq" thing happen again. This time, the American people won't be so lenient. I know I won't be.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: DevinHarriswillstart
Are you kidding me? If the Dems don't come out now, then the party is crap for good. Anything like this will always be political. Are you kidding? Bush reaped every last ounce of political points out of 9/11 that he possibly could. Jesus, the whole republican platform these days is "terrorist terrorist terrorist terrorist" I honestly hate both parties to be quite frank, but I couldn't think of a more oppurtune time for the Dems. I'm sorry, but we can't just focus on the disaster and suddenly escape the blame game. I agree that we need to focus on the crisis right now. I actually am going to volunteer at Red Cross soon. My friend worked the night shift at the convention center. However, we can't let another "gee who cares if there are no WMDs, lets just focus on democracy in Iraq" thing happen again. This time, the American people won't be so lenient. I know I won't be.

So you're advocating forgoing finding out what really went wrong and just seeing which party can tell the better lies???? Excuse me if I pass on that one, I'd prefer at least something fairly close to accurate and complete facts so that I can make an informed decision. I expect that of both parties in a time of crisis. Excuse me and many others if we don't share in your advocacy of uninformed decision making for purely political purposes.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

I didn't say anything about me personally, I said the Democrats have to pounce on this. It makes sense. Don't you know that facts in politics is all bs anyway. Isn't the platform of our government heads that "facts undermine faith"??? For me personally, I don't need anymore facts. If the Dems were in office right now, they would have failed as well. They aren't.

Frankly though I don't care whether you or anyone else shares my viewpoint. I'm not on here for a popularity contest. I'm going to speak my mind whether anyone likes it or not. I hope you can respect that.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: DevinHarriswillstart
Are you kidding me? If the Dems don't come out now, then the party is crap for good. Anything like this will always be political. Are you kidding? Bush reaped every last ounce of political points out of 9/11 that he possibly could. Jesus, the whole republican platform these days is "terrorist terrorist terrorist terrorist" I honestly hate both parties to be quite frank, but I couldn't think of a more oppurtune time for the Dems. I'm sorry, but we can't just focus on the disaster and suddenly escape the blame game. I agree that we need to focus on the crisis right now. I actually am going to volunteer at Red Cross soon. My friend worked the night shift at the convention center. However, we can't let another "gee who cares if there are no WMDs, lets just focus on democracy in Iraq" thing happen again. This time, the American people won't be so lenient. I know I won't be.

So please post me the link where bush and republicans said that the democrats were responsible for 9/11 in the month after the attacks and congressional hearings should be held. I do seem to remember one howard dean (DNC) chairman and others positing this however.

Sure in the course of a political campaign, bush made the stark differences between the two parties on what is the correct response to the terrorist threat. Democrats pounded him on it and he pounded them back.

But again (other than wackos, who were promptly condemed by the right) I don't remember the RNC standing up and proclaiming that clintons poor handling of terrorism caused 9/11. I SURE as heck don't recall the MSM editorial pages stating this, nor do they now. These thoughts came out later, but were usually (as is the case here) in response to political attacks.

And I'm not proposing that bush or the guvment be absolved from blame here, but that the liberals/democrats could wait until a week later or possibly until folks could find their relatives and at least get some facts before they start the crapola. It started immediately from the far-left...Bush is racists, Bush is too busy on vacation, bush wasn't ready...bs,bs,bs...

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Ok I agree with your last statement whole heartedly, but welcome to free speech. You knew it was going to happen. However, I believe it woulda been the same thing if the situations were switched. The Republicans play search and destroy with the best of them. You can pretty much define politics that way and that is why I hate it.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: DevinHarriswillstart
Ok I agree with your last statement whole heartedly, but welcome to free speech. You knew it was going to happen. However, I believe it woulda been the same thing if the situations were switched. The Republicans play search and destroy with the best of them. You can pretty much define politics that way and that is why I hate it.

But devin I can't let that third statement go. You can't just assume that both do or don't without some proof? Where is it?

I have voted for many democrats in my life, but that was the party of zell miller, scoop jackson and others not howard dean, teddy kennedy, nancy pelosi and michael moore. The democrat party right now is not a responsible one imo and they act like it. Do you honestly think that Teddy Kennedy has solutions for any of todays issues? They are still living in the 60's and still desire the federal guvment to be your mommy.

They've have had the MSM in their corner for so long that they think they can say anything and they won't be called on it. Unfortunately it's really true. Socialism and the great communist experiement is done, the winner has been market-oriented policies. The old liberal guard's power(imo) has run it's course and the death throes are upon us. We see it in the shrillness of their rhetoric.

The MSM is being marginalized for good reason, because you(I) cannot trust them to be my gatekeepers anymore. Unfortunately until the democrat party becomes a responsible one and not one of howard dean, james carville and others, there will really only be one party.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Proof that political parties exploit things for their own devices? You really honestly need proof of that?

[dude1394]

No devin...But I am talking about levels of responsible rhetoric. Shrillness, bush Nazi, hates blacks, hates women etc. You just don't see that on the RNC side. Possibly on fringes, but they are pretty quickly distanced from.

Again the DNC chairman (the DNC CHAIRMAN for goodness sakes) hints that bush knew about 9/11. Michael Moore sits in the DNC box? Where is the parrallel on the RNC side? Even the Swift Boat Vets were not promoted by the mainstream republican party and in fact criticised by many in the party.

Do you honestly not see any difference in the quality and level of rhetoric?

[DevinHarriswillstart]

I've seen some pretty nasty republican rhetoric. The Clinton impeachment thing was pretty bad. I mean in that case, the whole country went ape poo about him lying to us. He was about as tarred and feathered as anyone. Bush lies to us about WMDs and claims "we didn't know the levies were gonna break" two blatant lies, and we're just supposed to forget about it? See the problem is, there is no middle-man which is why I hate politics. I don't condone either side doing it, but I've seen the republican rhetoric, and it's just as bad if not worse sometimes. They don't need to do it these days though because they control the govmt.

[LRB]

Clinton blantantly told a story that he knew for a certainty to be false and was later shown to be false by testimony and Clinton's own admission. With Clinton if was a black and white thing, either he did one thing and said another or he didn't.

Bush appears only to have told a story which he believed was true and which has not been able to be verified by the facts. But it's still possible that there were WMD's. The only thing proven is that we didn't find any WMD's. I would admit that probably the scope of the WMD's at a minimum, if there were any at all, were on a scale far less than what Bush said they were. But that wasn't a deliberate attempt to decieve, but rather saying what the best evidence that he had on hand at the time was true. And unlike Clinton who lied under oath in a court of law, Bush didn't commit any felonies with his statement.

These were two vastly different incidents no more similar than an ant is to a human being. There is a distinct diference in knowlingly telling a story that is not true in order to decieve, and in telling what you think is the truth based on the best evidence that you have and then later finding that the evidence appears not to have been as valid as originally thought due to new and more comprehensive evidence that wasn't available before. If you can't grasp this difference then it is impossible to have any sort of meaningful debate on the subject.

[dude1394]

From Bob Woodward plan of attack:

"George, how confident are you?" the president asked Tenet, in an exchange depicted in Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack."

"Don't worry, it's a slam-dunk," Tenet said

Surely dubya shouldn't trust the "slam-dunk" assurances of the CIA director.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Stupid little obnoxious comments like the one you had at the end there is why I don't ever want to talk about politics. Somehow politics always brings out the worst in a person eventually. I can grasp what you're saying, but its still an opinion nonetheless. I believe Bush was trying to decieve us. I believe there were no WMDs. Yeah the "evidence he had on hand at the time" since we for some reason couldn't take more time to get more evidence to rush into an unjustified war. You clearly are a conservative sir, and that is fine. Don't try and tell me that if I can't grasp something though that we can't talk meaningfully. Respectfully disagreeing doesn't mean I can't grasp something. I won't respond to your posts anymore if you're gonna make dumb comments like that one.

[dude1394]

You mean my quip at the end about dubya trusting his CIA director?

I thought it was pretty meaningful to refute your assertion that Dubya was trying to decieve you and me, saracasticly recapped, but accurate? You state/aver that he was, I was trying to provide evidence that I don't think he was? I would welcome iyour specific evidence that support your point of view? And then if you say something like shouldn't dubya have taken the opinion of X. Maybe I would get po'd about it but I doubt it.

I don't recall there being curse words, calling of you names, anything like that, maybe a little sarcasm but if so, I plead guilty.

[dalmations202]

Devin,

Hypothetical Question?
If the government today, provided a photo of nuclear missiles on trucks in Iraq in 1998, would that be proof of WMD in Iraq at the time of our "going into Iraq"? What about trucks with people who come out of them with NBC suits - where they are supposedly working on sarin, mustard, and other chemical warheads? What about up-to-date russian aircraft with up-to -date french guidance systems in them (since Iraq was under a trade embargo for everything, but the "oil for food" program after 1991 Desert Storm) ?

If they published this an said they just now declassified it, would you believe WHAT they published is true?

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Nonono sorry dude, I was talking to LRB

[LRB]

Originally posted by: DevinHarriswillstart
Stupid little obnoxious comments like the one you had at the end there is why I don't ever want to talk about politics. Somehow politics always brings out the worst in a person eventually. I can grasp what you're saying, but its still an opinion nonetheless. I believe Bush was trying to decieve us. I believe there were no WMDs. Yeah the "evidence he had on hand at the time" since we for some reason couldn't take more time to get more evidence to rush into an unjustified war. You clearly are a conservative sir, and that is fine. Don't try and tell me that if I can't grasp something though that we can't talk meaningfully. Respectfully disagreeing doesn't mean I can't grasp something. I won't respond to your posts anymore if you're gonna make dumb comments like that one.

You're entitled to your opinion, but meaningful political debate requires at least some shared reality. If one party sees up as up and the other sees up as down. They're both entitled to their opinions, but they need to agree on what up is before any meaningful discussion can be had about the effects of weight on a person in the elevator when the elevator is going up.

You may believe that Bush lied. You may believe that there were no WMD's. That's fine, but if in your reality the proof is conclusive beyond a resonable doubt, then there is no sense debating it because our definitions of reasonable doubt differ too much. Likewise if in your reality there isn't enough proof to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton deliberately told a lie under oath in a court of law, there is no point in continuing said discussion because we don't have enough common reality to do so.

The point I was making is you think that Bush lied, but can't prove it. We know Clinton lied and can prove it. This is what the whole argument about criticism of the federal government is about, those doing the criticism are doing so with inconclusive proof at best and many times with just what they have invented to have happened. There may indeed be real proof that will come out later. If it does fine, let's take appropriate measure if and when it does. But there is a difference between shouting baseless accusations, and between confronting the other party over solid evidence of misconduct. But if in your reality this isn't the case, then there is really no point in discussing it. That's not a dumb comment, but a simple recognition of logic. The only thing that we would accomplish is exercising our fingers in futility.

[Drbio]

I don't know about you guys, and I've always thought pretty highly of her, but I am really loving the new mary. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img]

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Until those WMDs show up, I consider it a lie and a deception. That isn't a different reality. It's an opinion. Don't dictate to me logic. If the republicans cared about logic, then they wouldn't make faith based decisions. I really don't have time for these political debates though. Futility is the only thing we Have accomplished. I really didn't even mean to come into the political arena in the first place, just nothing exciting with the Mavs right now. I hope everyone has a wonderful day but I really do have better things to do, I'm sorry. I'm here for the Mavs, not politics. Ciao.

PS. I hope everyone goes to volunteer or puts up money for the relief.

[Drbio]

This country was founded by men of faith...ergo it is very logical to make faith based decisions. The founding fathers would roll in their graves if they knew the Church-State separation was abused and bastardized the way it has been.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

I'll just reply by saying I'm glad you like Monty Python.

[LRB]

Indeed this country was founded by men of great faith in a common God, but also faith in an idea that a new and experimental form of government would flourish and provide great freedom to it's citizens while still maintaining civil order. Without this continuing faith to day, this great country would fail. Without faith in our legal system, it would utterly fail. Without faith in our political system we would degenerate into total anarchy. Today we are the proof of the founding Father's faith in that new system of government was founded upon true principals. Our whole society would come to a standstill without at least some small amount of faith that tomorrow the sun would rise. It defies all reaonable logic to say that faith is not compatible with logic, for without at least some faith logic would not and could not exist.

[dude1394]

As Drbio said, the country is founded by men of Christian faith and most felt that a republic could not stand unless it was founded on a belief in the almighty. America continues to be one of the most religious of the modern civilizations.

In general as countries economic development varies inversley with their religious committment. America is an exception. Our Anglo-Protestant culture has bonded the populace together and gives us our unique outlook on life. Trying to force america to be more secular is a big mistake.

[Drbio]

Trying to force america to be more secular is a big mistake.

Absolutely. I think it is even a <u>gargantuan</u> mistake.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
As Drbio said, the country is founded by men of Christian faith and most felt that a republic could not stand unless it was founded on a belief in the almighty. America continues to be one of the most religious of the modern civilizations.

In general as countries economic development varies inversley with their religious committment. America is an exception. Our Anglo-Protestant culture has bonded the populace together and gives us our unique outlook on life. Trying to force america to be more secular is a big mistake.

no, that is completely false, there were many non-christians (we are NOT an "anglo-protestant culture" save for use of common law) who were involved with the founding of this country, and several who framed our constitution felt strongly that the government should have no connection to religious organizations.

America is and should continue to be a secular state. Attempts to change that ideal are threats to our continued well being.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

no, that is completely false, there were many non-christians (we are NOT an "anglo-protestant culture" save for use of common law) who were involved with the founding of this country, and several who framed our constitution felt strongly that the government should have no connection to religious organizations.

America is and should continue to be a secular state. Attempts to change that ideal are threats to our continued well being.

How about naming some of these "many non-christians" and describing what role they played in the founding of our country, because I certainly don't recall "many" of the prominent founders to have professed not believed in the Christian God. And I only recall among those who founded the constitution that there be a distinct separation between church and state and that there be no official state religious organization as there was in most of Europe at the time where said religious organization weilded great secular power and likewise the secular governement had great influence on the religious organization. England being the prime example. They wanted the freedom of it's citizens to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience. However, this did not mean a complete removal of all things pertaining to God from the government, this is only a more modern interpretation. The vast majority of our nation upon it's founding were christians. However they were of many differing sects of Christianity and wished to have none of the sects to be placed above the others in the government. But never was it was their intention to have the government completely disavow God and His existence. We see the proof of this in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as well as the inscriptions on our money. We also have a system of law which has it's roots in Judo-Christianity.

Today, no religion is aknowleged by our government as being the official one, however there are many who are attempting to implement an official religion, atheism. Although a minority, they weild power far greater then their numbers. And they have have consistently attacked any aknowledgement of God by our government. They have also sought to have government dictate practices that force religions to conform to actions which are against the dictates of their beliefs. It is to this element and movement to which I believe Dude refers to when saying that trying to force America to be more secular is a mistake.

[dude1394]

Sorry, it's not what you wish it to be but what it is. This country was founded by Anglo-Protestant settlers. Almost primarily from 17th and 18th century settlers from the British Isles. Their values, institutions and culture shaped America for the centuries that have followed.

It is a mis-conception that this country is a country of "immigrants". It is a country of anglo-protestant settlers. They came over, created the country and the culture that we see today. Immigrants came over into that culture and assimilated into it. For most of our history we didn't even welcome immigrants. As late as 1924 we prohibited large scale immigration.

Settlers and immigrant are fundamentally different. Settlers leave an existing society to createa a new one. They come with a communal purpose, to create a new country on the hill, a better one than they left. They have a decisive and infuential effect on the culture, they are the charter group. Immigrants come as individuals to live in that culture.

In 1790 the total population of the US, excluding Indians was 3,929,000. 698,000 were slaves. The white population was 80 percent British and 98% protestant. John Jay stated in the Federalist "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established liberty and independence."

If we were not an Anglo-Protestant society but French we would be Quebec, if Spanish..Mexico, Protuguese Catholics....Brazil. Certainly as you say there were non-deists involved in the making of our constition, but even they realized the dominant protestant nature of our country and invoked religion to justify the Revolution. America was founded as much on a constitution as it was a new covenant.

America has a secular government, but it is not a secular nation, it is an Anglo-Protestant nation.

[dude1394]

Jefferson and Paine were Deists and there were probalby others. However they understood that the nation was protestant and that the revoultion was more than just legalities. The Continental Congress for example declared days of fasting to implore the forgiveness and help of God and days of thanksgiving for what He had done to promote their cause. Into the 19th century church services were held in the chambers of the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives.

So although they were not believers themselves, they invoked religious intonations to further the revolution.