Ben Stein fires back (against Moore, etc) on Katrina and Bush....

[Qdrop]

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8693

Get Off His Back (Updated)
By Ben Stein
Published 9/2/2005 11:59:59 PM

***UPDATED: Sunday, Sept. 4, 2005, 2:13 p.m.***

A few truths, for those who have ears and eyes and care to know the truth:

1.) The hurricane that hit New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama was an astonishing tragedy. The suffering and loss of life and peace of mind of the residents of those areas is acutely horrifying.

2.) George Bush did not cause the hurricane. Hurricanes have been happening for eons. George Bush did not create them or unleash this one.

3.) George Bush did not make this one worse than others. There have been far worse hurricanes than this before George Bush was born.

4.) There is no overwhelming evidence that global warming exists as a man-made phenomenon. There is no clear-cut evidence that global warming even exists. There is no clear evidence that if it does exist it makes hurricanes more powerful or makes them aim at cities with large numbers of poor people. If global warming is a real phenomenon, which it may well be, it started long before George Bush was inaugurated, and would not have been affected at all by the Kyoto treaty, considering that Kyoto does not cover the world's worst polluters -- China, India, and Brazil. In a word, George Bush had zero to do with causing this hurricane. To speculate otherwise is belief in sorcery.

5.) George Bush had nothing to do with the hurricane contingency plans for New Orleans. Those are drawn up by New Orleans and Louisiana. In any event, the plans were perfectly good: mandatory evacuation. It is in no way at all George Bush's fault that about 20 percent of New Orleans neglected to follow the plan. It is not his fault that many persons in New Orleans were too confused to realize how dangerous the hurricane would be. They were certainly warned. It's not George Bush's fault that there were sick people and old people and people without cars in New Orleans. His job description does not include making sure every adult in America has a car, is in good health, has good sense, and is mobile.

6.) George Bush did not cause gangsters to shoot at rescue helicopters taking people from rooftops, did not make gang bangers rape young girls in the Superdome, did not make looters steal hundreds of weapons, in short make New Orleans into a living hell.

7.) George Bush is the least racist President in mind and soul there has ever been and this is shown in his appointments over and over. To say otherwise is scandalously untrue.

8.) George Bush is rushing every bit of help he can to New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama as soon as he can. He is not a magician. It takes time to organize huge convoys of food and now they are starting to arrive. That they get in at all considering the lawlessness of the city is a miracle of bravery and organization.

9.) There is not the slightest evidence at all that the war in Iraq has diminished the response of the government to the emergency. To say otherwise is pure slander.

10.) If the energy the news media puts into blaming Bush for an Act of God worsened by stupendous incompetence by the New Orleans city authorities and the malevolence of the criminals of the city were directed to helping the morale of the nation, we would all be a lot better off.

11.) New Orleans is a great city with many great people. It will recover and be greater than ever. Sticking pins into an effigy of George Bush that does not resemble him in the slightest will not speed the process by one day.

12.) The entire episode is a dramatic lesson in the breathtaking callousness of government officials at the ground level. Imagine if Hillary Clinton had gotten her way and they were in charge of your health care.

God bless all of those dear people who are suffering so much, and God bless those helping them, starting with George Bush.

****
UPDATE: Sunday, Sept. 4, 2005, 2:13 p.m.:

More Mysteries of Katrina:

Why is it that the snipers who shot at emergency rescuers trying to save people in hospitals and shelters are never mentioned except in passing, and Mr. Bush, who is turning over heaven and earth to rescue the victims of the storm, is endlessly vilified?

What church does Rev. Al Sharpton belong to that believes in passing blame and singling out people by race for opprobrium and hate?

What special abilities does the media have for deciding how much blame goes to the federal government as opposed to the city government of New Orleans for the aftereffects of Katrina?

If able-bodied people refuse to obey a mandatory evacuation order for a city, have they not assumed the risk that ill effects will happen to them?

When the city government simply ignores its own sick and hospitalized and elderly people in its evacuation order, is Mr. Bush to blame for that?

Is there any problem in the world that is not Mr. Bush's fault, or have we reverted to a belief in a sort of witchcraft where we credit a mortal man with the ability to create terrifying storms and every other kind of ill wind?

Where did the idea come from that salvation comes from hatred and criticism and mockery instead of love and co-operation?

------------
Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He also writes "Ben Stein's Diary" in every issue of The American Spectator.

[Newtral77]

very well siad. A lot of those are some of the points I have been trying to make. I am glad to see someone telling it like it is rather than pure emotion.

Emotion can be great but at some point common sense has to come into play.

[Qdrop]

yeah....i find it impossible to blame Bush for barely any of this...

[avignon]

That's kind of funny to me. I haven't heard a single person say that Bush caused the hurricane. But I also haven't heard anyone congratulate him on the rescue and relief efforts made under his administration during the first days after it.
But people just hear what they want to hear rather than face deserved criticism.

[STANKY808]

Ben Stein is just sisko with a higher education.

As to #7 specifically -
A quote from W;
“There’s a lot of people in the world who don’t believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern. I reject that. I reject that strongly."

It speaks volumes as to how he sees the USA. White and white only. I'd say that belies an underlying racism IMO.

[synch]

What about Moore's criticism about the National Guard being deployed in Iraq instead of being on call for disasters like these?

I'm seriously asking, I'm not well versed in National Guard guidelines.

[DroppinScience]

Ben Stein should just go: "Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?" and shut it.

[Rich Cheney]

There is a divide between state and government.

This article in the WSJ is a good read.
Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007219)

Speaking of government, Brown is not qualified for his position as head of FEMA.

[yeahwho]

Who is blaming who for what? That is some twisted bullshit Ben Stein is spewing forth. Only those fuckers in the Red States believe GWB could create a Hurricane.

On the other hand, I will go on record saying even before Katrina I could pretty much tell you GWB turned out to a much more colossal fuck up than I actually thought would be possible. If Ben Stein is looking for some Hurricane to give this guy sympathy or condolences he pretty much must be out of his ever loving fucking mind.

Ben Stein, Political Genius :rolleyes: . Michael Moore is not even close to the loudest critic of the response to NOLA, have you noticed every media outlet including FOX network was more than just a little disturbed on how slow the response was? The media who beat the US goverment to the aftermath and reported the scene day after day while taxpayers of the United States waited in shock for some sort of response. Fuck Ben Stein.

Where does the buck stop? Who is Accountable? When does somebody stand up and say, I fucked up? Ben Stein should ask those questions.

He must be pretty pleased with himself.

[DroppinScience]

7.) George Bush is the least racist President in mind and soul there has ever been and this is shown in his appointments over and over. To say otherwise is scandalously untrue.

Right. So he appoints the minorities who are the biggest Uncle Toms and that suddenly clears him of racism? It's better to appoint a whole legion of progressive whites than appoint token minorities who don't even reflect their race or uphold civil rights.

[SobaViolence]

ben stein is a fucking tool.


seriously, he's a fan of kissinger. fuck him.

[59 Chrystie St.]

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8693
Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He also writes "Ben Stein's Diary" in every issue of The American Spectator.

A shitty "actor" & a speech "writer" for the only impeached president, plus he's an economist who like Kissinger. Soba's right this guys a tool.

[DroppinScience]

A shitty "actor" & a speech "writer" for the only impeached president

Don't mean to get all history nerd on you, but Nixon wasn't impeached. He was forced to RESIGN because it was inevitable that impeachment hearings would happen and that he wouldn't survive.

Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson are impeached Presidents. BUT, they were both acquitted by the Senate, so I guess that makes it moot.

And come on, I have good memories of Ben Stein in "Wonder Years" and "Ferris Bueller's Day Off." :o

[beastieangel01]

A shitty "actor" & a speech "writer" for the only impeached president, plus he's an economist who like Kissinger. Soba's right this guys a tool.

haha, nice.

[Ali]

My god, the man doth suck Bush cock!

I reckon the only reason this shithead wants people off Bush's back is because he wants him all to himself... bare back!

[Qdrop]

Right. So he appoints the minorities who are the biggest Uncle Toms and that suddenly clears him of racism? It's better to appoint a whole legion of progressive whites than appoint token minorities who don't even reflect their race or uphold civil rights.

can you please explain to me why Rice and Powell were Uncle Toms?


you are really turning into a liberal rhetoric machine, droppin.

i thought more of you than this....

[synch]

Anyone? :(

What about Moore's criticism about the National Guard being deployed in Iraq instead of being on call for disasters like these?

I'm seriously asking, I'm not well versed in National Guard guidelines.

What Rice and Powell are concerned, I don't know whether they got into the government as token black people in the place of more or equally qualified people but they are certainly not proof of Bush's compassion for and understanding of the plight of the black people.

[Qdrop]

What about Moore's criticism about the National Guard being deployed in Iraq instead of being on call for disasters like these?

I'm seriously asking, I'm not well versed in National Guard guidelines.

the National Guard that were stationed in Iraq had no effect on the reaction to Katrina.

there was no shortage of local units to respond.

that is a liberal falacy that is being spewed around like "fact" when it's nothing more than ignorant wishful thinking.


there is no evidence of this of any kind.

if, at a later date, it is proven or reported with credible backing...then feel free to attack.
but people shouldn't make shit up and jump to conclusions....and expliot a tragic natural disaster for callous political reasons.

the liberal political response to this has sickened me....
they can be just as bad as republicans....
shameless...

[Qdrop]

What Rice and Powell are concerned, I don't know whether they got into the government as token black people in the place of more or equally qualified people but they are certainly not proof of Bush's compassion for and understanding of the plight of the black people.

none the less, labeling them Uncle Toms with no explanation given is irresponsible, mean spirited, and makes one no better than the Republican Muck Machine themselves...

[synch]

No argument there.

It's still fair to point out that two upper class black people in important positions don't make the president more compassionate though.

[franscar]

the National Guard that were stationed in Iraq had no effect on the reaction to Katrina.

there was no shortage of local units to respond.

Any proof of that?

[Qdrop]

Any proof of that?

you first.

any proof that it did?


point being....how can anyone bring this up and criticize without any facts or credible reports/assessments on their side.

it's slander.

why bring yourselves down to the republican's level?

[synch]

They started it :mad:

[franscar]

you first.

any proof that it did?

The floating bodies in the middle of the streets seems fairly hefty proof to me. The rapes, murders and assaults in the Superdome kinda point that way too.

[Qdrop]

The floating bodies in the middle of the streets seems fairly hefty proof to me. The rapes, murders and assaults in the Superdome kinda point that way too.

shameless sanctimony and expliotation.

do you work for a newspaper?


please connect the dots of floating bodies, rapes and assault to not having enough national gaurds due to the Iraq war.

you're stretching...looking for a connection where this is none....
and shamelessly exploiting emotional circumstances as "proof" by tugging at heart strings.

pathetic.

you should be a republican...you'd fit right in.

[synch]

Q, don't you agree that if there were national guardsmen present that some of the things that happened could have been at least partially prevented? There may have been deployment problems that weren't Iraq related but to allow looting, rape and generally anarchy is always at the very least related to lack of law enforcement.

[franscar]

please connect the dots of floating bodies, rapes and assault to not having enough national gaurds due to the Iraq war.

you're stretching...looking for a connection where this is none....
and shamelessly exploiting emotional circumstances as "proof" by tugging at heart strings.

Oh ok, you must be right. The fact that people who couldn't get out of New Orleans without assistance were left to drown couldn't possibly have anything to do with their not being anywhere near enough people with the resources to help them. (y)

[Qdrop]

Q, don't you agree that if there were national guardsmen present that some of the things that happened could have been at least partially prevented? There may have been deployment problems that weren't Iraq related but to allow looting, rape and generally anarchy is always at the very least related to lack of law enforcement.

Oh ok, you must be right. The fact that people who couldn't get out of New Orleans without assistance were left to drown couldn't possibly have anything to do with their not being anywhere near enough people with the resources to help them.

the thing is...
you are both correct with these statements...but you are hanging the "hat of blame" on the wrong people.

the governor calls in the national guard in times like this.
the governor and local/regional admins. are in charge of this.

they fucked up.
they failed to organize effeciantly.

it has nothing to do with Bush.
it has nothing to do with Iraq causing a imaginary shortage in National Guard provisions.

there was no lack of resources...it was about a disgusting lack of coordination and efficiency- on the part of the local/regional gov't.

[enree erzweglle]

Q, don't you agree that if there were national guardsmen present that some of the things that happened could have been at least partially prevented? There may have been deployment problems that weren't Iraq related but to allow looting, rape and generally anarchy is always at the very least related to lack of law enforcement.
Yes...thanks for saying it. Also, the government had notice and had a pretty clear picture that this was going to happen. When did we first know that Katrina was going to be a class 4 or 5 storm heading right for the Gulf Coast?

The bottom line is that no sane person could possibly think that the government responded to Katrina and her victims in a timely, humane, and dignified way. This was failure on multiple fronts and for whatever the reasons, the troops and equipment were deployed way, way after the fact. GW needs to hit us with some facts and figures to support his claims that the government had and has enough troops and equipment to support multiple military efforts. People should not have to beg for relief, for their lives.

[franscar]

the governor calls in the national guard in times like this.
the governor and local/regional admins. are in charge of this.

When did they call for help?

When did help turn up?

Now tell me if you think that's good enough for the "world's only superpower".

[synch]

Thank You!
Hush you, grownups talking.

[Qdrop]

no one is questioning the obvious failure on FEMA, gov't intervention, troop deployment, aid deployment...

but again, you are blaming the wrong person...

you're exploiting a failure by trying to falsely hang it on someone you hate.

[synch]

He's the commander in chief/self proclaimed leader of the free world/cub scout leader and as he gets most if not all of the credit if something goes right he should take at least part of the blame if the government screws up.

Big time.

edit: Besides, people tend to get pissed off at people that claimed that there weren't any mistakes on the governments behalf.

[enree erzweglle]

Also, if he sees that someone is screwing up so majorly, he should just cowboy himself in there and make it all work. He missed his big ass opportunity to get all Texasy.

I don't care who is supposed to request this and who is supposed to request that...if someone is dying on your doorstep, you don't just throw your hands up and say, sorry, that's not my job.

[Qdrop]

He's the commander in chief/self proclaimed leader of the free world/cub scout leader and as he gets most if not all of the credit if something goes right he should take at least part of the blame if the government screws up. dude, think about the logistics of what you are saying.
how can one man be PERSONALLY in charge of every fucking thing that goes on in this country.
that would be impossible and impractical.
there must be delegation

this matter's jurisdiction fell squarley on state and local gov'ts....

[Qdrop]

I don't care who is supposed to request this and who is supposed to request that...if someone is dying on your doorstep, you don't just throw your hands up and say, sorry, that's not my job.

NO ONE DID THAT!!

HELLOOOOOOOOOOO! McFly!?!!?

stop getting so caught up in the media soundbytes and hyperbole....
raise yourself above it....

[synch]

dude, think about the logistics of what you are saying.
how can one man be PERSONALLY in charge of every fucking thing that goes on in this country.
that would be impossible and impractical.
there must be delegation

this matter's jurisdiction fell squarley on state and local gov'ts....
I didn't say he was personally in charge, I said he was the person that was ultimatly responsable.

Not only that but he's the face of the government, the person that is supposed to lead the country through difficult times but he isn't doing much of a job reassuring the country (and the world) of the fact that everything has been done to prevent loss of life.

Not saying that he should have gotten in a rubber boat and held an inspirational speech, just that if you go up the ladder of responsabilities he's the one sitting in the comfiest chair with the ultimate responsability.

[enree erzweglle]

NO ONE DID THAT!!

HELLOOOOOOOOOOO! McFly!?!!?

stop getting so caught up in the media soundbytes and hyperbole....
raise yourself above it....

Troops/equipment were slow to move in. People died. Misunderstandings happened at various levels of the government. That can't be denied. Bush should have recognized all of that or any of it and, despite whether/not it was in his purview, should have fixed it sooner than he did or started to.

I've been around here and in general long enough to recognize people who just like to argue. I think you're one of them and it's a shame because you often make strong, valid points. I've learned, though, to just avoid reading your posts because more often than not, they degrade into a senseless argument and those are not my thing. I got pulled into this thread for a few different reasons, but I won't argue with you about this.

[Qdrop]

Troops/equipment were slow to move in. People died. Misunderstandings happened at various levels of the government. That can't be denied. Bush should have recognized all of that or any of it and, despite whether/not it was in his purview, should have fixed it sooner than he did or started to.

I've been around here and in general long enough to recognize people who just like to argue. I think you're one of them and it's a shame because you often make strong, valid points. I've learned, though, to just avoid reading your posts because more often than not, they degrade into a senseless argument and those are not my thing. I got pulled into this thread for a few different reasons, but I won't argue with you about this.

i'm not arguing just to argue...
i'm trying to calm the liberal masturbatory storm over here....

every point i'm making is a rational....

but hey, just ignore me....that'll make it all better.
i expect that from some of the younger posters...
it's just a shame to see you doing it...

you say your age and experiance allow you to reccognize those that just like to aruge.
does it also help you recognize an irrational bush bashing free-for-all too?

[synch]

I know what you are doing and applaud it when people stop and consider the facts before attributing blame but unfortunatly you seem to absolve Bush completely instead of making people realise that he's not one of the horsemen of the apocalypse (although that is debatable, but there is no evidence... yet).

[Qdrop]

I know what you are doing and applaud it when people stop and consider the facts before attributing blame but unfortunatly you seem to absolve Bush completely instead of making people realise that he's not one of the horsemen of the apocalypse (although that is debatable, but there is no evidence... yet).

dude. i hate bush.
i hate him.

i hate 99% of all republicans.

bush is a fuck up. a lucky prep who was handed a presidency.

but he had next to nothing to do with the blame on this Katrina turmoil.

don't let the real perpatraitors get off....that's what THEY want...

[synch]

I figured you hated bush and I disagree with attributing blame that isn't his, but, quoting obviously biased material to get your point across shoots waaaaay past your target. It takes the discussion to an entirely different level and you end up having that sisko character agree with you.

That should give you an indication of how you come across.

[Qdrop]

I figured you hated bush and I disagree with attributing blame that isn't his, but, quoting obviously biased material to get your point across shoots waaaaay past your target. It takes the discussion to an entirely different level and you end up having that sisko character agree with you.

That should give you an indication of how you come across.

so i can't quote anything republican?

how about not attacking the source and just read the message?

if it was really so SPUN and slanted...people should have field day picking it apart with clear logic and by citing evidence to the contrary.

i haven't seen that yet.

[synch]

That particular piece of text contains a few easy cheap shots at democrats, half-truths, things that are amazingly partizan and (especially in the line where he asks god to bless Bush who has done so much for the people in need) extraordinarily far up the presidents ass.

I find it an odd choice to post this considering that you always want to see facts, not opinions.

[yeahwho]

George Bush knows something is amiss with the United States Govt. response to Katrina, he also is keenly aware that a major fuck up has taken place in the aftermath. I'm sure he enjoys Ben Steins over the top sycophant babbling, yet no one gets the job done like Karl Rove (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/national/nationalspecial/05bush.html?adxnnl=1&oref=login&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1126197410-NGRxqHk37nkkjVjAXUPnjA).

Under the command of President Bush's two senior political advisers, the White House rolled out a plan this weekend to contain the political damage from the administration's response to Hurricane Katrina.

It orchestrated visits by cabinet members to the region, leading up to an extraordinary return visit by Mr. Bush planned for Monday, directed administration officials not to respond to attacks from Democrats on the relief efforts, and sought to move the blame for the slow response to Louisiana state officials, according to Republicans familiar with the White House plan.

The effort is being directed by Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, and his communications director, Dan Bartlett. It began late last week after Congressional Republicans called White House officials to register alarm about what they saw as a feeble response by Mr. Bush to the hurricane, according to Republican Congressional aides.

The people of the United States of America deserve better goverment. The accountability for our goverment has been dismal, pathetic....accepting blame is part of being a great leader.

Unfortunately in the days following Katrina, death, injury, rape, murder, chaos, and a complete loss of stability has been inflicted upon hundreds of thousands of US citizens. The cost is way to high and unacceptable, agreed?

[Qdrop]

That particular piece of text contains a few easy cheap shots at democrats, half-truths, things that are amazingly partizan and (especially in the line where he asks god to bless Bush who has done so much for the people in need) extraordinarily far up the presidents ass.

I find it an odd choice to post this considering that you always want to see facts, not opinions.

as partisan as it clearly is...

i was basically just posting it to get another viewpiont across....and throw a wrench in the libeal circle jerk machine...

[enree erzweglle]

i'm not arguing just to argue...
i'm trying to calm the liberal masturbatory storm over here....

every point i'm making is a rational....

but hey, just ignore me....that'll make it all better.
i expect that from some of the younger posters...
it's just a shame to see you doing it...

you say your age and experiance allow you to reccognize those that just like to aruge.
does it also help you recognize an irrational bush bashing free-for-all too?
Oh, sweet try, and one that might work on some of the younger posters you mentioned, but you can't lure me back to the argument by appealing to my sense of vanity because I gave that up a long time ago.

[Qdrop]

Oh, sweet try, and one that might work on some of the younger posters you mentioned, but you can't lure me back to the argument by appealing to my sense of vanity because I gave that up a long time ago.

*tear*

[synch]

as partisan as it clearly is...

i was basically just posting it to get another viewpiont across....and throw a wrench in the libeal circle jerk machine...
You can't blame people for considering you right wing for posting things like that though. Can I point out again that gmsisko thanked you?

*shiver*

Just to clarify, the point you make is fair but it didn't come across properly.

[Qdrop]

You can't blame people for considering you right wing for posting things like that though. people shouldn't jump to conclusions.

Can I point out again that gmsisko thanked you?

*shiver*
don't remind me.
now i need to shower.

Just to clarify, the point you make is fair but it didn't come across properly. never said i was great public speaker (writer)...

[synch]

people shouldn't jump to conclusions.
You haven't been easy to read lately.

[Qdrop]

You haven't been easy to read lately.

my new house may have lead paint....
not sure yet...

[DroppinScience]

Please name one liberal or Democrat president who accepted blame for any of his actions. I don't think any president from any party would do such a thing.

Didn't Kennedy accept blame for the botching of the Bay of Pigs?

Thanks for playing.

[DroppinScience]

can you please explain to me why Rice and Powell were Uncle Toms?


you are really turning into a liberal rhetoric machine, droppin.

i thought more of you than this....

I'm gonna call this the "Clarence Thomas Effect." Throughout the '50s and '60s, blacks were fighting for civil rights. After the many efforts of MLK and like-minded people, they were starting to get these rights.

By the '80s though, the likes of Reagan started hiring the Clarence Thomas's. In other words, blacks who benefitted from affirmative action, now actively working to reverse the system that helped get them to where they are now.

Rice and Powell are the heirs to this (okay, Powell is more "moderate," but he's very loyal to Bush, so he's not likely to say very much negative). They're the token minorities to present the illusion that Bush can be a progressive. Despite the fact that Rice grew up during the days of ultra-segregated Birmingham, Alabama... she hasn't exactly been working towards the equality of blacks in society.

Yeah, Uncle Tom is obviously very harsh, but the truth hurts sometimes.

[EN[i]GMA]

I rather agree with QDrop.

This was a huge failure of GOVERNMENT, everywhere, including Bush to some degree, but is not a personal failing of Bush.

I could name dozens and dozens of people MORE responsible for this tragedy than Bush.

That's what at issue here.

Certainly you can connect-the-dots all the way to the top and lay some of the blame on him, and maybe we should, but let's start at the bottom: Local and state officials and the federal officials that are there to solve this issue.

[Medellia]

Didn't Kennedy accept blame for the botching of the Bay of Pigs?

Thanks for playing.
Droppin, dude, it's spelled "thax". Get it right man. :rolleyes:

And how about "Clintax" as sisko likes to call him apologizing for coming on Monica's dress?

[yeahwho]

GMA']I rather agree with QDrop.

This was a huge failure of GOVERNMENT, everywhere, including Bush to some degree, but is not a personal failing of Bush.

I could name dozens and dozens of people MORE responsible for this tragedy than Bush.

That's what at issue here.

Certainly you can connect-the-dots all the way to the top and lay some of the blame on him, and maybe we should, but let's start at the bottom: Local and state officials and the federal officials that are there to solve this issue.

I think you and Q are focusing on NOLA or maybe confused, the hurricane crossed local, county and state lines many times (President George W. Bush declared major disasters for areas impacted by Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and Alabama). The response and scope of the havoc Katrina wreaked is not Local. It is National in it's scope.

Connecting dots?

He appointed the heads to Homeland Security and FEMA. He is the architect of the response. A rudimentary search on google and you will find out all about how wonderful and exacting this response was, quite different from what the taxpayers have been told about homeland securitiy's response capabilities. The place where people were hit the hardest was a major American city. Look at the Homeland Security site, it looks official, like they have some sort of responsibility to protect US citizens. I looked and they are avoiding putting anything in their "First Response" header.

.............Bush (actually Rove) is spinning this deplorable response and people are buying it. Your not getting what they've been bragging about at all, this was a deplorable response. When citizens, many just children, are put in harms way because of the response, it becomes somebodies fault. We have the resources to do this job, we need the leadership to get it done. This time a major city was hit, HIT HARD! People are pissed and with good reason. Who should they be pissed at?

Christ when does it become obvious that a blunder of this scale is not the mayors fault? the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th...I think on the 5th day after a few billion people on planet earth watch reporters on color television via sattelite everybody started to think, wait...WTF, where is the relief? That is a pretty big blunder....who is capable of such blunders...hmmm let me think now :rolleyes: , who could it be?

[Hiebz]

I'm no fan of Bush, and I don't think the blame is entirely his. I do, however, believe he and his administration have showed very poor leadership skills throughout the continuing saga. Sure, there are protocols to be followed and the local authorities are the first line of defense. But, for christ's sake, if you are the leader of the country, and there is a possible catastrophe on it's way, you have the resources to tap the progress and results of what is going on - even when your on vacation. I find it hard to comprehend how he didn't have part of his crew on lookout who could telephone him up and say "umm, mr. president, you may want to cut things short and help your people out"

maybe it's the media's painting and everyone ranting out about it, but it does seem to me that there was a laxidaisicol response to it all. And, the joke about him going to New Orleans for wild times during a press conference is absolutely fucking ridiculous. Sure, many of us have been there done that, but you're the fucking president, hold some fucking composure Tex. No time for jokes when you have to power to help. fucktwat.

[EN[i]GMA]

I think you and Q are focusing on NOLA or maybe confused, the hurricane crossed local, county and state lines many times (President George W. Bush declared major disasters for areas impacted by Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and Alabama). The response and scope of the havoc Katrina wreaked is not Local. It is National in it's scope.

Certainly.

But those various localities have the brunt of the of responsibility.

It's simple logistics.


He appointed the heads to Homeland Security and FEMA. He is the architect of the response. A rudimentary search on google and you will find out all about how wonderful and exacting this response was, quite different from what the taxpayers have been told about homeland securitiy's response capabilities. The place where people were hit the hardest was a major American city. Look at the Homeland Security site, it looks official, like they have some sort of responsibility to protect US citizens. I looked and they are avoiding putting anything in their "First Response" header.

He's the the architect of the architects, true enough, but it's not HIS failure, it's his apointees failure.

There IS a difference.


.............Bush (actually Rove) is spinning this deplorable response and people are buying it. Your not getting what they've been bragging about at all, this was a deplorable response. When citizens, many just children, are put in harms way because of the response, it becomes somebodies fault. We have the resources to do this job, we need the leadership to get it done. This time a major city was hit, HIT HARD! People are pissed and with good reason. Who should they be pissed at?

A lot of people.

But it doesn't have to be Bush.

Blaming 'someone' often doesn't do shit when it's a failure of an entire system.

It was MANY failures rolled into one.


Christ when does it become obvious that a blunder of this scale is not the mayors fault? the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th...I think on the 5th day after a few billion people on planet earth watch reporters on color television via sattelite everybody started to think, wait...WTF, where is the relief? That is a pretty big blunder....who is capable of such blunders...hmmm let me think now :rolleyes: , who could it be?

Absolove the mayor more please! I don't think you've quite made things as conspiciously fortunious as you possibly can yet.

It was a failure from top to bottom, bottom to top.

It's just as wrong to lay the blame at the mayor's feet as Bush's.

Certainly Bush played a role and certainly he and his apperatus failed, but I don't think it's correct or effective to lay the blame squarely on him, when there were failures up and down the line.

[SobaViolence]

fuck all government.

they're all good for nothing bureaucrats who want money and their false powers...greedy, elitist, rich, morally dead puppets.

[D_Raay]

GMA']Certainly.

But those various localities have the brunt of the of responsibility.

It's simple logistics.



He's the the architect of the architects, true enough, but it's not HIS failure, it's his apointees failure.

There IS a difference.



A lot of people.

But it doesn't have to be Bush.

Blaming 'someone' often doesn't do shit when it's a failure of an entire system.

It was MANY failures rolled into one.



Absolove the mayor more please! I don't think you've quite made things as conspiciously fortunious as you possibly can yet.

It was a failure from top to bottom, bottom to top.

It's just as wrong to lay the blame at the mayor's feet as Bush's.

Certainly Bush played a role and certainly he and his apperatus failed, but I don't think it's correct or effective to lay the blame squarely on him, when there were failures up and down the line.
Your right E, however, this is what the man signed up for. When something like this happens, it has to be made sure that it doesn't happen again.

If your company screwed up like this, on a massive level, ultimately the head honcho would be the one who payed the price. If someone underneath me screws up, they come asking me why. That's logistics.

This game they are playing that when he fucks up, to immediately rush to cover his every step, shows me that he either has no real power, or they are incredibly corrupt in which case we need to get that whole administration out now before something else happens.

This is a government OF the people, not a government of covering up for some side stepping wanna be cowboy.

[yeahwho]

GMA']Certainly.

But those various localities have the brunt of the of responsibility.

It's simple logistics.



He's the the architect of the architects, true enough, but it's not HIS failure, it's his apointees failure.

There IS a difference.



A lot of people.

But it doesn't have to be Bush.

Blaming 'someone' often doesn't do shit when it's a failure of an entire system.

It was MANY failures rolled into one.



Absolove the mayor more please! I don't think you've quite made things as conspiciously fortunious as you possibly can yet.

It was a failure from top to bottom, bottom to top.

It's just as wrong to lay the blame at the mayor's feet as Bush's.

Certainly Bush played a role and certainly he and his apperatus failed, but I don't think it's correct or effective to lay the blame squarely on him, when there were failures up and down the line.

The mayor of NOLA isn't designing a response to political fallout, George Bush is. The 2nd most powerful man on earth has Karl Rove (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/national/nationalspecial/04bush.html) spinning out talking points for national digestion.

Ray Nagin said in a recent interview if there was anything more he could of done he answered, "YES (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/02/nagin.transcript/), I should of yelled louder before and after the hurricane".

Not only is Mayor Ray Nagin accepting responsibility, he is also a victim of the hurricane. As are all of the citizens in the affected area. Many are and have been in a welfare state of life...no vehicles, no phones, no hope.

Rove Bush et;al are a mean spirited bunch, this much is clear. If your not aware of how they play politics then your beyond understanding what I'm saying. They are spinning Bush's reaction into action. Because they know that they fucked up. They've fucked up on a major scale and let this Country down.

What part of that don't you understand?

[Ali]

They are spinning Bush's reaction into action. Because they know that they fucked up. They've fucked up on a major scale and let this Country down. Again.

But, hey, they are just politicians, doing what politicians do... spending all their time and energy trying to LOOK good and save face.

You don't honestly believe that Politicians actually give a flying fuck about anything else, do you?

[infidel]

I wonder how many people blaming mayor Ray Nagin realize he was a lifelong republican who only changed to demo for his run for mayor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Nagin

[Qdrop]

this thread has become a very interesting, mature debate.

it's good to see this board taking some shape again.


finally.

[sam i am]

this thread has become a very interesting, mature debate.

it's good to see this board taking some shape again.


finally.

AMEN. ;)

[Documad]

But, hey, they are just politicians, doing what politicians do... spending all their time and energy trying to LOOK good and save face.

You don't honestly believe that Politicians actually give a flying fuck about anything else, do you?
I know this is a popular belief, but it bugs me.

I have worked for and with politicians of both parties since 1988 and all but one were genuinely interested in serving the citizens they represented. I know that I live in a terrific state, but I don't think my experience is all that rare. They don't get paid much and most don't have much power and could make a lot more money elsewhere.

[DroppinScience]

I know this is a popular belief, but it bugs me.

I have worked for and with politicians of both parties since 1988 and all but one were genuinely interested in serving the citizens they represented. I know that I live in a terrific state, but I don't think my experience is all that rare. They don't get paid much and most don't have much power and could make a lot more money elsewhere.

Thank you.

[Ali]

I have worked for and with politicians of both parties since 1988 and all but one were genuinely interested in serving the citizens they represented. I know that I live in a terrific state, but I don't think my experience is all that rare. They don't get paid much and most don't have much power and could make a lot more money elsewhere.I agree that there may be politicians who do actually care about anybody other than themselves (e.g. Nader) and it's possible that all politicians do start off with this goal in mind... but it's also true that power does corrupt and I belive that there is a threshold of power one can cross, which tips the scales of direction of responsibility from The People to The Party and, especially the Head of The Party and what The People think of Him.

I believe this happened to Tony Blair. He started off a Man of the People, which is why we voted for him, and his Cabinet, but the power's gone to his head. He no longer gives a shit about the people who voted him in, he's just concerned with how they regard him and is doing everything in his power to change their attitude by changing his image. He lost an incredible amount of seats in the last election and he knows for sure (and his campaign was all about this) that he only got voted in to keep the Tories out. It's another fucked-up system and it's produced another fucked-up government. Gordon Brown (http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/173/173621_no_tax_cut_on_petrol_says_brown.html) is another example. He's acting like a right cnut at the moment and he's going to GET his!

[Qdrop]

By the '80s though, the likes of Reagan started hiring the Clarence Thomas's. In other words, blacks who benefitted from affirmative action, now actively working to reverse the system that helped get them to where they are now.
examples?


Rice and Powell are the heirs to this (okay, Powell is more "moderate," but he's very loyal to Bush, so he's not likely to say very much negative). They're the token minorities to present the illusion that Bush can be a progressive. Despite the fact that Rice grew up during the days of ultra-segregated Birmingham, Alabama... she hasn't exactly been working towards the equality of blacks in society.
explain what steps these 2 individuals have taken to be considered "Uncle Toms" and to force civil rights backward in anyway. specific examples....not general "feelings" you have.
and "just being a republican" is not good enough, droppin.

and no one help him out.
if he wants to throw out such callous claims....he needs to be able to back them up.


Yeah, Uncle Tom is obviously very harsh, but the truth hurts sometimes.
i wonder how long before you admit you are talking out of your ass.
it's irresponsible, impulsive and immature to simply label any black republican an "uncle tom" for no legitamate reason.

that doesn't make you a good liberal....it makes you a lemming.

[synch]

I didn't say he was personally in charge, I said he was the person that was ultimatly responsable.

Not only that but he's the face of the government, the person that is supposed to lead the country through difficult times but he isn't doing much of a job reassuring the country (and the world) of the fact that everything has been done to prevent loss of life.

Not saying that he should have gotten in a rubber boat and held an inspirational speech, just that if you go up the ladder of responsabilities he's the one sitting in the comfiest chair with the ultimate responsability.
"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government," Bush said at a joint White House news conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

"And to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility. I want to know what went right and what went wrong," said Bush.
He must have read my post.

[baltogrl71]

Thank You!

holy shit I agree with gmsisko :eek:

[DroppinScience]

examples?

For Clarence Thomas, Wikipedia says this when he was appointed Associate Justice...

Organizations including the NAACP, the Urban League, and the National Organization for Women opposed his appointment to the Supreme Court because of his criticism of affirmative action and suspected anti-abortion position.

Ironic, since it was affirmative action that helped him get to the position he is in.

As for allegations of "black Republicans" being "Uncle Toms," there's these articles...

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0906-28.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0112-04.htm

Give me former civil rights lawyers (i.e. Barack Obama) and I'm happy.

[sam i am]

I agree that there may be politicians who do actually care about anybody other than themselves (e.g. Nader) and it's possible that all politicians do start off with this goal in mind... but it's also true that power does corrupt and I belive that there is a threshold of power one can cross, which tips the scales of direction of responsibility from The People to The Party and, especially the Head of The Party and what The People think of Him.

I believe this happened to Tony Blair. He started off a Man of the People, which is why we voted for him, and his Cabinet, but the power's gone to his head. He no longer gives a shit about the people who voted him in, he's just concerned with how they regard him and is doing everything in his power to change their attitude by changing his image. He lost an incredible amount of seats in the last election and he knows for sure (and his campaign was all about this) that he only got voted in to keep the Tories out. It's another fucked-up system and it's produced another fucked-up government. Gordon Brown (http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/173/173621_no_tax_cut_on_petrol_says_brown.html) is another example. He's acting like a right cnut at the moment and he's going to GET his!

Tony Blair sounds just like Bill Clinton! Taking polls and sticking his finger in the wind to see which way the wind is blowing so he can follow....

Seriously, can't you see that Blair became a DIPLOMAT and a STATESMAN after he was elected. He's obviously not interested in his "legacy." Neither is Bush. You can't have this many people despising you and be interested in "your place in history," as Clinton was.

It seems to me that people like Blair and Bush (sounds like a bad porno movie title about The Facts of Life!) have decided what direction they want to go and are willing to pay the price for the direction they are leading. Neither has high marks in the polls, and neither seems to really care. If they did, both the US and UK would be out of Iraq by now.

As far as New Orleans and the disaster "relief" afterwards, where were the Senators and Congressmen when those levees needed reinforcement? Why was the city ALLOWED to flood and the MANDATORY evacuation not ordered until 24 hours ahead of time? Plenty of blame to go around....

[sam i am]

For Clarence Thomas, Wikipedia says this when he was appointed Associate Justice...



Ironic, since it was affirmative action that helped him get to the position he is in.

As for allegations of "black Republicans" being "Uncle Toms," there's these articles...

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0906-28.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0112-04.htm

Give me former civil rights lawyers (i.e. Barack Obama) and I'm happy.

So...... commondreams.com and wikipedia account for your stance?

please.

I'll say it again, wikipedia is NOT a scholarly nor encyclopedic index of FACTS. It is peoples' OPINIONS and can be altered at any time by anyone who has an ax to grind. Find a better source.

[DroppinScience]

I'll say it again, wikipedia is NOT a scholarly nor encyclopedic index of FACTS. It is peoples' OPINIONS and can be altered at any time by anyone who has an ax to grind. Find a better source.

Umm... no. Wikipedia is pretty self-policed. If someone is erring on the side of judgmental and getting away from the straight facts, they correct it.

It's more reliable than not.

[sam i am]

Umm... no. Wikipedia is pretty self-policed. If someone is erring on the side of judgmental and getting away from the straight facts, they correct it.

It's more reliable than not.

OK, we're WAY off topic, but I categorically disagree with your stand on wikipedia. No research is verified, entries are not subject to expert or peer review, etc...

It is simply opinion presented as fact, which is disingenuous and sucks those in who are unwilling to look up facts and figures from fact-based sources.

I appreciate that your view differs, Droppin, but maybe you can start another thread regarding it, I'd love to debate you about the merits of wikipedia anyday. ;)

[STANKY808]

[QUOTE=sam i am]So...... commondreams.com and wikipedia account for your stance?
QUOTE]

It's not "commondreams.ORG" that composed those articles. They just link to other sources (the first one is the Guardian in the UK and the other one is from The Nation). Maybe they are the ones you have a problem with?

[DroppinScience]

OK, we're WAY off topic, but I categorically disagree with your stand on wikipedia. No research is verified, entries are not subject to expert or peer review, etc...

It is simply opinion presented as fact, which is disingenuous and sucks those in who are unwilling to look up facts and figures from fact-based sources.

I appreciate that your view differs, Droppin, but maybe you can start another thread regarding it, I'd love to debate you about the merits of wikipedia anyday. ;)

On ANY Wikipedia entry, you can dispute the neutrality, objectivity, facts, etc. Haven't you seen the alerts "The neutrality of this article has been disputed" and then you can click on their "talk page" and see the debates over what parts are wrong, etc. Eventually, the matter gets corrected.

Also, they always have outside links to verify the claims (if there's discussion on major legislation passed, they may have a link to the actual bill, or they'll have links to news stories that supports the claims).

I hardly say it's 100% reliable and perfect (and that other means should be used if you want serious research on any subjects, whether Wikipedia's entries are reliable or not), but it's a handy little resource.

[sam i am]

[QUOTE=sam i am]So...... commondreams.com and wikipedia account for your stance?
QUOTE]

It's not "commondreams.ORG" that composed those articles. They just link to other sources (the first one is the Guardian in the UK and the other one is from The Nation). Maybe they are the ones you have a problem with?


OK. Good point. I did not catch the links at first. Well done, Stanky.

However, the first article is from 2004 and commenting on that election, where Bush pulled more black votes (in raw numbers) than any other Republican candidate, EVER. His percentage ROSE from 2000 to 2004. As of now, more blacks, as a percentage, call themselves Republicans than at any other time in the history of the US besides during Reconstruction.

Now, the article does cite that the reason for this is that "Democrats have taken the black vote for granted." How has that happened? Why are Democrats NOT garnering ever higher percentages of Black votes? Why are more and more blacks becoming disaffected from the Democratic Party?

Could be they are becoming more financially interested in their own welfare and don't want high taxes? Could be they like the message of freedom the Republicans are espousing? Could be simple laziness and disaffection from politics altogether?

I don't have the answers, but it's an interesting trend, nonetheless

[sam i am]

On ANY Wikipedia entry, you can dispute the neutrality, objectivity, facts, etc. Haven't you seen the alerts "The neutrality of this article has been disputed" and then you can click on their "talk page" and see the debates over what parts are wrong, etc. Eventually, the matter gets corrected.

Also, they always have outside links to verify the claims (if there's discussion on major legislation passed, they may have a link to the actual bill, or they'll have links to news stories that supports the claims).

I hardly say it's 100% reliable and perfect (and that other means should be used if you want serious research on any subjects, whether Wikipedia's entries are reliable or not), but it's a handy little resource.


Alright, you've backed yourself up enough I can agree with you.

BUT, the fact is that you quoted from wikipedia. What about other sources? Do you have any?

[yeahwho]

GMA']Certainly.

But those various localities have the brunt of the of responsibility.

It's simple logistics.



He's the the architect of the architects, true enough, but it's not HIS failure, it's his apointees failure.

There IS a difference.



A lot of people.

But it doesn't have to be Bush.

Blaming 'someone' often doesn't do shit when it's a failure of an entire system.

It was MANY failures rolled into one.



Absolove the mayor more please! I don't think you've quite made things as conspiciously fortunious as you possibly can yet.

It was a failure from top to bottom, bottom to top.

It's just as wrong to lay the blame at the mayor's feet as Bush's.

Certainly Bush played a role and certainly he and his apperatus failed, but I don't think it's correct or effective to lay the blame squarely on him, when there were failures up and down the line.

What a mess. I'll say it again, Tax Breaks for corporate buddies, Cheney flying in like Satan himself (contracts contracts contracts) shipping jobs (along with proprietatry information) overseas, fighting a trumped up war in the country with the worlds second largest oil reserves and hiring now non union labor for the repair of NOLA?

This profiteering is killing our country, Katrina has blown the lid off of GWB's world. Take a good look. We still have 3+ years to go. I see today retail sales are down to there lowest point since 9/11.

Yankee Ingenuity is up for sale to the lowest bidder.

Yes Bush has now admitted it he may not be doing such a great job afterall. Fuck. Ridiculous..Criminal...Spooky.

[Documad]

1. Nader's not a politician. He's a guy who used to be very special till it went to his head. I liked when he used to go on Donahue.

2. When I was speaking about politicians, I meant ones that have been elected. And reelected. Ones who make decisions that affect people's lives.

[Funkaloyd]

He's a guy who used to be very special till it went to his head.
Is opposing the Democratic Party now considered evidence of narcissism, or is there some other reason that this bs has been flowing for the past few years?

[Documad]

No, I thought he was goofy well before he won the election for Bush.

He always was an odd duck in a Felix Unger way, but it was more acceptable when he was the single-focused safety guy. He's the wrong guy to ever be a politician. He thinks he's smarter than everyone else, he seems incapable of listening, he has no personal skills, and he's a bit of a schoolmarm. Lone ducks don't make good politicians. But they make excellent consumer watchdogs. I think it's sad that he might be remembered more for what he's done lately than for the brave and wonderful things he did in the 50s and 60s.

[Ali]

No, I thought he was goofy well before he won the election for Bush. That's crap and you know it.

It's the SYSTEM which allowed Bush to win, not the fact that a lot of people agree with Nader.

You are pissed at him because he bucked the system and didn't join the Dems, splitting the anti-bush vote, not for anything he's done wrong.

What has he actually done to deserve your scorn?

You REALLY don't want a Leader who was elected just because people didn't want the Other Guy to get in. As anyone in the UK.

[synch]

Reminds me of the final round of the last French elections. It was Chirac against an even more right wing guy.

People were getting disinfected (literally) after voting for Chirac to keep the other asshole out.

Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils :(

[Ali]

Reminds me of the final round of the last French elections. It was Chirac against an even more right wing guy.

People were getting disinfected (literally) after voting for Chirac to keep the other asshole out.

Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils :(Yeah, Le Pen... he had a lot of support in the East and South-East, close to the borders with Eastern European countries and the Mediterranean coast. Lots of immigrants and his campaign was basically "foreigners out". The rest of the country were too lazy to go and vote the first time round, lucky for them the French voting system gives everybody another chance. French people do not believe me when I tell them that other countries vote only once! :p

Chirac (http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4371329) is on his last legs, politically, and is in poor health and De Villepin is ready to step into his shoes. Sarkozy is not very well liked after doing his job as Interior Minister a bit too well (him of the stop and search) even though there is hardly any crime in France, thanks to him. But he works hard to be everywhere all the time and has told Chirac to go fuck himself on a number of occasions, which will please a lot of the people who voted for Chirac because they had to. OK, it's not as if they're from different parties, or anything, but their politics is quite different.

It will be interesting to see who gets the job. I hope it's Sarko. De Villepin's too much of a Chirac protegé for my liking. I'm a fan of Change.

[Documad]

No, I thought he was goofy well before he won the election for Bush.

He always was an odd duck in a Felix Unger way, but it was more acceptable when he was the single-focused safety guy. He's the wrong guy to ever be a politician. He thinks he's smarter than everyone else, he seems incapable of listening, he has no personal skills, and he's a bit of a schoolmarm. Lone ducks don't make good politicians. But they make excellent consumer watchdogs. I think it's sad that he might be remembered more for what he's done lately than for the brave and wonderful things he did in the 50s and 60s.
I don't know if I can explain it better than I did. He was a strange dude even when he was focused on the consumer rights stuff, but he still got things done. I don't think he's ever had a girlfriend for instance. There's nothing wrong with it, and I'm sure he was devoted to his mom, but he gives off a monk vibe. He has always been a prickly, fussy, schoolmarm-y guy. The opposite of a natural politician.

He did brave things that changed car safety. That's one heck of a legacy. But before he ever ran for politics, he had lost his focus and had become more of a wacky talking head as he crusaded against business in general. I didn't like seeing him use his cachet that way--anymore than I liked seeing the old feminists come out and rant on every issue involving women. So I had written him off as a well-intentioned guy who had lost his focus long ago. I'm still not mad at him. I think he's more sad than bad.

But here's the deal: What was he running for in 2000? What was his main agenda? Did his running in 2000 further his agenda? No. Quite the opposite. Bush has done more to hurt the US environment than I thought possible. There is no doubt in my mind that if Nader had not run, Gore would have been elected, and Gore would have certainly have appointed people to the EPA that would enforce the laws. Nader had a right to run and he had good intentions, but if I were him, I couldn't sleep at night.

[synch]

I don't think that anybody doubts the fact that he handed Bush the election in 2000.

*sigh*

[Ali]

Well, I'm glad he didn't get sucked into the Big-Party gameplan. They'd have muzzled him straightaway. "Oh no, Mr Nader, you can't say THAT about our campaign contributors! Here, read this nice speech we've prepared for you."

Gore lost that election because not enough people voted for him, NOT because Nader ran. Are you going to blame Nader for Kerry's loss too?

[Documad]

I don't think Nader did well enough in 2004 to make any difference in the outcome. Almost all of the people who voted for Nader in 2000 were horrified at the result. I campaigned for Kerry but mostly for state democrats and found only one guy who was voting for Nader. There was still a lot of hostility toward him. (Our local Greens still got support in 2004 and again the other night, but the sense was that 2004 was too important--Kerry easily took my state despite Bush's targeting it as vulnerable.)

There's no denying that the US environment would be better off today (and in the future) if Nader had not run in 2000.

I've never said Nader had to campaign for anyone. He's free to do as he pleases and I'm free to criticize him.

[synch]

Gore lost that election because not enough people voted for him, NOT because Nader ran. Are you going to blame Nader for Kerry's loss too?
To give you the short version...

Number of votes in Florida in 2000:

Bush 2,909,176 49 %
Gore 2,907,451 49 %
Nader 96,837 2 %

[Ali]

To give you the short version...

Number of votes in Florida in 2000:

Bush 2,909,176 49 %
Gore 2,907,451 49 %
Nader 96,837 2 %Point taken... but it's still not Nader's fault.

Gore should have gotten enough votes on his own.

[synch]

Not saying Gore couldn't have won if Nader ran, but Gore didn't win because Nader did.

I think it went wrong at the Democratic National Convention, they should have picked a candidate with some sort of personality. They could have even gone the Republican route and picked one with a bad one... but not one that doesn't have any.

[Ali]

Not saying Gore couldn't have won if Nader ran, but Gore didn't win because Nader did.Maybe the people who voted for Nader wouldn't have voted at all? We'll never know.

It wasn't Nader's fault, that's all I'm saying.

[synch]

To restate my point, the democrats fucked up... but... if Nader wouldn't have run, Gore would have won the election. I'm convinced of that.

[DroppinScience]

They could have even gone the Republican route and picked one with a bad one... but not one that doesn't have any.

Hey, I liked Gore. :(

[sam i am]

Hey, I liked Gore. :(

Was it his personality or his looks you liked?

Seemed to be a non-entity in both ways : he SHOULD have won 2000, but he was the poorer choice for the Demos.

[Documad]

I'm betting that at least 2,000 of the 96,000 who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore.

I've never heard of anyone trying to deny this before.

Again, my point is that I can't believe that Nader didn't regret it, given the amount of harm Bush has done to his pet concerns. Nader didn't know it was going to happen in 2000. But then he ran again in 2004! Which is when people really turned on him.

[Ali]

I'm betting that at least 2,000 of the 96,000 who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore. Do you think it's OK to vote for someone you don't particulary care for, just because somebody you care for even less might get in if you vote for the candidate you really like?

I'd rather not vote at all.

You assume that the people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore. You don't know that they would have, so you can't, with any degree of certainty, blame or villify Nader for either of the elections.

[synch]

Come on Ali... of course we'll never know for sure but it's a fair assumption to make.

[Ali]

Come on Ali... of course we'll never know for sure but it's a fair assumption to make.It's still an assumption.

I was furious with Nader, I blamed him for splitting the vote, but after I learned more about him, and more about the Democratic Party, I began to feel that he did the right thing, regardless of the outcome.

[synch]

But he did split the vote. Whether you agree with his intentions and regardless of the outcome, he did do that.

[Ali]

But he did split the vote. Whether you agree with his intentions and regardless of the outcome, he did do that.We could go on like this forever. You can't prove that he did split the vote, because you don't know if the people who voted for him would have voted for Gore, if they'd voted at all. Maybe they would have stayed home or spoiled their ballots? You suppose that they would have voted for Gore, and you may be right, but you don't know for sure and you cannot lay blame on Nader for Gore losing against Bush in 2000, nor Kerry last year.

I'd rather have Bush in power than a candidate who was voted in because people were afraid of getting Bush. People need to be able to vote for the candidate they want, not to keep out the candidate they don't. This is half the reason why so few people even bother to vote and why you end up being ruled by a party not which has support of the majority of the population, but which had the majority of supporters who went to vote. There is a difference. One is True Democracy and the other is a flawed attempt created by a two-party, polarised system which leaves no choices for people with moderate views or views not expressed strongly enough by either candidate. I have gone on and one about this before. I won't bore you any further.

[synch]

I was furious with Nader, I blamed him for splitting the vote, but after I learned more about him, and more about the Democratic Party, I began to feel that he did the right thing, regardless of the outcome.
From these words I assumed that you agreed that he did split the vote but agreed with his reasons for doing so.

Sorry for misunderstanding, didn't mean to go into circles :)

I partially agree with you, you should be able to vote the person I consider best for the job into office, but sometimes you don't have that luxury. If the choice is between inadequate and inadequate + evil I know what my choice would be.

Nader knew he wasn't getting voted into office, what I read was that he needed a certain amount of votes to continue to receive (state or other) funding. I don't think running for president is the proper way to express your points, especially if it means that you draw votes away from "the lesser bad".

If I remember correctly Moore (who was campaigning for Nader) urged people that wanted to vote for Nader in the swing states to vote for Gore instead.

[Ali]

I don't think running for president is the proper way to express your points, especially if it means that you draw votes away from "the lesser bad". Quite an effective way, if not proper. The Democrats would have gagged him. At least he got the chance to make his views public, even if he had no hope of winning. If he'd joined the Dems, they'd have made him toe the line and his supporters would not necessarily have voted for the Dems. They're more likely to have felt disdain for him for selling out and the Dems may even have lost some of the borderline supporters, who disagree with Nader more than they disagree with Bush. Have you thought about that? Your 2000 votes might have gone to Bush in any case. This is the thing. We don't know what would have happened if Nader had not run or joined the Dems, so there's no point blaming him for the Democrats' faliure to get enough votes in the States which mattered.

If I remember correctly Moore (who was campaigning for Nader) urged people that wanted to vote for Nader in the swing states to vote for Gore instead.Moore is a publicity-seeking fathead. He claimed responsibility for Bush winning 2000 because "he alone" encouraged people to vote for Nader. Strange how when he encouraged people not to vote for Nader, Bush still won!

[synch]

I didn't mean he should have joined the democrats. Oh my no. He shouldn't have gotten to election day though in my opinion.

And for the last time, I didn't say it was his fault that the democrats didn't win, I just said that if he hadn't run the democrats would have won it. It's a subtle difference but it's there, I checked.

What I said about Moore encouraging people not to vote for Nader was in the 2000 elections though.

It's ok to have a different opinion, I'm not trying to convince you of mine, just don't want you to have any misconceptions of what my ideas are.

[Funkaloyd]

Regardless of whether Nader contributed to Gore's defeat in 2000, it's clear that he's being made a scapegoat, and that there were/are far more important and relevant factors (e.g. electoral system itself).



I completely understand that if you live in a swing state and you feel your conscience telling you that you have to vote for Gore to stop Bush, then do what you need to do. It's not how I would vote, but I understand and appreciate what you are going through.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2000-11-06

[Ali]

Regardless of whether Nader contributed to Gore's defeat in 2000, it's clear that he's being made a scapegoat, and that there were/are far more important and relevant factors (e.g. electoral system itself) (y)

Why does M.Moore contradict himself in his book and on his site? The first chapter (or so) is him apologising for supporting Nader. Maybe he did change his tune when he saw how much support Nader was getting (isn't it telling that so many folks did vote for him rather than the Democrats... knowing full well that they might not beat Bush!) compared with Gore.

Synch, I appreciate where you are coming from and can see that you are not blaming Nader for Bush's victory in 2000.

You can see why I thought you were, though, can't you?

[Jasonik]

BTW, State Governors have the authority to call in the National Guard.

[synch]

Synch, I appreciate where you are coming from and appreciate that you are not blaming Nader for Bush's victory in 2000.

You can see why I thought you were, though, can't you?
Sure I do.

I tried to make it clear that I am convinced that the democrats fucked up on many levels... apparently I didn't get that point across very well ;)

[Ace42X]

can you please explain to me why Rice and Powell were Uncle Toms?

Because Condi supports a government which disenfranchised vast numbers of black voters by purging them from the electoral rolls unjustly.

Because Powell went against his better judgement (such as it is) in order to support a war profiteer and his cronies that are making a mint out of the poor and dispossesed of America.

I could go on.

[Qdrop]

Because Condi supports a government which disenfranchised vast numbers of black voters by purging them from the electoral rolls unjustly.
that's something....

Because Powell went against his better judgement (such as it is) in order to support a war profiteer and his cronies that are making a mint out of the poor and dispossesed of America.


too vague.....a stretch.

you could easily reach back in history and make similar accusations of black democrats....and you know this.

i, too, could go on....

why the forced connection to race?

[Ace42X]

why the forced connection to race?

Because they should know better. Condi and Powell both grew up in a world where racial prejudice was endemic, and yet they are more than keen to prop up the self-same people who have capitalised on this. Deplorable.

[D_Raay]

Hasn't Powell since apologized for his demonstration in front of the United Nations back before the war?

[D_Raay]

Because they should know better. Condi and Powell both grew up in a world where racial prejudice was endemic, and yet they are more than keen to prop up the self-same people who have capitalised on this. Deplorable.
I would call it complete moral bankrupcty. Which of course leads to personal fortune. And they want to bring GOD into this?

[Documad]

Do you think it's OK to vote for someone you don't particulary care for, just because somebody you care for even less might get in if you vote for the candidate you really like?
Absolutely! I do it all the time. Because in politics, winning is EVERYTHING.

I voted for Nader in 1996 because I was hopping mad at Clinton and I knew with absolute certainty that my vote didn't matter in my state (Dole didn't have a chance here). I didn't love Nader and I was sure he would be a horrid president, but it was my self-important protest.

I voted for Gore in 2000 because I knew my vote mattered. I didn't like voting for Gore at the time, but he turned out to be better than he appeared. And it's crystal clear to me that my country would be cleaner and safer if he had won.

[Qdrop]

Because they should know better. Condi and Powell both grew up in a world where racial prejudice was endemic, and yet they are more than keen to prop up the self-same people who have capitalised on this. Deplorable.

i'm not buying it....

if you consider aligning yourself with political factions that have, at anytime, demonstrated a lack of compasion for blacks or minorities as reason to cry "uncle tom"....
then condi and powell, any other black politition would have to completelty remove themselves from BOTH parties (at least) to avoid the "uncle tom" monicor.

[Ali]

Surely a 'token black' (aka Uncle Tom) is better than no black?

[Ace42X]

then condi and powell, any other black politition would have to completelty remove themselves from BOTH parties (at least) to avoid the "uncle tom" monicor.

Hell yeah. Principled people do the right thing, not the prudent thing. Maybe if all the black people in the US decided to do that, you might not be stuck with your godawful bi-partisan system.

[sam i am]

Hell yeah. Principled people do the right thing, not the prudent thing. Maybe if all the black people in the US decided to do that, you might not be stuck with your godawful bi-partisan system.

Except for the fact that Blacks make up only 25% of the population (and dropping rapidly). What is 25% going to do against the 75% who do vote for the two main parties? Completely disenfranchise themselves. While this may be great for the "I told you so's," it also allows for no need to pay attention to the needs, wants, desires, and aspirations of that voting bloc.

Plus, I'll take "godawful bi-partisan system" anyday over the mess they're experiencing in Germany right now over Merkel/Schroeder. The same mass inertia will probably happen in France, then Britain next. Sure, have your great multi-party system where nothing gets accomplished and you have gridlock on issues that could move the Continent forward : high unemployment, an unsustainable tax base, permanent lapdogs to the US - sounds like the kind of society anyone would like to live in...

[Ace42X]

Except for the fact that Blacks make up only 25% of the population (and dropping rapidly). What is 25% going to do against the 75% who do vote for the two main parties? Completely disenfranchise themselves. While this may be great for the "I told you so's," it also allows for no need to pay attention to the needs, wants, desires, and aspirations of that voting bloc.

I think that speaks volumes about your nation. "Go with the pack, otherwise you'll get nowhere."

Of course, That 25% of the nation, if they all voted, would actually have the majority share of the remaining votes, due to only 60% of people voting in the last election, resulting in a 30-30 split. As a good proportion of those 30s are minorities, so their seperation would further diminish those 30%s, making it a three horse race.

Plus, I'll take "godawful bi-partisan system" anyday over the mess they're experiencing in Germany right now over Merkel/Schroeder.

Urm, you don't remember the previous dead-lock and consequent court-cases that allowed Bush to steal the election?

Raise your game.

[sam i am]

I think that speaks volumes about your nation. "Go with the pack, otherwise you'll get nowhere."

Of course, That 25% of the nation, if they all voted, would actually have the majority share of the remaining votes, due to only 60% of people voting in the last election, resulting in a 30-30 split. As a good proportion of those 30s are minorities, so their seperation would further diminish those 30%s, making it a three horse race.



Urm, you don't remember the previous dead-lock and consequent court-cases that allowed Bush to steal the election?

Raise your game.

OK, ace. 25% of the population includes children, BTW. Thought that was rather obvious, but obviously not. Takes your whole argument out of contention. Plus, your assuming a monolithism within the Black community that is simply nonexistent. Game raised?

How long did the "previous dead-lock and consequent court-cases" go on, BTW? Only as long as they had to. See, in the US, we have a CONSTITUTION that handles the problem. The Constitution allows for contested elections by having the vote in November and having the inauguration in the following January (it was in March for much of US history, but I digress). The framers of the Constitution took into account the rough and tumble of politics and setup the system deliberately that way. Game raised?

Finally, your post did not address my assertions regarding the economic nor the political quagmire that Europe is currently in. Can you argue that?

[Ace42X]

OK, ace. 25% of the population includes children, BTW. Thought that was rather obvious, but obviously not. Takes your whole argument out of contention. Plus, your assuming a monolithism within the Black community that is simply nonexistent. Game raised?

Not at all. From what I hear, a lot of voters would very much like to have another option, but feel obliged to vote for one of the main parties because "otherwise it is throwing your vote away" - even a substantial increase in a 3rd party would sway these voters away.

How long did the "previous dead-lock and consequent court-cases" go on, BTW? Only as long as they had to.

Seemed like forever. Why your system's inability to have a clear-cut winner, despite you personally claiming it as a systemic virtue, had to fill our news for days without end baffles me.

See, in the US, we have a CONSTITUTION that handles the problem.

And it also handles the problem of your executive branch embarking on illegal wars. Except when it fails to, because your constitution is a joke that is ignored by your government much as the UN and international law is.

Finally, your post did not address my assertions regarding the economic nor the political quagmire that Europe is currently in. Can you argue that?

Because they were totally baseless, and I didn't feel the need to deign such unfounded claims with an answer. I'm sure Europe could easily get itself out of the quagmire if it simply borrowed more money from overseas as the US does.

[sam i am]

Because they were totally baseless, and I didn't feel the need to deign such unfounded claims with an answer. I'm sure Europe could easily get itself out of the quagmire if it simply borrowed more money from overseas as the US does.

Totally baseless? Hmmm.....

Did you bother to read the link I previously provided that shows the economies of European nations vs. the economy of the US? That it graphically demonstrates the lack of growth in all European nations and how far behind Europe is in economic terms from the US?

Guess I really had a "baseless" argument there, eh?

[sam i am]

Not at all. From what I hear, a lot of voters would very much like to have another option, but feel obliged to vote for one of the main parties because "otherwise it is throwing your vote away" - even a substantial increase in a 3rd party would sway these voters away.

From what you hear? Where? Basing an argument on nothing. If you are referring to the BBMB as your source, you are gravely mistaken in your assumption, let me assure you. As a matter of fact, turnout was higher in 2000 and 2004 than it had been in a long time. Based on raw numbers, turnout was at an all time high in 2004.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

BTW, the Reform Party, founded by Ross Perot, garnered a total high of 17% in 1992...big "substantial increase in a 3rd party," huh?

[sam i am]

And it also handles the problem of your executive branch embarking on illegal wars. Except when it fails to, because your constitution is a joke that is ignored by your government much as the UN and international law is.

Actually, no. The Constituion does NOT address "emabrking on illegal wars." The decision to make war legal or illegal is irrelevent. All war sucks. The truth of the matter is, however, that is sometimes necessary. Although Intelligence had a massive failure prior to the latest Persian Gulf War, the war was based on the best knowledge available AT THE TIME.

Tell all the judges here in the US the Constitution is a joke. Lawyers would sure argue with you.

UN and international law? Please. Give me a break. The US is NOT subject to international law. We are a sovereign country, with our own laws. The UN was CREATED by the US.

[Ace42X]

That it graphically demonstrates the lack of growth in all European nations and how far behind Europe is in economic terms from the US?

Guess I really had a "baseless" argument there, eh?

Anyone can create "growth" by spending borrowed money...

[sam i am]

Anyone can create "growth" by spending borrowed money...

Your point being?

And, BTW, not "anyone" can create growth by spending borrowed money. If no one will lend money to that "anyone," that anyone is SOL (s..t outta luck).

PART of the reason the USSR dissolved was due to lack of ability to carry and sustain debt. They were not a self-sufficiency economy nor society. So, when the markers got called (a little Vegas lingo there), they couldn't pony up what they owed. Financiers get very nervous when their payments stop coming.

Again, thus far, there has been no lack of those willing to invest on a good return from the US. The US has never defaulted on a loan.

[Ace42X]

Actually, no. The Constituion does NOT address "emabrking on illegal wars."

Actually, it DOES. Article 6, clause 2

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Some of those treaties made under the autority of the United States, which is thus the supreme Law of the Land, include the UN charter, and numerous non-aggression pacts, and the enshrinement of international law.

The current war in Iraq is most definitly and undeniably illegal, the previous one could only be considered legal by a wilful misreading of the rubric of the UN charter and subsequent resolutions, therefore it is unconstitutional, and proves that the US constitution is disregarded by the administration at will.

QED.

the war was based on the best knowledge available AT THE TIME.

Actually, no it wasn't. If you check the Butler report, you'll see that the knowledge was wilfully misrepresented and that caveats and warnings that were vital to taking it in context were intentionally removed.

Tell all the judges here in the US the Constitution is a joke. Lawyers would sure argue with you.

Of course they would, that's what they get paid for. For arguing black is white. That the US constitution has been disregarded by various administrations without there being any recourse to the law is undeniable.

UN and international law? Please. Give me a break. The US is NOT subject to international law. We are a sovereign country, with our own laws. The UN was CREATED by the US.

Your constitution says otherwise. But don't let the facts get in the way of your argument.

[Ace42X]

The US has never defaulted on a loan.

That's because the US has never been refused an extension. There are plenty of loans which have been extended beyond their original term many times over. I'm sure Enigma's got a little book of "republican incompetence in deficet spending" that he is more than eager to get out.

[sam i am]

Actually, it DOES. Article 6, clause 2



Some of those treaties made under the autority of the United States, which is thus the supreme Law of the Land, include the UN charter, and numerous non-aggression pacts, and the enshrinement of international law.


How is the UN Charter a "treaty" again? Explain, please.

How are "non-agression pacts" (which I am completely unaware of, I must admit), treaties?

How is "the enshrinement of international law" a treaty? Sounds more like a deification to me....

[sam i am]

That's because the US has never been refused an extension. There are plenty of loans which have been extended beyond their original term many times over. I'm sure Enigma's got a little book of "republican incompetence in deficet spending" that he is more than eager to get out.

Anad, again, your point is? WHY were those loans extended? Because the extendors felt it was a worthwhile investment.

[Ace42X]

How is the UN Charter a "treaty" again? Explain, please.

How are "non-agression pacts" (which I am completely unaware of, I must admit), treaties?

How is "the enshrinement of international law" a treaty? Sounds more like a deification to me....

They are treaties in that they are precisely in accordance with the literal and contextual definition of what a treaty is.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=treaty

[Ace42X]

Anad, again, your point is? WHY were those loans extended? Because the extendors felt it was a worthwhile investment.

See other thread.

[sam i am]

They are treaties in that they are precisely in accordance with the literal and contextual definition of what a treaty is.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=treaty

Ok. For a moment, suspending all reality, let's posit that you are correct. Who, exactly, would enforce your "treaties?"

BTW, I categorically disagree with your interpretation of that Clause of the US Constitution, but we're theorizing now.

[Ace42X]

Ok. For a moment, suspending all reality, let's posit that you are correct. Who, exactly, would enforce your "treaties?"

Hah, typical right-wing moral relativism. "You should only follow the laws you can't get around." The fact that the US is beyond prosecution in no way justifies the position. Might is not right, thankyou very much.

BTW, I categorically disagree with your interpretation of that Clause of the US Constitution, but we're theorizing now.

Of course you would. Because you take words to mean whatever will work to your most benefit, when actually words have very clear meanings and the meanings are plain.

it is not "theorizing," it is plain and simple English. The only reason it can't mean precisely what it says is "because otherwise... that would make the US... WRONG!" - and we all know that is impossible.

[sam i am]

Hah, typical right-wing moral relativism. "You should only follow the laws you can't get around." The fact that the US is beyond prosecution in no way justifies the position. Might is not right, thankyou very much.



Of course you would. Because you take words to mean whatever will work to your most benefit, when actually words have very clear meanings and the meanings are plain.

it is not "theorizing," it is plain and simple English. The only reason it can't mean precisely what it says is "because otherwise... that would make the US... WRONG!" - and we all know that is impossible.

You can SAY "might is not right" all you want. If you live in an absolutist moral society. The left-wing denies the existence of such morality, so might DOES make right, in most cases. Even if it doesn't, who's going to write the history that says it doesn't? To the victors go the spoils.....

As to your condescending attitude towards the meaning and context of words, ace : you have, when it suited you, twisted words and their meanings as well. Schmeltz berated me for NOT taking words out of context and you berate me FOR taking words out of context. Hmmm, seems I can't speak English either way, eh? You must have a VERY difficult time understanding a word I say.

[Ace42X]

You can SAY "might is not right" all you want.

I will. I hold that truth to be self-evident.

so might DOES make right, in most cases. Even if it doesn't, who's going to write the history that says it doesn't? To the victors go the spoils...

We are not talking about what "the victors" think, we are talking about what is "right." It doesn't matter how many wars are faught to prove the Earth is flat, or how many round-Earth proponents are killed. The fact remains. Might doesn't make right, it just means idiots don't have to face up to the fact that they are in the wrong.

As to your condescending attitude towards the meaning and context of words, ace : you have, when it suited you, twisted words and their meanings as well.

Yes, of course. Me not using words in a sense that is strictly private to you is "twisting them". Whatever you say.

Schmeltz berated me for NOT taking words out of context and you berate me FOR taking words out of context. Hmmm, seems I can't speak English either way, eh? You must have a VERY difficult time understanding a word I say.

Oh, I understand them, I just know what what you are saying varies between the irrational and just plain wrong. And whatever arguments you have with Schmeltz can hardly be used to criticise me.

If you go back, you will see why I pointed out quite clearly that the examples you cited *were* under economic and political hegemony, and thus made the US fit the dictionary definition of an imperialist power.

[Funkaloyd]

You can SAY "might is not right" all you want. If you live in an absolutist moral society. The left-wing denies the existence of such morality

Where is this left-wing, who is their leader, where can I find their manifesto, and what does it say that's to the effect of "society is not morally absolutist."