So where is the opposition to Bush anyway ?
POSTED BY: GinoBiffaroni
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 02:11
VIEWED: 10908
PAGE 3 of 13
Barnstormer,
You're not an unreasonable person, but there's no hypocracy here. The Patriot Act is designed to look like it's protecting us against terrorists, when in actuality it is merely a ploy to increase the government's control of undesirables. You don't agree with that assessment, but I believe Chris does. Katrina, on the other hand, is a real catastrophy that required real action by the federal government. Even you can see that Homeland Security has demostrated vast incompetence to deal with a real desaster on our soil. What if we'd been bombed, would Homeland Security suddenly start working as promised? Homeland Security is a sham, the Patriot Act is a sham. This adminstration has been very busy selling the fantasy of a terrorist ridden world. When you create an agency to fight an illusion, you don't need competent or experienced people running it and you don't have to do anything when these agencies can't do their jobs. You may not agree with any of this, but it doesn't make me a hypocrite. At all.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Comparing the Patriot Act and the response to Katrina is apples and oranges. The debate over Katrina boils down to state government and agencies vs. federal govt and agencies... who did what, who's responsible, which aspects of government are in charge etc. The most questionable parts of the Patriot Act is between the federal government and PRIVATE CITIZENS. Also, it could end up being one of those things that is "temporary" until my grandchildren die of old age. The Katrina effort is black and white. Either New Orleans (and other victim cities) are repaired and inhabitable or they ain't. Now try to imagine the classic proof of a negative. Could anyone ever PROVE that the terrorists have been dealt with and we no longer need the "additional security" the Patiot Act is supposed to offer? Even if they did prove it, Bush has already used the argument of "Well that just shows it is working so well that we need to keep it up...". This is how "temporary" becomes de facto permanent.
While I'm on the subject I will reiterate that putting FEMA under the control of the Dept. of Homeland Security was stupid and not needed. FEMA should be a quick reaction agency to render aid in times of sudden disaster. Why put a whole other level of beaurocracy on them? Is it helpful? I seem to recall them doing a pretty damn good job in the past... why are they dropping the ball now?
I am planning on growing a big black moustache. I'm a traditionalist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Barnstormer, Hero, Lynch, and Geezer, do you guys really need to expose your vast stupidity so frequently on an open forum? What a pack of clowns you are.
=======================================
Why did FEMA block Wal-Mart shipments of water to the New Orleans area?
Why did FEMA block fuel shipments to the New Orleans area?
Why did FEMA cut emergency communication lines from the New Orleans area?
Why wouldn't FEMA let the Red Cross deliver food to the New Orleans area?
Why wouldn't FEMA let the people in downtown New Orleans leave?
Why wouldn't FEMA let others come in to deliver relief supplies or
transportation out from New Orleans?
Why did it take the government 5 days to give a "yes" to airlines who had asked to
ferry refugees out of New Orleans for free, immediately after the storm?
The problem isn't that FEMA botched rescue efforts -- it's that they PREVENTED rescue. They PREVENTED survival. They didn't just "oops!" screw up -- they actually CAUSED death by their actions, not through their lack of action. They have actually slapped sanctions on the city of New Orleans and are slowly finishing off any hold-outs. I wonder how many people will die getting shot for refusing to be removed from their own homes?
The best we could have hoped for from any level of government was the get the hell out of the way, but how can they resist the opportunity to absolutely ruin absolutely everything they touch, and then say "See? We needed more money and power"? Breathtaking.
==================
Please be informed that of the $51.8 billion congress just okayed for relief, $50 billion of it is going to FEMA. I'm not making that up.
At least "Brownie" has now been taken off the case.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Barnstormer, Hero, Lynch, and Geezer, do you guys really need to expose your vast stupidity so frequently on an open forum? What a pack of clowns you are.
=======================================
Why wouldn't FEMA let the Red Cross deliver food to the New Orleans area?
This one, at least, is explained in another thread. It was the state Homeland Security, not FEMA, who asked the Red Cross to stay out of New Orleans proper, because they wanted people to leave for relief centers, not stay in, or worse yet return to, the city.
Gotta go now, my red rubber nose just fell off and rolled under the desk.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ruxton, absolutely, those are the questions that matter. I can't even begin to speculate, however, on a reasonable answer.
I've learned from history that if you want to commit enormous evil, an effective strategy is to do it absolutely blatantly and in the open, because people will make up rationales for your crimes to protect themselves from the realization that true evil is being done in their name. Christopher Hitchens, for instance, has created some very plausible, reasonable, even morally sound (as far as they go) justifications for the war in Iraq. Problem is, they have nothing to do with why we went. It's all wishful thinking.
So, do you have any idea what FEMA was/is up to? What could they possibly mean to achieve?
My only guess is still a little convoluted, but I'll try to put it into some coherent shape here: The War on Terror is a marketing stunt for Bush's style of government. To the extent that they can control information, they can say anything they want and go ahead and do whatever they like anyway. This system has been working very well for them so far. I'd say, even better than they'd hoped. So as long as Bush can keep his smirking and giggling to a minimum in public, these guys can continue celebrating their victory over reality in private.
Then reality hits us right between the eyes and they're still high from 4 years of vitual dominion over the truth, so they don't see it. Just as any drunk would tell you, "they're feeling no pain." But Katrina doesn't just go away. They read in the papers that there really does seem to be some kinda problem down south so they reflexively go into action as if this is part of the Terrorism Show
Anyway, your thoughts?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Same thing would apply to pictures of tsunami victims or the starved in Africa? Or is "respect" only accorded to something that might be pinned on Bush? (say, like dead US soldiers or Iraqi civilians?)
I would suggest that bodies are not to be shown out of respect for the dignity of the dead, since that's the way I feel about it.
Quote:And while I frankly think this was unconscionable, you have not explained the FEMA screwups and you probably never will. You argue ONE point (the utility of bottled water- and BTW you're wrong on that) and ignore the big picture. Well, whatever floats your boat, so to speak.
Why wouldn't FEMA let the Red Cross deliver food to the New Orleans area?
This one, at least, is explained in another thread. It was the state Homeland Security, not FEMA, who asked the Red Cross to stay out of New Orleans proper, because they wanted people to leave for relief centers, not stay in, or worse yet return to, the city
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Same thing would apply to pictures of tsunami victims or the starved in Africa? Or is "respect" only accorded to something that might be pinned on Bush? (say, like dead US soldiers or Iraqi civilians?)
I think the tsunami, African, etc. pictures are exploitation as well. I know if I had family on the Gulf Coast I'd sure be upset to find out the status of a loved one by seeing a picture of their body on the nightly news, or spread around the internet.
Quote:
And while I frankly think this was unconscionable, you have not explained the FEMA screwups and you probably never will.
I explained that keeping the Red Cross out of the city was not a FEMA screwup, which was in response to one of Ruxton's questions, since the info was right at hand. I haven't researched the rest yet.
Quote:
You argue ONE point (the utility of bottled water- and BTW you're wrong on that)
Prove it. I've given my arguments and all you say is I'm wrong? Tell me how. The Red Cross in my area is asking for donations of four things: Money, disposible diapers, baby wipes, and bottled water. Oh. I forgot. The Red Cross is probably in the pocket of the bottled water trust.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Why did FEMA block Wal-Mart shipments of water to the New Orleans area?
Why did FEMA block fuel shipments to the New Orleans area?
Why did FEMA cut emergency communication lines from the New Orleans area?
These three claims apparently come from a Meet the Press interview with Aaron Broussard, the Jefferson Parish (La) President. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9179790/ That's the only source I can find online. Jefferson Parish is south of New Orleans about 10 miles and extends down to the mouth of the river, so it's not really the city proper. I haven't been able to find any other info that either validates or disproves these claims. Anyone have any proof one way or the other?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Red Cross does not have water purification systems on-hnad, not do they have the expertise to operate them, so of course they're ging to ask for bottled water. I was talking about the military.
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The Red Cross does not have water purification systems on-hnad, not do they have the expertise to operate them, so of course they're ging to ask for bottled water. I was talking about the military.
Please don't think they give a shit.
Still doesn't give me any reason to believe centralized water filtration sites (no matter who runs them) within the disaster area, with no means to distribute the water they produece, would be more efficient than bottled water produced and shipped from existing commercial plants.
So why would military water purification units be more effective than bottled water?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME