Real World Event Discussions

So where is the opposition to Bush anyway ?

POSTED BY: GinoBiffaroni
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 02:11
VIEWED: 10908
PAGE 5 of 13

Saturday, September 10, 2005 1:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lynchaj:

When you say "If he'd have acted, lives would have been saved", precisely what do you expect President Bush to do? Are you suggesting that President Bush declare Louisiana to be in a state of insurrection? Would you have President Bush just disregard the Constitution and the law?

Where to begin?
Ah, an ad hominem...
Andrew, you dumass!
The presidents have been disregarding 'law' to get things done since we began! If Bush can do as he wants to promote his personal political agenda, I EXPECT AND DEMAND he do the same to SAVE LIVES ALSO!!!
Barnstormer called me a hypocrite, well, I say as long as you're gonna the law, at least do it for a good reason sometimes!!!!!

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 2:30 PM

SignyM.

It was the New Orleans authorities who asked for a ban on pictures of the dead, not Reagan or the Bushes. The Federal involvement was to implement that request. (I know. The locals didn't really care and it's all just part of the grand conspiracy)


A single tractor trailer should be able to carry 60,000lb (about 7500 gal) of bottled water. True, a 600 gph ROWPU could create this in maybe 12 hours, if working to capacity, but then where do you store it until needed? The unit comes with a couple of rubber bladders, but these are 500gal max, based on their size in the photos I've seen. BTW, this assumes that the relief centers would be near enough to water for the ROWPUs to hook up. Not every center is in the middle of the flood. What good is purification equipment if there's no water to purify?

We both know that if the powers that be had sent in ROWPUs you'd be complaining that bottled water was more practical. It's not about the water for you, it's about the blame. Just like it's not about the dignity of the dead, it's just so you can dance around the bodies (metaphorically speaking) and point fingers. I think the word is "monomaniacal".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 2:44 PM

Barbara Bush: It's Good Enough for the Poor

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050906/cm_thenation/120080

Now I'm not one for rolling little old ladies into the bog... but I'd be pulling towards an exception......

Finally, we have discovered the roots of George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism."

ADVERTISEMENT

On the heels of the president's "What, me worry?" response to the death, destruction and dislocation that followed upon Hurricane Katrina comes the news of his mother's Labor Day visit with hurricane evacuees at the Astrodome in Houston.

Commenting on the facilities that have been set up for the evacuees -- cots crammed side-by-side in a huge stadium where the lights never go out and the sound of sobbing children never completely ceases -- former First Lady Barbara Bush concluded that the poor people of New Orleans had lucked out.

"Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this, this is working very well for them," Mrs. Bush told American Public Media's "Marketplace" program, before returning to her multi-million dollar Houston home.

On the tape of the interview, Mrs. Bush chuckles audibly as she observes just how great things are going for families that are separated from loved ones, people who have been forced to abandon their homes and the only community where they have ever lived, and parents who are explaining to children that their pets, their toys and in some cases their friends may be lost forever. Perhaps the former first lady was amusing herself with the notion that evacuees without bread could eat cake.

At the very least, she was expressing a measure of empathy commensurate with that evidenced by her son during his fly-ins for disaster-zone photo opportunities.

On Friday, when even Republican lawmakers were giving the federal government an "F" for its response to the crisis, President Bush heaped praise on embattled Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown. As thousands of victims of the hurricane continued to plead for food, water, shelter, medical care and a way out of the nightmare to which federal neglect had consigned them, Brown cheerily announced that "people are getting the help they need."

Barbara Bush's son put his arm around the addled FEMA functionary and declared, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

Like mother, like son.

Even when a hurricane hits, the apple does not fall far from the tree.



Don't think they give a shit

Their parents obviously don't

I'm with Signy and Rue

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 2:53 PM

More food for that damn bog

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-bush-struggling-with-
katrina,0,4954860.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines


" Bush had raised eyebrows on his first trip by, among other things, picking Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. -- instead of the thousands of mostly poor and black storm victims -- as an example of loss. "Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch," Bush said with a laugh from an airplane hangar in Mobile, Ala. "

AJ and company nearly sold me on some of the Feds didn't do it arguements... but then you read stuff like this was said...........

roll'em into the bog



Don't think they give a shit

I'm with Signy and Rue

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 4:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lynchaj:

You blame President Bush for not acting but were he to do such a thing you would hold him accountable with impeachment, right? Catch 22


Where to begin again?
Ah, an ad hominem...
Andrew, you dumass!
He has done, is doing, and will do more illegal things. Plausible deniability and such will help him remain impervious. He is above the law, I see this now. Hopes for impeachment are nill. You pro-Bush types have won.

FYI, you and Finn and Jadehand among others made me see it wasn't ALL Bush, and that local dips**ts have earned their place in the Hell of being skinned alive, just like our Prez.



All emotional pissed Buddah Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 7:48 PM

Lynch, you still don't get it. It ain't the LEFT who is hammering Bush, it's left, right, up, down, Repub, Democrat, Independent, green, pink, yellow, whatever party or group one can name.

Do you understand yet that your DRIVEL shows nothing but blind faith in Bush and his gang of thieves, liars, thugs, and general incompetents?

Of course you don't get it. You never will, so take the advice Dr. Ben Marble gave to Cheney.

Also, it was Bush himself who wanted to be dictator, not those who aptly compare him to Hitler (whom his grandfather supported, BTW). Once again you don't have all the facts.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 8:19 PM

Lynch, you asshole, you deserve every name everyone here calls you, ten times over. What part of "Bush LIED to start a war in Iraq" do you fail to understand? There are scores of websites that have lists of his lies, and yes, it's illegal for the President to lie, and to commit murder as he has done in Iraq and now in New Orleans.

You are unquestionably a non-thinking toadie for the Bush administration, and I again recommend you be kicked the hell off this forum because of YOUR continued lies.

Take the Ben Marble option again.

If you are not angry with this government -- all of it -- you are asleep.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 8:25 PM

GEEZER, it seems it was at least partly the FEDS who tried to block news coverage of dead recovery:

"U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison issued a temporary restraining order against a "zero access" policy announced earlier Friday by Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who is overseeing the federal relief effort in the city, and Terry Ebbert, the city's homeland security director."

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

RUE
Saturday, September 10, 2005 8:53 PM

"In today's "Blame Bush First" political environment ANY transgression under the law would likely result in impeachment hearings."

This is so incredibly silly I don't know where to begin.

Constitutionally, who brings impeachment charges? That would be, oh that's right, the House of Representatives. And it is controlled by Democrats? Or impartial, non-partisan folks? Oh, THAT'S right, it's controlled by Republicans and Republican party flaks like Tom Delay and Dennis Hastert, but all very ethically reliable and non-partisan, I can assure you. And the investigation into the Katrina response, surely it is in the hands of an independent party. What's that you say? Bush is investigating himself? Well then, there you have it. For sure he will get to the bottom of things. Don't you agree? And the investigation into the pre-Iraq intelligence that led up to the war. That was done by the Senate, right? Oh, I'm sorry, you're right, it was never finished. The whole second part about the administration's role in skewing the intelligence. But for sure we know enough to have it all figured out.

Yup. I can see all sorts of accountability being brought to bear.



Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 9:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lynchaj:


OK, so are you saying that President Bush is doing or has done illegal things but somehow no one is able to detect in spite of literally thousands of people searching for it?


Where to begin once again?
Ah, an ad hominem...
Andrew, you dumass!
If you knew what plausable deniability was, you wouldn't even be asking that! That means that he defines a goal, but is non-specific as to how that goal should be achieved. Implied direction only; negative culpability on methods used- a dirty trick, and a VERY old one.
And that's only IF someone wants to set impeachment in motion, which they don't.

In my last post I was trying to say that I learned something from you and others, can't you try just a little of the reverse?

Chrisisthehominemman

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME