 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / September 2005Gulf Coast
I guess everybody has been watching the coverage. I figure it is time to put some serious troops in with a no bs set of orders. Roy > I guess everybody has been watching the coverage. I figure it is time to put > some serious troops in with a no bs set of orders. I've heard reports of 20,000 to 40,000 being deployed by this weekend. It's a logistics nightmare to get it all organized. They have been given arrest powers and marshal law has been established in some areas. Too bad more people didn't heed the warnings to evacuate. While some couldn't for a variety of reasons I don't think 200,000 people have such reasons other than stupidity. >> I guess everybody has been watching the coverage. I figure it is time to >> put some serious troops in with a no bs set of orders. > > I've heard reports of 20,000 to 40,000 being deployed by this weekend. > It's a logistics nightmare to get it all organized. That is what I find troubleing. Imo it has taken waaaay to long to get assistance into the area. We have flown aid to other countries in 1/2 the time. > They have been given arrest powers and marshal law has been established in > some areas. Too bad more people didn't heed the warnings to evacuate. > While some couldn't for a variety of reasons I don't think 200,000 people > have such reasons other than stupidity. Most of those folks don't have transportation. They were initially told to go to the dome for the duration of the storm. IIrc they were sorta trapped after the water came in. I think your 200,000 might be a bit on the high side The evacuation of the hospitals didn't take place until this morning. Roy >> I guess everybody has been watching the coverage. I figure it is time to put >> some serious troops in with a no bs set of orders. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >couldn't for a variety of reasons I don't think 200,000 people have such >reasons other than stupidity. The Army and National Guard should have enforced the evacuation - those who had no way out taken out by military transport. Anyone remaining behind charged with criminal trespass at the very least - Looters shot on sight. >> I guess everybody has been watching the coverage. I figure it is >time to put [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >people have such >reasons other than stupidity. I think that govenment was asleep at the switch (as usual for last 4+years) on this one and only got serious after the fact and bad press. They knew several days before that it could be very, very bad and did nothing. They should have pre-deployed 10 to 20,000 gaurdsman before the storm just out of the path of the worst of it on east and west sides and had them ready to move in as storm left to maintain law and order and to aid in rescue and flood control. Government has really dropped the ball here on this one at state and federal levels because it is not like they had no warning. They could have had things under much better control than they do now if people calling the shots really knew what they were doing. I read that the day after storm that one levee had not failed yet but was weaking and they were going to use Army blackhawk choppers to set 3000 lbs sand bags (several hundred) to shore thing up but some higher up clueless individual deverted the choppers and the levee failed later that day and set back recovery another 1 to 2 month, caused untold additional damage and loss of life. > I think that govenment was asleep at the switch (as usual for last > 4+years) on this one and only got serious after the fact and bad > press. They knew several days before that it could be very, very bad > and did nothing. Wrong. NG spokesmen have stated that orderes to activate were sent out up to 48 hours prior to the storm hitting. This was on MSNBC, not noted as a conservative bastion. > They should have pre-deployed 10 to 20,000 gaurdsman > before the storm just out of the path of the worst of it on east and > west sides and had them ready to move in as storm left to maintain law > and order and to aid in rescue and flood control. As the NG spokesman said, its hard to be absolutely sure where to deploy when you aren't sure exact paths of destruction, or where the greatest need will be in that destruction. Thus, they deployed AFTER the storm as is standard procedure.  SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >>> I guess everybody has been watching the coverage. I figure it is >>time to put [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > recovery another 1 to 2 month, caused untold additional damage and > loss of life. > Wrong. NG spokesmen have stated that orderes to activate were sent > out up to 48 hours prior to the storm hitting. This was on MSNBC, not > noted as a conservative bastion. Interesting article explaining what was done in preparation before Katrina hit the gulf coast. http://www.10news.com/weather/4909184/detail.html > I guess everybody has been watching the coverage. I figure it is time to put > some serious troops in with a no bs set of orders. > > Roy How about putting in some serious food, water and shelter? JAM it was 'time' about 72 hours ago > I guess everybody has been watching the coverage. I figure it is time to put > some serious troops in with a no bs set of orders. > > Roy Naw ... 72 hours ago our fearless leader was still vacationing. How dare you expect any immediate action. Un-frickin-believable. Craig C. More clueless psycho-babble from the Bush-hating looney left. So tell us, if your hero Kerry put you in charge of hurricane relief, what would *you* do differently? Nevermind, it would be just more looney-left psycho-babble. ROTFLMAO! > Naw ... 72 hours ago our fearless leader was still vacationing. How > dare you expect any immediate action. > > Un-frickin-believable. > > Craig C. Eat me you prick. I can tell you this, ANYONE else would have LEAD in this instance. Being leader is more than sitting on the f.cking phone giving orders. It requires that you give the APPEARANCE of leading, so that people can SEE that you concerned and are on top of the situation. So, you tell me ... was Bush giving the appearence of leading while he was sh.t kicking in Crawford? Right wing dickhead. Craig C. Get up on the wrong side of the bed? Face it, there's nothing Bush could do to please you or the other lefties. And those of us on the right are getting a good chuckle watching you all go insane. RFK,Jr claiming it's Haley Barbour's fault Katrina hit Mississippi and that the US's failure to ratify the Kyoto treaty was the cause of Katrina. Too funny. >Eat me you prick. I can tell you this, ANYONE else would have LEAD in >this instance. Being leader is more than sitting on the f.cking phone [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Craig C. Just have to put labels on people, don't you? Is that part of the "contract" when you become a registered Republican? I'm not a democrat or a "leftie" as you put it. Anyone too far to the right is just as mis-informed as someone that is too far left. And YES Bush could have done more! To day is FRIDAY ... GOT THAT? FRIDAY ... the storm hit MONDAY! NG and supplies got there today. Once again today is FRIDAY. It does not take 4-5 days to get relief to a location OUTSIDE the U.S. So, why did it take that long inside the U.S.? I can tell you ... lack of leadership. I can't believe you are actually defending his leadership in this situation. Perhaps if you were there or had family there you would feel differently. But then, that would require you and Jon to think of someone else other than yourselves. What do you care ... ? Your taxes are lower. In your minds, Bush can do no wrong, correct? Again I say, un-fricken-believable. Craig C. >Just have to put labels on people, don't you? Is that part of the >"contract" when you become a registered Republican? I have to put labels on people? Just what part of "Right wing dickhead" wasn't a label? I'm just watching you go nuts and enjoying the show. >I'm not a democrat or a "leftie" as you put it. Anyone too far to the >right is just as mis-informed as someone that is too far left. Well, apparently you aren't a "Right wing dickhead'. >And YES Bush could have done more! To day is FRIDAY ... GOT THAT? >FRIDAY ... the storm hit MONDAY! NG and supplies got there today. >Once again today is FRIDAY. It does not take 4-5 days to get relief to >a location OUTSIDE the U.S. So, why did it take that long inside the >U.S.? I can tell you ... lack of leadership. Uhh, the governor calls out the NG, not the President. >I can't believe you are actually defending his leadership in this >situation. Perhaps if you were there or had family there you would >feel differently. But then, that would require you and Jon to think of >someone else other than yourselves. What do you care ... ? Your taxes >are lower. In your minds, Bush can do no wrong, correct? Sure he does stuff wrong. He's allowed too much spending. He let Teddy uurrpp Kennedy help with the education bill. He didn't select a clearly constitutionalist supreme court nominee. On the other hand he has the left spinning all over the place and for that alone I'll cut him a little extra slack. >Again I say, un-fricken-believable. >Craig C. >>Just have to put labels on people, don't you? Is that part of the >>"contract" when you become a registered Republican? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Uhh, the governor calls out the NG, not the President. Once FEMA is invoved don't they call the shots? Roy My labeling, which was colorful, was a hurried response. Doesn't make it right ... but god damnit, everytime the slightest political discussion gets mentioned here, there is always some a.shole that swings in with the "looney leftie" bullshit if it happens to put Bush in slightest negative light. Have you ever considered that perhaps your overly conservative view might be a bit too far to the right and void of reason? No, of course not. Frankly, many of the people in this group are intolerant, left and right. It's unfortunate, however, that someone (Jon and you) make judgements without knowing anything about the poster. For example, Jon called me a "looney leftie", and you called me a "leftie". Both of you are wrong, although I expect you would never admit it even if the proof were shoved down your throat. That's what happens when you believe in a club/good-ole-boy-network as opposed to an idea. IMO, there are two sides ... not right and left ... rather right and wrong. Bush and his federal response, which he is responsible for INCLUDING THE NATIONAL GUARD, (keyword: "NATIONAL") were wrong in the timing of their response. As I said previously, if you had family or friends there you'd drop your prideful right view and see the facts. Bush let us down ... again. Any overly right person that disagrees with the facts can naw on my overly large left nut. Americans should get the royal treatment and immediate response when a disaster occurs. The people of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama are part of what makes this country great. Anyone that disagrees is damn fool. They deserve better than they've gotten. Craig C. > Bush and his federal response, which he is responsible for > INCLUDING THE NATIONAL GUARD, (keyword: "NATIONAL") were wrong in the The reason you got labelled is because of statements like the above. As many of us have pointed out, Bush can do NOTHING on a federal level until asked to do so by the Governors of the states. As a recent lawsuit so obviously pointed out, the NG is under the command of the GOVERNOR, and cannot be disbanded, moved, sent, ordered, called up, etc without the Governor being involved. Perhaps if you stopped blaming Bush for something he had no control over, your words would get more respect. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > My labeling, which was colorful, was a hurried response. Doesn't make > it right ... but god damnit, everytime the slightest political [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Craig C. So, Max, are you telling me that there is NOTHING the federal government can do in the time of a national crises? They can draft young men right out of their homes ... but they can't call on state support for NG involvement? The federal goverment can call on NG troops and ANG (Texas Air National Guard, I know for sure) troops in the times of crises. If you disagree, then you have to explain the TANG's federal involvement during the Vietnam war. Which, ironically, Bush was suposedly part of. And ... BTW, I'm not "Bush bashing" anymore than I would be "Kerry bashing" if he reacted the same way. What's interesting to me is that there are people that will defend that idiot regardless of the facts. It's almost cult-like. Craig C. > So, Max, are you telling me that there is NOTHING the federal > government can do in the time of a national crises? They can draft > young men right out of their homes ... but they can't call on state > support for NG involvement? BINGO. You have to understand that the United STATES are STATES first, and a nation second, as odd as it sounds. As such, the NG is under the command of the STATE, unless they leave the country. My previous post has a couple of links you should look at. Now, if you want to argue that the USNavy is a latecomer, and should have been ordered into the Gulf days ago, I'll readily agree. But still, we are looking at a case where the STATE has to call for support in order to allow what amounts to landing federal troops on STATE territory. IMO, If I were in command of a fleet, I would have had ships standing off Florida waiting for orders to go in. BUT, I'd STILL have to answer for my actions if no call for help came in. Basically put, our government has always been REactionary, not PROactionary. In some ways, the very laws that keep us independant as states are the exact reason the Feds cannot get involved more quickly. It takes three days from the situation assessment to actual deployment on scene. Assessment came on Tuesday morning, its now Friday, and troops are rolling in. Recall, it took four days until any large scale relief hit the tsunami area last Christmas. > The federal goverment can call on NG troops and ANG (Texas Air National > Guard, I know for sure) troops in the times of crises. If you > disagree, then you have to explain the TANG's federal involvement > during the Vietnam war. Which, ironically, Bush was suposedly part of. Easy, check the link I had in my last post. NG is under STATE command while in the U.S., federal command OUTside the U.S. "Times of crisis" has to be taken in context, what crisis, and WHERE is the crisis. > And ... BTW, I'm not "Bush bashing" anymore than I would be "Kerry > bashing" if he reacted the same way. What's interesting to me is that > there are people that will defend that idiot regardless of the facts. > It's almost cult-like. Well, assuming you would bash Kerry in like circumstances, its clear you do not have a good picture of what POTUS can and cannot do, despite being POTUS. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > So, Max, are you telling me that there is NOTHING the federal > government can do in the time of a national crises? They can draft [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Craig C. >> Bush and his federal response, which he is responsible for >> INCLUDING THE NATIONAL GUARD, (keyword: "NATIONAL") were wrong in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > cannot be disbanded, moved, sent, ordered, called up, etc without the > Governor being involved. IIrc once Bush put it in the hands of FEMA, FEMA calls the shot. > IIrc once Bush put it in the hands of FEMA, FEMA calls the shot. Assuming this is true, it still lets Bush off the hook. However, having read what the JAG says, I think FEMA is only responsible for relief efforts, not troop movement for enforcement or crowd control. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >>> Bush and his federal response, which he is responsible for >>> INCLUDING THE NATIONAL GUARD, (keyword: "NATIONAL") were wrong in the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > IIrc once Bush put it in the hands of FEMA, FEMA calls the shot. <SNIP> I have been called a right leaning conservative and it is a pretty good fit. However, that being said, you are right, Bush blew it this time. It happened on his watch. He's my guy and I'm pissed about his lack of leadership, but the truth is the truth and I can't defend him or overlook him this time. Instead of the 'sh.t Happens' attitude I expected more, as in 'I'm the President, I make sh.t Happen!' No such luck. Understand though, that I think that overall Bush was a far better choice than Kerry. None the less, Bush blew it this time. Being a 'looney leftie' you probably don't read Lionel Waxman so I would like to insert his column since he says it better than me. A lot of conservatives are pissed too. Remember conservative is not synonymous with stupid or ignorant. ADVERSARIES CHORTLE OVER U.S. UNPREPAREDNESS Lionel Waxman ---- September 2, 2005 ---- The image of America and its defense of the homeland has been seriously damaged. We look to the world as if we don't know what we're doing to handle a natural disaster. We expose to them and to ourselves a new vulnerability which invites attack. Wouldn't this be a great time to kick us with a terrorist attack. We are spread so thin, and our resources are so badly directed, maybe they could spread the misery of the Gulf Coast to the rest of the country. This is not a happy article. But it is a realistic one. A large dose of reality is needed now, especially in the top levels of government. We can see now that even our most senior officials have been sleepwalking through their roles in homeland defense. Our preparedness was an illusion. Attention, al Qaeda, this is none of your business. (Hah) The demonstrated incompetence is unforgivable. Put party allegiance aside. Our allegiance is to the United States of America. Our very survival is at stake. And the people we have relied upon obviously are not up to the job. We can use this experience as a lesson and establish real emergency management and real homeland defense. Or, we can continue to publish learned papers and go through the motions and when (not if) the next catastrophe happens, we might not be able to recover in any recognizable form. The president, speaking briefly to the nation this morning, ad-libbed a short speech in which he said the response was not acceptable. That's putting it mildly. He promised relief was on the way. On the way? It's Friday. All of the promised relief should have been here a week ago. People are dying. ~~~~~~~ I also liked, "Don't buy gas if you don't have to." from a day or two ago. What a pearl of wisdom that was! > IMO, there are two sides ... not right and left ... rather right and > wrong. Bush and his federal response, which he is responsible for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Bush let us down ... again. Any overly right person that disagrees > with the facts can naw on my overly large left nut. You may be on the left on issues, but you are right this time. I'm not sure about the AGAIN part, but Bush let the country down this time. And this time transcends political affiliations, this fiasco is an affront to every citizen and a death sentence to many. As US citizens we all should be very pissed. This was not an earthquake, a tornado, a volcanic eruption, or a sneak attack, we had a warning and time to act and we didn't do squat. > Americans should get the royal treatment and immediate response when a > disaster occurs. The people of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama are > part of what makes this country great. Anyone that disagrees is damn > fool. They deserve better than they've gotten. > > Craig C. We all deserve better than we have gotten, but the two party system doesn't give us much choice in the matter. And to make matters worse, the middle of the road citizens are too busy to care very much. So the far left and the far right carry on the fight and refuse to even compromise much less try to reach a consensus. The loons on both sides are allowed to set the agenda, if you can call it that. Clinton getting head in the Oval Office and Bush jerking off in Crawford. Bush and the country sure got the shitty end of the stick on that deal as I'm sure history will show. Regards, Lee T. > My labeling, which was colorful, was a hurried response. Doesn't make > it right ... but god damnit, everytime the slightest political [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > your overly conservative view might be a bit too far to the right and > void of reason? No, of course not. Thats because whenever something bad happens the loony left's hatred kicks into full swing at blaming Bush for anything and everything they can. Have you felt your hatred possibly is a bit too far to the extreme and void of reason? No, of course not. Well Craig, you might be right to blame Bush if Bush had command of the NG. However, the NG is commanded by the Governors of the state where the NG is posted. In this case, the Pentagon had ordered the NG to Iraq. Further, the reason why things didn't move faster is not lack of leadership, but DUPLICITY of leadership. If the Mayor of NO had his orders followed, the levees may have been reinforced. Also, all leadership appears to have had NO PLAN. No plan to evacuate those without transport, No plan to force people to follow the evac orders, No plan to have the Navy on station within hours, I could go on. Where does that fall? On FEMA, on local government, state government, NG leadership, Military leadership etc. Ultimately, there may be a conflict in how legal it is to order military intervention on a national level into a crisis on a state level. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > Just have to put labels on people, don't you? Is that part of the > "contract" when you become a registered Republican? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Again I say, un-fricken-believable. > Craig C. The federal government can call on the NG troops for assistance in times of crises. I think this qualifies. Even if they couldn't, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama were calling for aid on MONDAY evening!!!!! 5 days later ... It's unfortunate that all of our troops, including NG are in Iraq helping those idiots establish a government when we need them here. But ... for the sake of brevity, I won't go into how moronic it is that we are fighting a useless war. Really, we should go back and examine who it was that killed funding, over and over and over to Louisiana when they requested federal funding for improving their levees. Hrm ... something tells me the Bush supporters are going to blame it one someone else ... Tunnel vision ... it's a great thing, eh? Craig C. > The federal government can call on the NG troops for assistance in > times of crises. I think this qualifies. Even if they couldn't, > Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama were calling for aid on MONDAY > evening!!!!! 5 days later ... Lets start by noting that there are several different chains of command in the NG. While the Feds can call them up, it has to be through the charge of the State in which they are stationed. https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/JAGCNETInternet/Homepages/AC/CLAMO-Public.nsf/0/1af 4860452f962c085256a490049856f/$FILE/Chapter%2026%20-%20Reserve%20Component.htm This link is to a site where the chain of command is described. "National Guard soldiers serving in their home state in such roles as disaster relief or control of civil disturbances typically serve in their state status. By regulation and policy, National Guard soldiers serving outside the United States must serve in their Federal status." As such, they are under command of the GOVERNOR, this according to the JAG. > Really, we should go back and examine who it was that killed funding, > over and over and over to Louisiana when they requested federal funding > for improving their levees. Hrm ... something tells me the Bush > supporters are going to blame it one someone else ... HMM, MSNBC had a gentleman on tonight, head of the Army Corps of Engineers, when pressed to place blame put it firmly in the finacial offices of thefederal government, who turned down his repeated requests for money to complete the project. Try this link, for an interview with a gentleman who places the blame on NO and state government. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9177135/ > Tunnel vision ... it's a great thing, eh? Seems so, its keeping you from seeing anything you don't want to see. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > The federal government can call on the NG troops for assistance in > times of crises. I think this qualifies. Even if they couldn't, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Craig C. And ... what is it, Max, that I am not seeing? Your view point? The Pro-Bush-No-Matter-What view point? Oh, I see it ... and it's pathetic. We (the federal government and neighboring state governments) can do better at every level with a little leadership. I see things as they are and how they should be, Max. Storm was Monday. Relief on Friday. Pitiful. Almost as pitiful as the arguments used to excuse it. We've spent all of this time talking about the NG and ANG. What about the Coast Guard? Oh, wait you probably have some excuse why Bush didn't tap that resource either, right? Let me guess ... it's the democrats fault? Craig C. > And ... what is it, Max, that I am not seeing? Your view point? The > Pro-Bush-No-Matter-What view point? Ya know, you are just looking for some wool or sand to cover your eyes. I'm far from pro Bush. I show you exactly what the JAG has to say about who controls the NG, and you whine about it. I put forth the accepted time line for a reliefe effort, and you whine about it. Fact is, until you assess the disaster, you cannot send relief. Then you have to get supplies and personnel. After getting it together, you have to get in, THEN execute the plan. > Oh, I see it ... and it's pathetic. We (the federal government and > neighboring state governments) can do better at every level with a > little leadership. Bingo. DUH, and all that. WTF? A city 10' undersea level at LOW TIDE, and they had no plan to evac the residents with no cars? WTF? ALL cities have residents without cars. WTF? A levee designed for Cat 3 hurricane, and a Cat 4 shows up, and they figure all is well? WTF? No plan to bolster the levees if a problem develops? Then you bash the federal and state agencies. Guess what? USCG was busy pulling people from roof tops, thousands. It takes 10 minutes to pull one person from a roof top. Max capacity 3-6 persons. 20 minutes to drop off passengers. DAYS to get them all. So you want to drop supplies to people using helicopters, but all available are pulling rooftop rescue. You do realize that ALL aircraft are pulled from the path of a huirricane, right? Once pulled, they have to have a landing zone cleared for use. I could go on and on about logistics. Fact is, disaster relief starts at the site, and goes outward. > I see things as they are and how they should be, Max. No, you don't. You see things as how you think they can be, but you don't have a clue as to the chain of command, let alone the logistics of rescuing thousands of individuals one at a time. > Storm was > Monday. Relief on Friday. Pitiful. No, its damn good. As I've challenged others, find ONE major disaster where relief came within two days, let alone next day. Even September 11th took threee days to bring in the full amount of relief, and that was minor in regard to number of people and amount of area involved. Hell, the city was shut down for a day. > Almost as pitiful as the > arguments used to excuse it. And yet, you've come up with NOTHING that provides a means to accomplish what you feel should have been done on a time frame which would satisfy you. > We've spent all of this time talking > about the NG and ANG. What about the Coast Guard? What about them? They were on scene the next day. You DID see all the TV footage of them pulling people off roof tops, right? > Oh, wait you > probably have some excuse why Bush didn't tap that resource either, > right? Let me guess ... it's the democrats fault? Excuse? Bush didn't "tap" it because they were on scene. WTF were YOU watching? I was watching orange helos pulling people off rooftops on Tuesday, by Wednesday I was seeing Blackhawks doing the same. WTF do you want from these people? SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > And ... what is it, Max, that I am not seeing? Your view point? The > Pro-Bush-No-Matter-What view point? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Craig C. >Ya know, you are just looking for some wool or sand to cover your eyes. Well, gosh Max, if I'm that much of a lost cause, what the f.ck are you burning up the keyboard for? Perhaps you're trying to prove YOUR point rather than see that things can be better. >I'm >far from pro Bush. I show you exactly what the JAG has to say about who >controls the NG, and you whine about it. Nope, I didn't whine. Fact: the federal government can assign NG at their descretion in times of emergency. And even if they couldn't ... THE f.cking govenors requested NG help MONDAY!!!! >I put forth the accepted time line for a reliefe effort, No, you put forth an unacceptable timeline. That's the point. The timeline is and has been unacceptable. >they had no plan to evac the residents with no cars? WTF? ALL cities have >residents without cars. Not sure of your point here. No sh.t sherlock ... many folks don't have cars. Just what was done to try to evacuate them is not known. My argument has been about the post-planning. FEMA knew 24 hours before it hit that it was going to be a national disaster. According to your dumbass theory, we need to wait to "assess" the damage ... burning 48 hours of planning time. That's 48 hours, BTW, without food and clean water. Have YOU ever gone 48 hours with food and clean water? How about 72 hours? Doubtful. If you had, your timeline would have been shorter. >WTF? A levee designed for Cat 3 hurricane, and a Cat >4 shows up, and they figure all is well? WTF? No plan to bolster the levees >if a problem develops? How then do you explain that repeated requests for federal funding were made to shore up the levees and not only turned down but the budget was cut consistently year after year? >Fact is, disaster relief starts at the site, and goes outward. Ah ... it's their fault. You really cleared it up for me. >No, you don't. You see things as how you think they can be, What if this were an attack rather than a hurricane? Still 72 hours to respond? >No, its damn good. As I've challenged others, find ONE major disaster where >relief came within two days, let alone next day. As I stated in another post, 1982-1994 California earthquakes. I had to write a research paper on the earthquakes of that time period and the effect it had on the economic development of the region. I can't think of a single instance that took this long to get relief efforts churning. In fact, when the bridge collpased, there were rescue workers and FEMA presence with 24 hours. I will be leaving in the morning to drive to Houston to pick up a homeless NO family. I'll make sure and let them know just how GREAT of a job you think our government has done. At least I can get them to laugh about something. Craig C. > Well, gosh Max, if I'm that much of a lost cause, what the f.ck are you > burning up the keyboard for? Perhaps you're trying to prove YOUR point > rather than see that things can be better. Sure, things could be better, no hurricane for example. But reality is far different from your idealized vision. > Nope, I didn't whine. Fact: the federal government can assign NG at > their descretion in times of emergency. And even if they couldn't ... > THE f.cking govenors requested NG help MONDAY!!!! No, they cannot. I showed you the document, and you refuse to believe it. FACT: you don't have proof, just repeated claims. > No, you put forth an unacceptable timeline. That's the point. The > timeline is and has been unacceptable. By what standard? You do realize that you'll need to prove that it can be done faster in order to disprove me and my sources. Further, you'll have to prove that all the TV footage on Tuesday was staged in Hollywood (or where ever) and that USCG helos were NOT actually over NO pulling people from rooftops. > Not sure of your point here. No sh.t sherlock ... many folks don't > have cars. Just what was done to try to evacuate them is not known. Nothing comes to mind. Try the link to the Junkyarddog site. Fascinating. > My argument has been about the post-planning. FEMA knew 24 hours > before it hit that it was going to be a national disaster. Of what magnitude? What would be needed? Would NO flood? (hint: it did not initially, thus the scope of the disaster changed AFTER you claim they should have been in action.) > According > to your dumbass theory, OOH, the name calling defense..... > we need to wait to "assess" the damage ... > burning 48 hours of planning time. LOL, I never said wait 48 hours, I said they wait till the full scope of the disaster is known. Thus, its not MY dumbass plan, nor is it unwis to WAIT till all the facts are in. >That's 48 hours, BTW, without food > and clean water. Have YOU ever gone 48 hours with food and clean > water? How about 72 hours? Doubtful. If you had, your timeline would > have been shorter. I've done 24, and instead of whining about it, I went and helped fill sandbags, and then helped deliver them to the break in the dike. We had a plan, and followed it. We saved our own a.ses. Hauled 15-20 tons of sandbags, often going down the road into town at 14,000 lbs in a 8800 lbs GVWR truck. Beats the hell out of complaining that aid isn't there before the crisis. 72 hours is a long time to do without, and it sucks. But the fact is, you cannot go in without a plan based on what actually happened, instead of predictions. > How then do you explain that repeated requests for federal funding were > made to shore up the levees and not only turned down but the budget was > cut consistently year after year? Federal funding comes from the government finance office after Congressional approval. Notice that no where in all that is the President responsible. I refer you to an interview conducted by MSNBC with the gentleman (wow, did I mention this before? YES!!!) who REQUESTED the funding. When asked if Bush was to blame, he said NO, it was governmental beaurocracy that slammed the door on it. >>Fact is, disaster relief starts at the site, and goes outward. > > Ah ... it's their fault. You really cleared it up for me. Yeah, IT IS their fault. No plan on reality, and when push came to shove, forgetting what little plan they had and going without a plan. Would you like to read the plan? I have the PDF saved. The link in a post by langerhans has all the info. >>No, you don't. You see things as how you think they can be, > > What if this were an attack rather than a hurricane? Still 72 hours to > respond? Unfortunately, yes. To return an attack in force, it would take three days to counter with ground forces. Air power would be on scene in a day.... like it was on Tuesday. > As I stated in another post, 1982-1994 California earthquakes. I had > to write a research paper on the earthquakes of that time period and > the effect it had on the economic development of the region. I can't > think of a single instance that took this long to get relief efforts > churning. In fact, when the bridge collpased, there were rescue > workers and FEMA presence with 24 hours. There was a "FEMA presence" in 24 hours here too. What there WAS NOT was a PLAN by the government of the area involved. > I will be leaving in the morning to drive to Houston to pick up a > homeless NO family. I'll make sure and let them know just how GREAT of > a job you think our government has done. At least I can get them to > laugh about something. Fine by me. You spread your political bullshit, and I'll laugh as reality slaps you silly time and again. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > >Ya know, you are just looking for some wool or sand to cover your eyes. > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > Craig C. >No, they cannot. I showed you the document, and you refuse to believe it. >FACT: you don't have proof, just repeated claims. Explain NG's role in Vietnam and in the current war if the federal government has no power over them. >> Ah ... it's their fault. You really cleared it up for me. >Yeah, IT IS their fault. Model American. 'nuff said. Craig C. Thought you were going to bed?? > Explain NG's role in Vietnam and in the current war if the federal > government has no power over them. I already have. INSIDE the U.S., the NG is under STATE command. OUTSIDE the U.S., they are under FEDERAL command. I posted a link showing this. I suggest you look at it, and figure it out. > Model American. Placing blame where it belongs is better than whining and blaming for a political agenda. You had the facts placed at your disposal, and you instead choose to use a name calling defense along with outright ignorance. > 'nuff said. Indeed, since you've said nothing for hours now. Go to bed. Do good things despite your opinion of the President. Good luck and stay safe. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > >No, they cannot. I showed you the document, and you refuse to believe it. >>FACT: you don't have proof, just repeated claims. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Craig C. >I already have. INSIDE the U.S., the NG is under STATE command. OUTSIDE the >U.S., they are under FEDERAL command. I posted a link showing this. I >suggest you look at it, and figure it out. Well, hey, if his hands are tied his hands are tied, right? Poor guy, got the title but no power. The power to command the NG and ANG to Iraq to kick a.s and establish order, but not to help his own countrymen. The power to send military personnel into battle without congressional approval ... but not to help his countrymen. That, Max, is a giant pile of bovine excrement. You know better ... we all know better. >Placing blame where it belongs is better than whining and blaming for a >political agenda. I place on the blame on government for our response time. Even Bush himself said it was unacceptable. It needed better leadership. Hrm ... I wonder who could have done that? >Indeed, since you've said nothing for hours now. Funny. I believe the response could have been better ... the majority of the public knows it could have have been better and quicker. Even our president knows it could have been better (as stated on TV). You, however, have stated that it was ahead of schedule according to your timeline ... and that the slow response time was people of NO's fault anyway (????). Perhaps I am a bit idealistic at times, but that's better than being lazy and complacent and accepting the status quo. The status quo is okay for rest of the world, but not for our own people. It's a shame that our elected leader, like you, is better at making excuses than coming up with ideas to help his people. That mentality is borderline criminal in my opinion. >Do good things despite your opinion of the President. Good luck >and stay safe. ;) Thanks ... I will. Craig C. > Well, hey, if his hands are tied his hands are tied, right? Poor guy, > got the title but no power. The power to command the NG and ANG to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is a giant pile of bovine excrement. You know better ... we all know > better. Fortunately, its not. Its the direct result of a bunch of guys getting together and making sure that a federal government could never take over the soverignty of the state. > I place on the blame on government for our response time. Even Bush > himself said it was unacceptable. It needed better leadership. Hrm > ... I wonder who could have done that? While you are wondering, start at the bottom. The people closest to the problem know the most about it and how to solve it. I'v already suggested that Bush or the pentagon could have had this fleet (now being sent) waiting in Florida. But the responsibility for saving a persons life starts with the person, his local government, his state, then his nation. > Funny. I believe the response could have been better ... the majority > of the public knows it could have have been better and quicker. Even > our president knows it could have been better (as stated on TV). You, > however, have stated that it was ahead of schedule according to your > timeline ... and that the slow response time was people of NO's fault > anyway (????). I never said the response time was NO fault. The evac plan that failed was NO fault. I've said the response time was the norm for mobilizing a force to correct a problem. I've also said that the helos were there the next day. Hell, just watch ANY news channel, people are saying it was a domino effect, first ya have to get people out of immediate danger, THEN you get them fed. People on rooftops took priority, its that simple. > Perhaps I am a bit idealistic at times, but that's > better than being lazy and complacent and accepting the status quo. > The status quo is okay for rest of the world, but not for our own > people. It's a shame that our elected leader, like you, is better at > making excuses than coming up with ideas to help his people. That > mentality is borderline criminal in my opinion. No excuses, I've shown you the facts, you simply refuse to believe them. You want to talk about the response of the Navy, I'll readily agree, but the rest worked fairly well all things considered. The biggest failure in this whole thing is the fact that NO didn't follow their plan, and didn't have a real plan to get people out, stating that personal vehicles were the method. I also lay blame at the feet of those who built the levees, who claim they were 85% finished. Not good enough. >>Do good things despite your opinion of the President. Good luck >>and stay safe. > > ;) Thanks ... I will. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > >I already have. INSIDE the U.S., the NG is under STATE command. OUTSIDE > >the [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Craig C. I respect (most of) your view(s). I disagree, and have stated why. Thanks for the debate. BTW, do you ever sleep? ;) Craig C. >I respect (most of) your view(s). I disagree, and have stated why. > Thanks for the debate. > > BTW, do you ever sleep? I think we agree on the major point. More could have been done earlier, but the difference is who could have done it and the legal implications. I'm disgusted that the USN wasn't on scene within a day. I continue to be disgusted that a desperately needed hospital ship is STILL in Baltimore. I can't afford to sleep. Because of a good economy (at least locally) I'm working 60 hours a week. Living alone, I have lots to do on many things otherwise. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >I respect (most of) your view(s). I disagree, and have stated why. > Thanks for the debate. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ;) > Craig C. >I can't afford to sleep. Because of a good economy (at least locally) I'm >working 60 hours a week. Living alone, I have lots to do on many things >otherwise. Agreed. I'm 3 months behind on laundry. If I don't dedicate a little time soon, I'll have to start turning my skivies inside out. I either need a good woman ... or a cheap maid. Both are scarce as hen's teeth in Dallas, TX. Craig C. > Agreed. I'm 3 months behind on laundry. If I don't dedicate a little > time soon, I'll have to start turning my skivies inside out. I either > need a good woman ... or a cheap maid. Both are scarce as hen's teeth > in Dallas, TX. Sounds all too familiar. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > >I can't afford to sleep. Because of a good economy (at least locally) I'm >>working 60 hours a week. Living alone, I have lots to do on many things [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Craig C. > Just have to put labels on people, don't you? Is that part of the > "contract" when you become a registered Republican? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a location OUTSIDE the U.S. So, why did it take that long inside the > U.S.? I can tell you ... lack of leadership. Before you go off the deep end, you should consider HOW the government works in relation to the states. First, yes the prez got aid off to Indonesia in a hell of a hurry! Why then, could he not get aid to Nawlin's that fast? Simple, it is not a Federal issue until the states specifically request Federal assistance. The prez has control of the US military for foreign operations and thus could order them into action immediately after the tsunami hit Indonesia. The prez has ZERO control over the National Guard when it operates in the US. The several states governors are the NG's CINC, thus it is incumbent upon the governors to order them into action. In the event of a natural disaster within the borders of the US, the Federal government has NO jurisdiction until help is requested by the affected states. That is why you always hear that such and such governor has requested that the President declare the area a national disaster area. THEN and ONLY then can the Fed's rush in to help. Now, having clarified that point which many don't stop to consider, I don't think three days is too damned bad to get a huge bureaucracy like the Federal gummint moving. Have you ever served in the military? Do you know how long it takes to plan, prepare and provision for a major operation? Probably not. Go ahead and Bush bash all you want, but trust me, IMHO he is doing all he can and rather than carp, second-guess and otherwise bitch about a bad situation we should pray for the folks in the affected area and find a way to help however we can. Mike > I can't believe you are actually defending his leadership in this > situation. Perhaps if you were there or had family there you would [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Again I say, un-fricken-believable. > Craig C. >> Just have to put labels on people, don't you? Is that part of the >> "contract" when you become a registered Republican? [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Mike Mike, Did your dealer get the D-Mail from DC today that states DC will match any $$$ the dealer contributes to the Red Cross. It came to ours about 10 am today. I thought that was a helluva gesture from DC Denny >>> Just have to put labels on people, don't you? Is that part of the >>> "contract" when you become a registered Republican? [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Denny Yeah, DC gave one million direct and $500k from their employee fund and will match dealer contributions dollar for dollar. Our store is matching employee contributions dollar for dollar so that means with DC kicking in, each dealer employee dollar equals four dollars for relief. We have contacted the other DC dealers in our zone and many are interested in joining us. We have contacted the Red Cross about a blood drive at our place too, but they haven't gotten back to us yet. That's what I meant in my previous post, we all need to DO something instead of just bitch about Bush. Mike > Yeah, DC gave one million direct and $500k from their employee fund and > will match dealer contributions dollar for dollar. Our store is matching [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Mike It's amazing what can happen when everybody is on the same side.. Denny In response to this post and your other post ... I have done something. I offered the empty rooms in my house to victims of the disaster, 2 days ago. I'm going to pick up a family this weekend in Houston. I guess it's a good thing I wasn't vacationing, eh? Now then, what are you going to do? Continue bitching at me about bitching about Bush? He could have done more and you know it. Hell, I did more than he did the first 2 days after the disaster. If I only had a military on call ... oh and some empty military bases ... Craig C. > In response to this post and your other post ... I have done something. > I offered the empty rooms in my house to victims of the disaster, 2 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Craig C. With all due respect, you are clueless if you think the response could have been any faster. Also, you maintained in a previous post that you "weren't" Bush bashing, but no more than a paragraph later, you called him an idiot... sounds like Bush bashing to me, but then, what do I know? Mike Yes, the response could have been faster. Air drops of food and supplies. Medical personnel centrally located and clean up crews to gather the dead. All could be done within 48 hours. If you disagree ... then tell me why. What is so unreasonable about a 48 hour response like I described above? There are PLENTY of volunteers ... just no direction. (direction == leadership) BTW, Kerry is an idiot too. There now, do you feel better? Have I stroked your feathers the "right" way now? Follow your own advice ... DO something. The NO mayor said it best: "Get off your a.ses!" Craig C. > Yes, the response could have been faster. Air drops of food and > supplies. Medical personnel centrally located and clean up crews to > gather the dead. All could be done within 48 hours. If you disagree > ... then tell me why. What is so unreasonable about a 48 hour response > like I described above? There are PLENTY of volunteers ... just no > direction. (direction == leadership) 48 hours? In what vehicles can you put 10,000 troops (any troops, red cross, NG, whatever) with no clear road in, no gasoline, and no mass quantities of supplies? Three days is the fastest it can be done, and here we are, three days into the crisis, and all of that and more is rolling in. You cannot simply drop stuff on crowds, its heavy and will kill people. > Follow your own advice ... DO something. The NO mayor said it best: > "Get off your a.ses!" Indeed, perhaps the ablebodied among the crowds could walk the hell out, provide direction and information to the rescuers, and maybe even assistance. General rule, in a crisis, become part of the solution, not the problem. As I see the video, I'm curious why some in those crowds looking for relief supplies didn't take initiative and clear a landing zone for a helicopter. I'd bet good money that most of the reason they refused to land is the safety factor of having an unruly crowd under spinning rotor blades. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > Yes, the response could have been faster. Air drops of food and > supplies. Medical personnel centrally located and clean up crews to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Craig C. > Yes, the response could have been faster. Air drops of food and > supplies. Medical personnel centrally located and clean up crews to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Craig C. Yes mayor, get off your dead a.s and utilize the resources at YOUR disposal. How about all these unused BUSSES that could have been used for evacuation? After all, you're a genius, you KNEW what a disaster was coming and YOU left them there to flood. You live in a glass house mayor and you're deflecting attention from your own incompetence. Congrats to Craig for offering up his spare rooms to the victims. Let us know how it goes. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050901/480/flpc21109012015 >> Just have to put labels on people, don't you? Is that part of the >> "contract" when you become a registered Republican? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > then, could he not get aid to Nawlin's that fast? Simple, it is not a > Federal issue until the states specifically request Federal assistance. AGAIN!!! Once FEMA is involved don't they call the shots and have final say??????????? > The prez has control of the US military for foreign operations and thus > could order them into action immediately after the tsunami hit Indonesia. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > President declare the area a national disaster area. THEN and ONLY then > can the Fed's rush in to help. That's cute. The gov's are cinc after the guy that has no control over the ng sends 1/2 of the cinc force overseas. Now you care to tell me why a s hook or any other bird couldn't sling load food and water in? Guess it had to be trucked in. Some guy loaded those water trailers in texas MONDAY Today is Friday. > Now, having clarified that point which many don't stop to consider, I > don't think three days is too damned bad to get a huge bureaucracy like [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> Again I say, un-fricken-believable. >> Craig C. In the world of extreme right and extreme left the facts get ignored, Roy. Yes, you are correct. FEMA reports to and is headed by Michael Brown ... a Bush appointed under-secretary. They took control of the situation and can request aid from ANY state, local, or federal government. They are also involved in inspecting dams and levees for safety. (?????????????) Louisiana has repeatedly requested federal funding for shoring up their levees. They have been turned down year after year. How 'bout them tax cuts? Craig C. > Louisiana has repeatedly requested federal funding for shoring up their > levees. They have been turned down year after year. How much state taxes have been allocated to shoring up the levees over the past 30 years? > How 'bout them tax cuts? Federal revenue has increased substantially after the tax cuts. So tell us what your point is? I made my point. Our government could have done and should have done better. The details of how are widely debatable. I already expended all of the debate fuel I had in reserve with Max. Sorry. ;) Craig C. if you are a resident of N.O. or LA, yes, 'your government' should have done better for a concise time-line of how badly the Mayor and Governor screwed up: http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2005/09/04/katrina-response-timeline to see how effectively the N.O. School System's bus fleet was used to evac those without transportation, go here: http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/007188.html FEMA is NOT a 'first responder'............................... > I made my point. Our government could have done and should have done > better. The details of how are widely debatable. I already expended > all of the debate fuel I had in reserve with Max. Sorry. ;) > > Craig C. >if you are a resident of N.O. or LA, yes, 'your government' should have done >better http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/05/katrina.lott/index.html Covering your eyes and pretending a problem doesn't exist in the federal goverment, doesn't mean the problem isn't there. Craig C. once more: the 'federal government' could do NOTHING until the local and state governments requested it to do something but the local and state officials refused to admit they were in over their heads > >if you are a resident of N.O. or LA, yes, 'your government' should have done > >better [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Craig C. :) So, 20,000 trailers of supplies sitting behind FEDERAL red tape (FEMA) is a result of local and state government not requesting help sooner? Did you read the article I posted in the link? http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/05/katrina.lott/index.html Even Trent Lott ... the conservative/Republican poster boy says the federal government f.cked up ... and is STILL f.cking up. Regardless, I don't have any desire to debate with you. My eyes are open to what is going on. I urge you and many others to open yours. You might even go one step further and do something to help. For example, donate money, offer an empty room in your house. Volunteer to take up collections of clothes and canned goods. The is disaster will go away sooner if everyone works together. Craig C. > So, 20,000 trailers of supplies sitting behind FEDERAL red tape (FEMA) > is a result of local and state government not requesting help sooner? Weren't you done with this? :) It was a slow day at work. :) Craig C. I'll readily agree red tape is a problem. But red tape is caused by the very government which complains of it. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > :) > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Craig C. > :) > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > The is disaster will go away sooner if everyone works together. Local officials said they needed 24 hours to decide whether to declare a disaster or not. That was in direct response of the WH asking them to do just that. > once more: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but the local and state officials refused to admit they were in over their > head I heard the local officials saying they needed 24 hours to think about it before declaring a disaster. > I heard the local officials saying they needed 24 hours to think about it > before declaring a disaster. I believe "let's all sleep on it" was the Governess's exact wording :) (rumors of, "Feds? We ain't got no Feds. We don't need no STEENKIN' FEDS!!!" were greatly exaggerated) > > once more: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I heard the local officials saying they needed 24 hours to think about > it before declaring a disaster. yep probably hoping 'things get better' > I made my point. Our government could have done and should have done > better. The details of how are widely debatable. I already expended > all of the debate fuel I had in reserve with Max. Sorry. ;) I think most agree more could have been done. Problem is you pointed the finger at Bush without thinking. Actually Miles, if you go back and read what was originally written, what griped my a.s most about Bush was the "image of leadership" he was portraying. (2 days after the storm, he was still in Crawford ... vacationing). 99% of my finger pointing was directed at the federal government and its lack of leadership, particularly FEMA and the NG/ANG (which I do/did believe could be ordered into service by the president and FEMA). Just how bad the leadership was/is and how far to the top it goes remains to be seen ... although I'm 'guessing' it goes all the way to the top. All of that is over. Now it's time to pick up the pieces. We have a lot of work to do if we are going to get things back in shape for Mardi Gras. :) Craig C. once more, Braniac the 'Federal government' could do NOTHING until the N.O. Mayor and LA Governor requested it now, please explain how Bush doing NOTHING in Wash DC is better than Bush doing NOTHING in Crawford for yet another example of how the idiot Governor of :LA caused relief efforts to bog down: http://laffinattheleft.blogspot.com/2005/09/another-missed-opportunity-by-blanco.html > Actually Miles, if you go back and read what was originally written, > what griped my a.s most about Bush was the "image of leadership" he was [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Craig C. >once more, Braniac >the 'Federal government' could do NOTHING until the N.O. Mayor and LA >Governor requested it I already acknowledged that, idiot. >now, please explain how Bush doing NOTHING in Wash DC is better than Bush >doing NOTHING in Crawford "Image" of leadership. Is this really so hard to understand? I work from home some of the time, but when something goes wrong, my presence is required, if nothing else, to show that the problem is being handled. FEMA's headquarters are in Washington, along with the guy Bush appointed to head it, Michael Brown. Nothing like face-to-face a.s chewing to get the ball rolling, eh? Regarding your link "laffinattheleft.blo ..." I won't read that trash because by it's very address marks it a right wing, cover-my-eyes-to-all-of-the-facts-if-they-put-the-Republican/conservative-view-in-a-negative-light ... just like I wouldn't read a "laffinattheright ..." website for the same reason. IMO, if you're too far to the right ... you're a nazi. Too far to the left and you're a communist. Both sides are equally mis-informed and dangerous. So, where do you stand, "brainiac"? Craig C. > Regarding your link "laffinattheleft.blo ..." I won't read that trash > because by it's very address marks it a right wing, the truth hurts, doesn't it ? Ah, the simple minded approach. Here's one I prefer: Truth is always somewhere in the middle. Craig C. >>once more, Braniac >>the 'Federal government' could do NOTHING until the N.O. Mayor and LA [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Craig C. hate to reanimate a dead thread but Nazi's were socialist, last time I checked that was a left leaning ideology.................. > >>once more, Braniac > >>the 'Federal government' could do NOTHING until the N.O. Mayor and LA [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > hate to reanimate a dead thread but Nazi's were socialist, last time I > checked that was a left leaning ideology.................. Just because they called themselves "socialists", doesn't mean they were. They were basically as right wing as they get, with some odd leftish stuff thrown in. > Just because they called themselves "socialists", doesn't mean they > were. A poly sci prof once explained it to us as a big circle with a gap. On the right side of the gap is Fascism, on the left, Socialism. The Nazi's went all the way to the left, promising great things to be shared with all Germans. When they finally took power, they jumped the gap into Fascism. This was easily done because the public felt that it was necessary in order to have all the things promised come to pass. Oddly, this same thing happened in the USSR, which called itself communist. The basic flaw in both situations was that in order to achive a truly socialist state, what ever leader brought it about must step down. The USSR failed because true communism makes no allowances for supporting a military, or for any structure to control that military. This was compounded by leadership that was unwilling to step aside or lower its importance. In the case of present day France, Germany, England, and Canada (all of which are socialist democratic republics in one form or another), they maintain a successful balance by changing leadership. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> >>once more, Braniac >> >>the 'Federal government' could do NOTHING until the N.O. Mayor and LA [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > They were basically as right wing as they get, with some odd leftish > stuff thrown in. > > Just because they called themselves "socialists", doesn't mean they > > were. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > which are socialist democratic republics in one form or another), they > maintain a successful balance by changing leadership. That sounds about like what I have heard over the years. It's about the simplest way to explain what they did.. BDK > hate to reanimate a dead thread but Nazi's were socialist, last time I > checked that was a left leaning ideology.................. Hate to set you straight, but true Communism is socialist, and its the direct opposite of Fascism, which is what Nazism was. If you know your history, you realize that the Communists in Germany were the biggest hurdle in Hitler's rise to power (a little escapade for which they had him jailed) and the Communists in the U.S.S.R. were his biggest enemy. Since the Nazi's were fascist, and thats a right leaning ideology, the original reference is accurate. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >>>once more, Braniac >>>the 'Federal government' could do NOTHING until the N.O. Mayor and LA [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > hate to reanimate a dead thread but Nazi's were socialist, last time I > checked that was a left leaning ideology.................. > Actually Miles, if you go back and read what was originally written, > what griped my a.s most about Bush was the "image of leadership" he was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it goes remains to be seen ... although I'm 'guessing' it goes all the > way to the top. I saw the opposite that you did. I've looked at just what Bush and others did right before and right after Katrina hit. Bush in my view did everything he could and acted quickly. You keep using the word 'vacationing' when thats a pretty poor choice of words. Tell me, do you go home once in awhile or do you stay at your job all day and night? I'd hate to be the prez. It's a 24/7 job no matter where in the world you are. I'm on call 24/7. I have been called off of vacations numerous times. It's part of being a professional ... especially if you are supposedly a leader for the people. >I'd hate to be the prez. It's a 24/7 job no matter where in the world >you are. For once, I think we finally found something we both agree on. :) First term, I chalk up to ignorance of what the job requires. Second term ... you have to be a glutton for punishment. Craig C. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message