General discussion


Okay, Democrats, I'm here to help

By maxwell edison ·
The best thing you Democrats could do for yourselves (and for the country) is to nominate Joe Lieberman for your party's run for the White House in 2008. The worst thing you can do is to NOT nominate him. But you'll probably shoot yourselves in the foot again (and ignore what's best for the country) and nominate the likes of Kerry, Gore or Clinton. I'm telling you, if you nominate Lieberman, the White House will probably be yours! Trust me, I know these things.

(Don't ask me why I'm helping you guys. It's probably because you won't listen to me anyway!)

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

168 total posts (Page 5 of 17)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Sources, please <eom>

by neilb@uk In reply to edited out
Collapse -

So What

by JohnnySacks In reply to edited out

Big friggin deal, like anyone but a Halliburton shareholder gives a rats a$$ about some clown half way around the world with a tank of chlorine. Probably a Cheny spin on some water treatment plant chemicals, meanwhile my children are $300,000,000,000 in debth, 2,500 of other peoples children are dead forever for historys greatest nothing since VietNam.

Collapse -

Help me understand something here

by Tig2 In reply to Ethics?

Let me start by saying that I don't give a cr@p who ends up in the White House- they are not likely going to represent me. I agree with a few posters here- my party isn't represented and is not likely to be in my lifetime. Which stinks.

So having said that- help me understand why the government is responsible for the aftermath of Katrina? Do I think that FEMA "F"ed up? You bet. The idiot at the helm had NO disater response knowledge. But did he "F" up in a vaccuum? The simple reality is NO HE DID NOT.

The governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans had a major role to play in the horsesh*t that followed the storm. The Mayor of New Orleans seems pretty intent on establishing "a chocolate city" and disenfranchising all non African-Americans now. He was completely ineffectual when he could have done something material during the storm. He is a major idiot but no one seems to bring that to light- the issue is George. The agencies that DID try to help are having their hats handed to them because the aid they provided was used to purchase non essentials.

The gov already has their hand in my wallet. I don't want to see a time when they can steal more from me. A disaster strikes- and believe me, I KNOW what that looks like- I want to have access to ALL of my income to deal with it. I don't want the gov determining what resources I am going to be allowed to have.

I care about the policies of any candidate for public office. I want to know that they will REDUCE not EXPAND the impact of government. I think that people need to grow the heck up and start fending for themselves and quit the whining about "public programmes". Because the programmes DON'T work. They just provide a way for policy makers to manage their guilt.

And incidentally- some of those 1300+ deaths could also have been avoided if the levees had been fixed as recommended by "government" 25 years ago. The people of the great State of Louisiana didn't care to deal with that. George didn't have a dog in that fight. I don't see a rationale for blaming him now.

Collapse -

correction TT

by rob mekel In reply to Help me understand someth ...

Bush did have a finger in that.,1518,372455,00.html
And yes I know it's an article from a former Clinton advisor, so probably not a supporter of Bush. At the time that this came out I wasn't aware that I should have to recall on it but I do know that a year back (actually about 9 month ago) it was admitted by the Bush administration.

You are right about the fact that we should be very suspicious as on how our government is spending our money (it isn't that much difference between one government and another)
I do know that flooding prevention programs are very expensive. As we Dutch have been fighting the water, whether it would be flooding from rainfall/rivers (indirectly rainfall) or sea, for centuries it is not one can pay from running budgets but has to be planned long in advance.

This is what good government is about, protecting its citizens from (predictable) disaster to come.
For seeing what is about to happen and take the necessary steps to encourage the good stuff and prevent the bad things to happen.

As on the Mayor of New Orleans/Governor of Louisiana, I am not sure if them is much to blame. Altho I'm getting the impression that there is some slippery mud on their fingers.

Did this help you on your question for clarification or was that a rhetorical one :)


Collapse -

not much blame?

by jdclyde In reply to correction TT

You are not familiar with out form of government, but it is not the President ruling over the minions.

Each state has control of themselves, and it is THEIR responsiblity to take care of their own infrastructure, levies included.

The mayor was able to get all the buses running to get the poor poor to the polls to vote for him, but couldn't to evacuate the poor poor from the city.

The Governor denied requests for assistance when it was first offered, because she didn't want to share the limelight with a Republican, until it was clear she was in over her head so she started crying that the feds wouldn't help her out.

Also, the majority of the deaths from the flooding belong on the Darwin awards, because they didn't stay because they couldn't leave, they stayed because like most morons, they believed "it won't happen to me". They DECIDED to ride out the storm, not the poor poor stuck in the path of the storm.

This same mayor got re-elected, so they deserve every bad thing that will happen now because of his continued incompetence.

Collapse -

As I said,"Altho I'm getting the impression

by rob mekel In reply to not much blame?

that there is some slippery mud on their fingers." as is an understatement of their blame.

Didn't hear you say anything on Bush and his administration on the subject of redirecting the money for the flood prevention program towards the war on terrorism. That is where the flood prevention program did fail! Lack of money to do things right.

Alltho we have a constitutional Monarchy the way we are governed isn't that much different from the USA. Alltho not federal like the USA the provinces we have are much like your states and our towns are much the same as your counties/towns ruled. And yes The Netherlands is much smaller then the USA but never the less we all have to cooperate with our neighbours.

As costal defense is not only in support of the ones living directly on the coast but also, in the long term, for the ones living more land inward,more directly no coast line - no harbour, no harbour - no ships coming up stream to support your city's, btw oil/energy how does it come to you? and don't say by pipeline from Texas or Alaska (and even the oil from Alaska goes to Valdez and is shipped from there) as the USA imports a lot of oil from the Middle East it gives you the oblige to support the effort on coastal defense whether it is a foreign country invading or the sea/storms/hurricanes attacking the coast line. It is called: you benefit from it you pay for it. It is directly related to your own safety and quality of life.

And yes you are right on the stupidity of people to believe "this won't happen to me" and even on re-electing the political responsible ones. But don't say it is a matter of them only on coastal defense as it is more a National issue than a regional/State issue.


Collapse -


by TonytheTiger In reply to not much blame?

'State' means the same thing over here as it does over there.


"Also, the majority of the deaths from the flooding belong on the Darwin awards, because they didn't stay because they couldn't leave, they stayed because like most morons, they believed "it won't happen to me". They DECIDED to ride out the storm, not the poor poor stuck in the path of the storm."

... or stayed to see what they could steal from those who did leave.

Collapse -


by TonytheTiger In reply to not much blame?

The federal government had earmarked funds for enhancements to New Orleans' levee system, as well as funds to implement an evacuation plan. The state of Louisiana was given the earmarked amount .... but they decided to use these funds for other projects. This happenned long before 9/11, and long before Bush was in the White House.

Most of the damage would not have occurred had the money been spent as it was intended. Many of us here don't think we should have to pay for Louisiana's blunder, and are dismayed that the citizens chose to re-elect the idiots responsible. I agree with JD that those citizens deserve all of the consequences of their stupidity. The ones who didn't vote for the incumbents probably should leave.

Collapse -

But why is the Federal government responsible

by Tig2 In reply to correction TT

When the City itself refused to pay for what IT needed?

My point, Rob, is that the City had been ignoring the problem for about 20 odd years. There had been a lot of finger pointing about whose responsibility it was and who needed to foot the bill. Frankly, I think that the City- who receives money from its taxpayers- should have been responsible for taking care of the problem. After all, it was the City at risk. EDIT to add- Unlike the Netherlands where the issue is coastal and impacts a larger region, the New Orleans levees were more of a localised issue.

I agree that Bush did cut Federal funding. So did Clinton when the issue came up on HIS watch. The fact remains that it was a political hot potato for a long time and instead of making any effort, New Orleans has just waited for someone else to step up.

I think that people need to be responsible for themselves and quit expecting that the government is going to step in and save them. As the article points out, that isn't going to happen.

Edit to add a point

Collapse -

Pardon my butting in....

by JamesRL In reply to But why is the Federal go ...

The builder of the levees is the Army Corps of Engineers, a federal agency.

Congress authorized the project in the 1960s (SouthEast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project).

I'm sorry, when you have multiple levels of government involved in a project, the senior level is usually responsible for project management/co-ordination. It is awfully difficult to have a junior partner dictate to the federal government - the feds hold the cards.

I don't dispute that successive administrations have ignored the issue.

Frankly, the city should have been moved after the studies in the 60s determined the severity of the risk.


Back to Community Forum
168 total posts (Page 5 of 17)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums