BadDad Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 ...have been spent on the invasion of Afghanistan (which I and everybody supported and supports, so back off) and Iraq which many of us did not support from the outset? In my opinion the hundreds of billions that have been spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan coupled with the massive tax cuts, created a situation where the administration had to look for money elsewhere. In fairness every administration since the Reagan administration, (yes Joe et. al., that includes the obligitory slam to Clinton), has cut back funding for the levies in N.O. This administration had to look for even deeper domestic cuts because they decided to give tax cuts in the middle of a war. However, this is simply another manifestation of Mr. Bush' bad luck... every time he goes on vacation he get's caught with some catastrophy!! Then again if his vacation was only two weeks a year, he would have been back at work when the hurricane struck and I'm sure that the the relief effort that we see today would have occured on Tuesday or latest Wednesday. How many lives would have been saved if the Federal Govt. had reacted in time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 ...have been spent on the invasion of Afghanistan (which I and everybody supported and supports, so back off) and Iraq which many of us did not support from the outset? In my opinion the hundreds of billions that have been spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan coupled with the massive tax cuts, created a situation where the administration had to look for money elsewhere. In fairness every administration since the Reagan administration, (yes Joe et. al., that includes the obligitory slam to Clinton), has cut back funding for the levies in N.O. This administration had to look for even deeper domestic cuts because they decided to give tax cuts in the middle of a war. However, this is simply another manifestation of Mr. Bush' bad luck... every time he goes on vacation he get's caught with some catastrophy!! Then again if his vacation was only two weeks a year, he would have been back at work when the hurricane struck and I'm sure that the the relief effort that we see today would have occured on Tuesday or latest Wednesday. How many lives would have been saved if the Federal Govt. had reacted in time? 428658[/snapback] !@#$in yawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 The federal reaction time has been discussed numerous times already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 The federal reaction time has been discussed numerous times already. 428886[/snapback] yeah but with Bledsoe gone, it gives the dead horse beaters something to gripe about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 but it's still a valid point. essentially the city of NO is wiped out. had it been a military attack of course the death toll might be far worse so for that we can be grateful. But the reaction to 9/11 was swift, and THAT came out of the blue...if you believe the government. Katrina's progress had been followed for days and if you believe FEMA the situation had been pre-planned. So why it took 4-5 days for any meaningful help to get there does make one wonder. When the next terror attack comes people must be prepared, if this is any indication, to be on their own for awhile and plan accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 and THAT came out of the blue...if you believe the government. 429154[/snapback] What the hell are you insinuating with THAT??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 What the hell are you insinuating with THAT??? 429159[/snapback] And you're supprised by that comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadDad Posted September 5, 2005 Author Share Posted September 5, 2005 !@#$in yawn 428830[/snapback] Great answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadDad Posted September 5, 2005 Author Share Posted September 5, 2005 The federal reaction time has been discussed numerous times already. 428886[/snapback] So we should all move along, nothing to see here? Is that you Rush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 So we should all move along, nothing to see here? Is that you Rush? 429698[/snapback] You're not getting the answers you want to hear, and that's pretty well the long and short of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadDad Posted September 5, 2005 Author Share Posted September 5, 2005 yeah but with Bledsoe gone, it gives the dead horse beaters something to gripe about 429137[/snapback] If you had a clue about what I thought of Bledsoe....ah what the hell go bang your cowbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Actually, the response to 9-11 was primarily a local response, not a federal response (at least in NYC). Then again if his vacation was only two weeks a year, he would have been back at work when the hurricane struck and I'm sure that the the relief effort that we see today would have occured on Tuesday or latest Wednesday. How many lives would have been saved if the Federal Govt. had reacted in time? 428658[/snapback] Are people really dumb enough to think that the federal gov't response would have been any different depending on where Bush happened to be? WTF...do people think we live in the 1800s or something??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadDad Posted September 6, 2005 Author Share Posted September 6, 2005 Actually, the response to 9-11 was primarily a local response, not a federal response (at least in NYC).Are people really dumb enough to think that the federal gov't response would have been any different depending on where Bush happened to be? WTF...do people think we live in the 1800s or something??? 429931[/snapback] You're right he could have been in the South of F...never mind, he could have been in Spai...never mind... he could have been in Lond...never mind. You rightees never want to look at the big picture unless it's got to do with what's in Clintons zipper. Sorry but you reap what you sew. Between the perceived disrespect for the White House, the preceived disrespect for the office of the President exhibited by Mr. Clintons daliances with Ms. Lewinski and the percieved disrespect and disregard for the office exhibited by the present holder of the office I'll take the b.j. over foolish invasions of other countries, over totally ignoring the protection of millions of American citizens in the Gulf region, etc. He's slow but even Mr. Bush realizes that he has to get out there and show the flag once in a while, after all his father...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 You're right he could have been in the South of F...never mind, he could have been in Spai...never mind... he could have been in Lond...never mind. You rightees never want to look at the big picture unless it's got to do with what's in Clintons zipper. Sorry but you reap what you sew. Between the perceived disrespect for the White House, the preceived disrespect for the office of the President exhibited by Mr. Clintons daliances with Ms. Lewinski and the percieved disrespect and disregard for the office exhibited by the present holder of the office I'll take the b.j. over foolish invasions of other countries, over totally ignoring the protection of millions of American citizens in the Gulf region, etc. He's slow but even Mr. Bush realizes that he has to get out there and show the flag once in a while, after all his father...... 430052[/snapback] Wow, great job completely ignoring your orignial statement that I rebutted so that you could spew another wad of "BUSH BAD!" Now please explain how the federal response to Katrine would have been improved had Bush been in London or Spain or S. Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Wow, great job completely ignoring your orignial statement that I rebutted so that you could spew another wad of "BUSH BAD!" Now please explain how the federal response to Katrine would have been improved had Bush been in London or Spain or S. Florida. 430067[/snapback] Don't be baited by Garafalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 I see BadDad and Debbie got new tinfoil hats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadDad Posted September 6, 2005 Author Share Posted September 6, 2005 Wow, great job completely ignoring your orignial statement that I rebutted so that you could spew another wad of "BUSH BAD!" Now please explain how the federal response to Katrine would have been improved had Bush been in London or Spain or S. Florida. 430067[/snapback] O.K. what is the perception of the country and the world for that matter when the President, on the day of the hurricane is playing guitar with some Country singer and on the day after he's out playing golf? As I said it's not what he could do it's the perception that his attitude is let them eat cake. By the way, since he got back to Washington and made a couple of speeches and went down to Mississippi and Louisiana twice all of a sudden things are happening a a much faster and much more efficient pace, but he really has nothing to do with that does he? Bush is good Clinton bad, it's getting so old that even the diehards are having trouble swallowing it this time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadDad Posted September 6, 2005 Author Share Posted September 6, 2005 I see BadDad and Debbie got new tinfoil hats. 430334[/snapback] Yah know I was watching Brubaker yesterday and an apt line was spoken, "You've been Wackin it so long your mind has caved in" . Funny I thought of you even before I read your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 O.K. what is the perception of the country and the world for that matter when the President, on the day of the hurricane is playing guitar with some Country singer and on the day after he's out playing golf? As I said it's not what he could do it's the perception that his attitude is let them eat cake. By the way, since he got back to Washington and made a couple of speeches and went down to Mississippi and Louisiana twice all of a sudden things are happening a a much faster and much more efficient pace, but he really has nothing to do with that does he? Bush is good Clinton bad, it's getting so old that even the diehards are having trouble swallowing it this time around. 431219[/snapback] Why don't you organize and/or attend another quick peace demonstration, and then come back and tell us all about it?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 My goodness, are we STILL on the Clinton BJ thing????? STILL?????? This is what is wrong with our political system, namely this bi-partisan bickering. The two party system sux, I wish there was a way to fix it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts