Its not Bush's fault
Hurricanes have occurred naturally adam and eve sinned. Get with it people. It happened before, it happened now, it will happen again. We're just not as prepared as we think we are. But the media, every liberal and Michael Moore (what a suprise!) just think they have to politicize this.
46 Comments:
re:"Hurricanes have occurred naturally...."
yes, but considering the amount of resources America has, shouldn't the response have been faster, shouldn't less people have died?
Or is this post just another attack at the scary Liberal's?
anonymous no 1: My health is fine, thankyou. I hope your ideas lead you to seeing the light in that spam is bad.
anonymous no 2: hurricanes have been hitting florida for years. We werent prepared for something this big in a place like new orleans, and even if we were, we had no idea it would hit this hard. I mean seriously, before this happened, did you think anything would hit us on a scale like this? think about it. we were totally unprepared. . .
liberals arent scary, they just misplace thier hate and anger at good people like bush. They just misunderstand some issues.
On RUSH LIMBAUGH today (didn't listen to it, was told about it) there was discussion about this in comparison to 9/11. On 9/11, NO ONE was prepared for what happened. Before Katrina, everyone knew. Still it has been days and days and people are still dying waiting for help. The local government could have been a little more prepared, I will not deny that, however the devestation of the storm as a whole was completely underestimated until it was directly on its approach. Also, once the local authorities were under water, I would have to say it was probably a little bit difficult to continue to enforce from the inside, and outside help was OBVIOUSLY needed. Many of the things taking place have been nothing short of inhumane, and no matter what new station you watch, I'm pretty sure that cannot be denied.
I agree with the author of this post. The media should be ashamed of themselves, but as they have no shame I suppose that's impossible. Of course they use this to forward their agenda to attack our President. If it had been Clinton, however, and he had handled it the same way President Bush did, they would have absolutely no issue with it.
I admire your blog and will link to it on both of my blogs: www.myrepublicanblog.blogspot.com and www.letourvoicesbeheard.blogspot.com
Well let's face facts - George W. Bush is perfect. I mean he is the president of the USA, and a republican, so of course he is incapable of doing any wrong.
His foreign policy is right on the money and all the poor people that he seems to have no regard for - well they're poor so it must be their own fault! He was more than willing to start a war (against the will of the U.N.)over oil and the interests of the Forbes 500 crowd, not to mention the approval of his daddy, but I guess we'd have to cut him some slack about taking practically a week to do anything about the people living in their own feces and that of others, or dying in New Orleans - after all the majority of them were just homeless people, and nobody likes those anyway!
Some other interesting things to note about GWB: he works at least 10 hours a week, 170 days a year and is an extremely strategic vacationer - he has to keep his strength up after all! Oh and also his poo smells like a fresh spring day.
[/sarcasm]. So seriously, what is with you people worshipping Dubya anyway? Did you join the republican party and suddenly forgot that even presidents are human and that their mistake should be dealt with, not covered up? Why do you assume that being on a particular political wing makes you a Christian, or morally superior? Its gross.
Gayle: You're right, they might not have a problem with Clinton, were he to handle things in a similar manner, but I'm quite sure YOU would. And a little tip: If you are going to go around using the cross as your personal portrait, take the time to have a clue what Christ was all about and stop putting your faith in your politics instead.
yet again saint you set a fantastic example, bushcheny08, take note.
Nice smorgasbourd of commentary - a little on the angry side.
When I see those horrible images I'm surprised they are able to do anything even now. It must be difficult getting help to the people.
Keep praying - regardless what "side" you are on.
Thanks for the insight.
Ben O.
To Saint: I'm getting a little tired of people like you attacking my Christianity. You don't know me. You haven't a clue! You are unaware of the many charities I'm involved with or what Christian values I hold. I happen to be a Christian, a Conservative and a Republican and they all blend together to make up who I am. I show the cross because so many people attack the cross. The ACLU is trying to remove all crosses from Federal property. What are they going to do about Arlington Cemetery! I use the cross because I'm totally ticked off at all the attacks Christianity has undergone lately in this country, and I will continue using the cross whether people like it or not.
I have left an open invitation to liberals to visit my post at www.letourvoicesbeheard.com and voice their opinions on several questions I have concerning liberals. I want to try to reach a meeting of the minds. You are welcome there as well, Saint, as long as you are polite and thoughtful.
A tip to "Saint": When you type the word "Republican" would you please be literate enough to capitalize it? I never write the word "Democrat" without capitalizing it. We may be on different sides of the fence politically, but we should be respectful.
By the way, I have linked your site on mine. You are doing a great job. Keep it up!
By the way, I couldn't help noticing your profile is down at the bottom right of your blog so that people must scroll to the bottom to see it. It's something to do with the template when you added your links. I had to set my template back (on one blog) to not having any links before it was fixed. Because of this problem I tried changing my template on another blog, but that didn't work, so that blog doesn't have any links. I don't know what the answer is, but if you figure it out before I do, please share it with me. (I wonder how many liberals will find something to attack about this comment?) :)
"A tip to "Saint": When you type the word "Republican" would you please be literate enough to capitalize it? I never write the word "Democrat" without capitalizing it. We may be on different sides of the fence politically, but we should be respectful.
I have to wonder at your purpose in posting this "tip", which is an obvious parody of the tip I tried giving to you. Mine was intended to point out the importance of knowing what the real purpose of the gospel is about before trying to present that to others. This is an important matter and I did not post the comment lightly. You, on the other hand have twisted this to turn it into something political, as if the capitalization of political parties were every bit as important as having a deeper relationship with Christ. Something to think about.
As for which side I am on. The short answer is that I am not on a side. You assume that because I am not a republican that this must therefore make me a democrat. Well, I'm not a democrat either. I am a Christian, and I am on God's side, politically as neither extreme leftism nor extreme rightism do anything to represent the living and vibrant God that I know.
Both sides have values that superficially resemble things that can be construed as "christian values", yet neither has the ability (nor the inclination, seemingly) to fully embrace the real message of the gospel, which does not allow for the selective Christianity that is observed both by the religious right and the liberal agenda.
Do you honestly think that God has any regard for your petty little parties? I for one cannot imagine a God who could look upon Joe Republican and ignore their devotion to their chosen God of mammon (money) and disregard for the poor and the needy and ignore this because "he's a republican, so he's alright by God' standards!". Nor can I imagine a God who could look upon Joe democrat and ignore his rejection of the law and disregard for the power of sinfulness and say "he's a democrat, so he's alright by God's standards!".
Politics are like religion - they are hollow things, devised by man for the purposes of dividing people into little groups when what God intends is for us to be united as one body with HIM, not some white-collar, billionaire president, as our head.
What does it matter what charities you are involved in or what Christian values you hold dear, or how much you tithe? This is the kind of argument put forth in Christ's time by the Pharisees - "Look at how much I give to the poor, look at how righteous I am!", but they totally and completely missed the point and their spiritual descendants have been missing the point ever since.
Everyone but Bush knew:
National Geographic Cover Story from Oct. 2004
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/
But what did Bush do? He cut funding:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313
The 2004 hurricane season was the worst in decades. In spite of that, the federal government came back this spring with the steepest reduction in hurricane and flood-control funding for New Orleans in history. Because of the proposed cuts, the Corps office there imposed a hiring freeze. Officials said that money targeted for the SELA project -- $10.4 million, down from $36.5 million -- was not enough to start any new jobs.
***
What the hell did he think was going to happen?! It appears to me as if this was done on purpose.
Why? See the following link for the reason:
http://fixco1.com/bushbankrupt.html
The fact that a few thousand poor people died was a bonus. Bush loves death and destruction.
Have you heard that Bush has temporiarly suspended the minimum wage in the states affected by Katrina? Guess who received the government contracts for storm cleanup? More money for Haliburton and less for the laborers who will do the actual work.
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=52963
http://www.guardian.co.uk/diary/story/0,,1565941,00.html
I am puzzled by DFKZ's assertion that "Bush loves death and destruction." A completely unfair thing to say! Everyone messed up in this crisis. FEMA did a horrible job and I admit President Bush made a bad choice when he chose his director for FEMA, but if we are blatantly going to toss blame around, let's at least be fair. It also belongs at the state level. Both the Mayor and the Governor must take part of the responsibility for their ineptitude regarding this tragedy.
The 300 busses that are still standing in water in New Orleans should have been used to bus people out of New Orleans before Katrina hit. The Governor should have allowed Bush to bring in troops when he first called her instead of saying she needed 24 hours to make up her mind! A lot can happen in 24 hours. If blame is the game, there's plenty to go around equally. The levees should have been made strong enough to withstand a level 4 or 5 hurricane years ago. All the experts knew they were substandard. They also knew it would take 20 years to do the job. Let us not forget that Bush has not been president for the past 20 years, shall we? Clinton did nothing either, nor did his predecessor. Their was a 5% chance that a level 5 would hit New Orleans sooner or later. Bush just happened to be in office when that statistic became a reality. Before you go around making brash statements such as "Bush loves death and destruction," why don't you examine all of the facts.
"Everyone messed up in this crisis": Correct, Bush was one of them and he SHOULD have been in control being the leader of the country and all....
obviously the mayor and the state also made massive errors but shouldn't the leader of the country, the one with the most power to do something be the one ultimatly responsible for any negligence caused through mismanagement, poor appointments and slow reaction?
The Governor should have allowed Bush to bring in troops: This is true but equally, Bush shouldn't have delayed the Red Cross responce as much as he did (http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.html) when the soldiers had entered Nola.
I think everyone must remember that Bush couldn't have stopped the levee's breaking even if he redirected money to the scheme when he came to office, building work wouldn't have been completed to prevent the flooding. However he must be made responsible for the slow response and
Bush isn't the only one responsible for the castastrohe after the hurricane but just because other people made mistakes does not mean that we should absolve Bush of responsiblity.
What he can be made responsible for is the awful social situation brought to America and the world's attention in Nola. This is something Bush and his government could have solved and began to change for the better.
And what about the gun confisication? I have seen article's and analysis that prove it to be legal.
Legal at least to take some people's guns, but:
"No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said. But that order apparently does not apply to hundreds of security guards hired by businesses and some wealthy individuals to protect property". (NYT)
Just because they call themselves security, should they be trusted anymore or than anyone else? Sounds like another example where those without the money are at a disadvantage again.
If guns carrying and ownership was illegal, surely there's is an argument that the looters and gangs wouldn't have prevented an immediate red-cross response as the army couldn't have prevented action on the grounds of safety.
I feel there is a lot of evidence of double-standards and undeniable guilt which MUST lie with the controlling organisation, the government in power.
All very good points that Benjamin made! I only disagree with one of them: By law, President Bush could not go into New Orleans with Federal Aid until it was authorized by the Governor. I am not attempting to absolve the President or anyone else here. Everyone at both the state and Federal Government levels blew it! Hopefully, everyone at those levels will learn from this tragedy so that it never has to happen this way again. The entire debacle was a disgrace and nearly as devastating as Katrina.
gayle: dont waste your time with dkzf or whatever. Hes one of those bush is antichrist and root of all evil guys.
"The lecture comes down to this: BUSH CAUSED THIS DISASTER.
And YOU caused this disaster, you southern soft-heads, because you voted for that ape.
Bush caused this disaster by ignoring global warming. He caused it by listening to quack pseudoscientists instead of real scientists." from the Democratic underground.
I dont know about you guys, but I cant even begin to start to explain how these people should be thrown into an asylum.
My thoughts exactly. I realize I'm trying to reason with unreasonable people. So I take your advice. No more do I respond to dfkz either. I've already given up on Benjamine and Anonymous! A hopeless exercise in futility is all it amounts to. Is there no such thing as a moderate and reasonable liberal?
Blessings.
I am puzzled by dkfz's assertion that "Bush loves death and destruction". Before you go around making brash statements such as "Bush loves death and destruction," why don't you examine all of the facts.
This fact is evidenced by his actions. Soldiers are dying in Iraq because he refuses to send the number of troops needed.
Check out this quote from the book "Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060736704/ref%3Dpd%5Fsxp%5Ff/103-2862693-98670%2032/104-5529523-6086322
Dr. Justin Frank, writing in Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President, also says the President has a "lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions and pumping his fist gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad".
You can also check out any of what Stephen Hanchett writes at http://www.isbushantichrist.blogspot.com
The Governor should have allowed Bush to bring in troops when he first called her instead of saying she needed 24 hours to make up her mind! ... By law, President Bush could not go into New Orleans with Federal Aid until it was authorized by the Governor.
Can you provide a link proving this? According to what I read the Governor contacted Bush several days before Katrina hit and asked for help from the federal government.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2005/09/governor_blanco.html
http://gov.louisiana.gov/Disaster%20Relief%20Request.pdf
Governor Blanco asked for help; no one gave it. On Sunday, August 28, Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco surveyed the lay of the land and shot off a letter to the regional director of FEMA, detailing her assessment of the severity of the upcoming hurricane, and asking for help.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4668155&mesg_id=4668155
On August 26, 2005, President Bush declared a "State of Emergency" in Louisiana. A day later he did the same for Mississippi. The hurricane hit on August 29, 2005. THREE DAYS LATER. His declarations made Hurricane Katrina an "Incident of National Significance." The NRP defines an Incident of National Significance as: an actual or potential high-impact event that requires a coordinated and effective response by and appropriate combination of Federal, State, local, tribal, nongovernmental, and/or private-sector entities in order to save lives and minimize damage, and provide the basis for long-term community recovery and mitigation activities.
This categorization, as you will see, becomes CRITICAL as it imposes upon the President and his administration unique powers and responsibilities under the NRP. During that time, from the instant the Hurricane was labeled an "Incident of National Significance" until the second it made landfall, the President and his administration had THREE DAYS WORTH OF RESPONSIBILITY under the NRP. Their duty under the plan obviously still continues.
When an incident or potential incident is of such severity, magnitude, and/or complexity that it is considered an Incident of National Significance, the Secretary of Homeland Security initiates actions to prepare for, respond to, and recover from the incident." (NHP, 15)
While the state and local officials then still have to try and implement their plans and coordinate with the feds, it is crystal clear that the NRP recognizes that when, say, a hurricane comes and wipes your city off the map, it is the President and his administration which MUST respond proactively.
You are just spouting nonsense. You obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Clinton did nothing either, nor did his predecessor.
Work on the levees was an ongoing project. Work on the levee's was proceeding under all administrations up to Bush.
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002331.html
New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. In fact, the federal government has been working with state and local officials in the region since the late 1960s on major hurricane and flood relief efforts. When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.
Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.
Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane -- and flood-control dollars.
The fact remains that Bush cut funding by record levels, even though everyone knew the levees would fail! WHY!
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/30/212451/290
For the first time in 37 years, federal budget cuts have all but stopped major work on the New Orleans area's east bank hurricane levees, a complex network of concrete walls, metal gates and giant earthen berms that won't be finished for at least another decade.
"I guess people look around and think there's a complete system in place, that we're just out here trying to put icing on the cake," said Mervin Morehiser, who manages the "Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity" levee project for the Army Corps of Engineers. "And we aren't saying that the sky is falling, but people should know that this is a work in progress, and there's more important work yet to do before there is a complete system in place".
"It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay," Maestri said. "Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."
Levee-raising is only part of the flood-related work that has stopped since the federal government began reducing Corps of Engineers appropriations in 2001, as more money was diverted to homeland security, the fight against terrorism and the war in Iraq.
The answer is that Bush is purposefuly trying to bankrupt the federal government! Meanwhile he funels all the $$ can towards his rich supporters. Clean-up and rebuilding contracts are now going to Bush supporters. Now that the poor are out of the way developers are planning to use hurricane relief money to gentrify the city. Also, The death and destruction in New Orleans greatly pleased Bush.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1566199,00.html
...when I was in Sri Lanka six months after the tsunami, many survivors told me that the reconstruction was victimising them all over again. A council of the country's most prominent businesspeople had been put in charge of the process, and they were handing the coast over to tourist developers at a frantic pace. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of poor fishing people were still stuck in sweltering inland camps, patrolled by soldiers with machine guns and entirely dependent on relief agencies for food and water. They called reconstruction "the second tsunami".
There are already signs that New Orleans evacuees could face a similarly brutal second storm. Jimmy Reiss, chairman of the New Orleans Business Council, told Newsweek that he has been brainstorming about how "to use this catastrophe as a once-in-an-eon opportunity to change the dynamic". The council's wish list is well-known: low wages, low taxes, more luxury condos and hotels.
...dont waste your time with dkzf or whatever. He's one of those bush is antichrist and root of all evil guys. The lecture comes down to this: BUSH CAUSED THIS DISASTER. And YOU caused this disaster, you southern soft-heads, because you voted for that ape.
This is your straw man argument, Not the actual argument. Did Global warming contribute to Katrina? I certainly think it is possible, but I don't think there is conclusive evidence. If you do want evidence that Global Warming is occuring, and it is man caused, see the following links:
New proof that man has caused global warming
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html
Global warming "proof" detected -- The team says it has found "the smoking gun".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4495463.stm
Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina?
Warm ocean temperatures are a key ingredient for monster hurricanes, prompting some scientists to believe that global warming is exacerbating our storm troubles.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1099102,00.html
I don't know about you guys, but I cant even begin to start to explain how these people should be thrown into an asylum.
You can't explain it because you know your arguments would be easily shot down.
I answered all your questions. Unlike you I provide links to back up what I write. Now you say that BushCheney08's straw man argument has convinced you?! I think you are the unreasonable one here. I feel sorry for you. However, more angry at you than sorry for you, since it is deluded idiots like you who helped this evil man attain (and retain) power.
Here's the answer to your question regarding the school buses.
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/08/055923.php
Let me know if I missed anything... Oh, that's right -- you are going to be ignoring me from now on! When you can't dispute someone's facts I guess that is the only option left.
look, Ive seen people like you before. Providing links? you just show up on my site and say check out this and this and this and give me 700 links. Thats called propaganda. Have you ever had an original thought besides "bush knew that new orleans would be devastated, so he made sure that we werent prepared" What your saying is crazy and extremist. thats why were going to ignore you. you are the liberal attack machine.
"You can't explain it because you know your arguments would be easily shot down."
No, its because it would make any normal person so shocked that they're speechless, which is what I am. I also didnt think that It would need an explanation, that even the liberals would recognize them as the lunatic fringe of their party. looks like I was wrong.
Trying to reason with unreasonable people? YOU (Gayle and BC08) are unreasonable people. You are both guilty as charged. Your arguments aren't even based on even imagined solid fact, they are pure fiction.
You ask for proof from people and then shoot them down for giving you too much - not because you have scientifically proven these proofs to be valid, but because they are coming from someone whose politics are not the same as yours. Where are YOUR original thoughts coming from, I'd like to know.
I have to laugh at you calling somebody else an extremist as well - this whole blog (and the blogs of most of your supporters) are exactly that - extremist. Anyone with the view that "I am always and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong" is an extremist.
Gayle, you rant and rave about liberals calling people names and how terrible that is - and then you turn around and start calling them names! It is ridiculous!
Its the same thing that happens over at Stephen Hanchett's site - far too much righteous indignation, far too few solid facts, and precious little in the way of meaningful conversation (at least not any that you are willing to engage in). Its like the "opinionated-but-flying-in-the-face-of-reality-and-reason" coin, and there is a republican side (you, BC08) and a democrat side (Hanchett). You're the same thing with different ideologies.
The one thing that I do think is in your credit, Jayson, is that you aren't banning people for having a difference of opinion, at least not literally.
...Providing links? you just show up on my site and say check out this and this and this and give me 700 links. Thats called propaganda.
I didn't just show up... you invited me! You posted the address of your blog over at Stephen's site, and invited people to take a look. BTW: I think it was a mistake for him to ban you there.
I think your figure of 700 is a little high. How is providing links to support what I write propaganda?! Do you know the meaning of the word, or did you just decide to invent a new meaning for it?
Here's ONE link for you:
http://culture-of-corruption.blogspot.com/
Katrina Timeline
Sunday August 28th: The Lafayette Daily Advertiser (A Louisiana newspaper) signals levees may give. Later that afternoon Bush, Brown and Chertoff are warned of levee failure by The National Hurricane Center director, Dr. Max Mayfield, who says "We were briefing them way before landfall... It's not like this was a surprise. We had in the advisories that the levee could be topped".
Thursday, September 1, 8am:
Bush claims no one expected levees to break. "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" (comment to Diane Sawyer on ABC's Good Morning America).
Bush is a LIAR.
You are absolutely wrong, Saint: "You are the same thing with different ideologies." Republicans are far more polite in their postings than are most Democrats, especially liberal Democrats; with stress pointed at the ones posting here. These guys seem to be making a living going around to conservative blogs and being rude and obnoxious. Not because they disagree, just because of the way they go about expressing themselves. Who in the world can believe "Bush is responsible for this disaster?" Or "Bush loves death and destruction"? I know he is in a powerful position, but I don't believe he can cause hurricanes! And you are not much better. You say I "rant and rave." Excuse me, but you believe all the libs have a right to to express themselves and BCO8 and I don't. You don't fool me, Saint. You pretend to be above it all, but you are obviously liberal yourself, because you are choosing sides. I've noticed that Allison Balloni and Anonymous are showing up on every conservative blog I go to, and being just as rude and isulting there as they are being here. And to give them credit where credit is due, at least they admit who they are! But you pretend to be "above politics." I think not. You are every bit as political as the rest of us. You are busted!
These guys seem to be making a living going around to conservative blogs and being rude and obnoxious.
Tell me where I need to go to sign up for payment!
Actually, I've seen the "paid to disrupt" claim made by both sides. I think it's nonsense. In any case, why would anyone care about this blog -- written by someone who poorly expresses their ideas -- and at the same time uses bad grammer and incorrect spelling?
My point is that I don't think anyone is going to be convinced to change any of their political views by any of what Jayson writes. If anyone is convinced of anything, I think his views (and the poor manner in which he expresses them) will have the opposite effect. They definately have for me.
The only reason I check out the right wing blogs is to see for myself the lies they are spreading. Obviously Jayson and Cody are true believers who buy the lies they are repeating.
BTW, I don't think that saint is pretending to be "above it all", but is a centrist -- viewing both far sides as extreme. I certainly don't think he is "Obviously Liberal". I think you "Obviously" think he is liberal ONLY because he disagrees with you. I would call that a trait of an unreasonable person.
Allison Balloni and Anonymous are showing up on every conservative blog I go to...
Maybe they are following you because they were paid to disrupt your conversations -- or maybe you are paranoid. BTW I only know of the one other conserative blog that Jayson mentioned in this tread. Where are these other conserative blogs? Please give addresses.
Who in the world can believe "Bush is responsible for this disaster?" Or "Bush loves death and destruction"?
It is easy to call the other side crazy when you misrepresent what they are saying. Jayson started this tread by saying that liberals thought Bush could command the weather. That is your distorted view of what our position actually is. Bush cannot command the weather. Global warming (which he denies exists) could have been a contributing factor in making Katrina worse -- actual scientists -- and not liberal crazies -- are discussing this.
Considering how S-L-O-W Bush was to act, I think a possible explaination could be that he loves death and destruction. Many more people died because of his delays. You don't stay on VACATION when people are dying! How brain washed are you?!
He cut funding to the levees even though everyone knew how disasterous the results of a levee breach could be, he continued his vacation even as people were dying, and finally he gives all he cleanup and rebuild contracts to his political supporters -- at the same time suspending minimum wage so these contractors can pay their laborers rock bottom salaries! I think these actions speak for themselves.
Saint, your profile say that you recently "graduated" from Geek to Dork. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought a dork was someone who is physically and socially awkward, while a geek is someone who is physically and socially awkward -- but also has technical knowledge (usually pertaining to computers). That being the case, wouldn't it be preferable to be a geek?
Gayle: The funny thing is, you claim that Republicans are 'more polite' in the way that they express themselves, but that is absolute and complete crap. republicans are every bit as demeaning, closed-minded and condescending as any liberal I've ever met, which to me is the defining factor in rude vs. polite. The only difference is that they MAY be somewhat more subtle or genteel about it, whereas libs prefer to speak more directly.
Which is better? Neither - why should it matter, in either case the mentality of "I'm right and you're wrong, and also an idiot for having an opinion that differs from mine" is present and active.
I also love the attitude that "you don't agree with me, so you must be one of the enemy, because naturally no one but those indoctrinated in liberal/republican lies could see things any differently than I do!". Yeah, I'm OBVIOUSLY a liberal. The only hole in your theory is that I get the same treatment from extremist lefties, who insist that I am far too legalistic and conservative for my own good.
As I have said before and will (no doubt) say again, I am not partisan, I do not choose a side and stick to it, I choose what I believe is RIGHT (not conservative right, but the right that is correct) according to my own concsience and according to what God has spoken to us through the Bible and through personal revelation.
I believe there are strengths and weaknesses to both conservative/republican and liberal/democrat ideologies, because each is only really looking at half of the whole picture. There needs to be a TRUE meeting of the minds and hearts (not the sorry excuse for a meeting that you have invited people to, wherein you hear their points of view and then explain why they are wrong), not as republicans or democrats but as AMERICANS or CANADIANS or HUMANS with different ideas, different priorities and hearts for different things.
As long as people are content to sit in their little boxes and throw stones at the people in other boxes we will never be able create a government that is truly accountable and able to see past personal agendas towards the greater good and ideally the will of God.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sorry, I deleted the previous post because I had too many typos, darn it!
I've been reading and thinking about posting here for a couple of days and thought I'd finally join in.
As to any natural politeness found within conservative blogs, feel free to ask me for some names and I could point to some hair-raising orneriness on behalf of some Right-leaners.
I've recently been engaged with one fella who rarely answered my questions as I tried to engage in conversation, but who instead called me all manner of names (baby-killing, genocide-loving commie pinko...) and threatened my life twice! And I just kept coming back with, "You know Brother, I'm just trying to engage in conversation and address what I see as some logical inconsistencies with your comments."
And this has been my experience on multiple sites (minus the death threats).
For my part, I have been critical and even sarcastic, but I did try to keep my comments to the topic. I did/do not engage in strawman fallacies or ad hominem attacks.
For many of these folk, it has seemed that just to differ with them was the ultimate sin. I could not possibly be a good american and loving person with my attitude, is what I've been told. And this, without them really knowing me at all!
And of course, I'm sure you can find that on lefty blogs as well. It hasn't been my experience, at least to the degree that I've found on rightwing blogs, but I'm sure it's out there.
If you were to find out about my philosophies, you may call me a radical and that would be fine. But if I am radical in my views, it is only because I think there are serious problems out in our world and I hope to find ways to address them. I'm also a loving husband, a good dad, a deacon at my church, a hard worker and generally a nice kind of guy.
And so, I say all this to say, let's try and listen to one another. Be willing to engage in conversation even if you disagree with the other.
These schisms that divide our county and world are some of the more serious problems around and we can't blast our way through all those who disagree with us.
Dan Trabue: Amen brother!
dkfz: You bring up some good points. To me the definition of a geek is pretty well on par with what you said, but a dork is less of the awkwardness and more of the quirkiness, a hint of eccentricity, and often accompanied by be enjoyment of sci-fi and fantasy genres in literature, movies, etc. I have been described as "funny dork".
What I was referring with having graduated from geek to dork is that I love much of my physical and social awkwardness after having lost about 85 pounds (and subsequently cured myself of Type 2 diabetes, thanks to the miraculous body I was given by God).
Sorry to burst your bubble Gayle, but I'm pretty sure I have refrained from being "rude and insulting." I express my opinions, just as you do.
And I believe in your right to do that, Allison Balloni. But where did that right come from, hmmmmmm? I believe my grandfather, who fought in WWII may have had something to do with it. I wasn't going to respond to you anymore, and now I have to admit you suckered me in. Darn!
BushCheney08, we have been ganged up on. Oh, woe is us!
I think it's come down to this: We are never going to be able to "agree to disagree" with liberals. They refuse to see what we see, and we refuse to see what they see. How they see what they see is a mystery to the likes of you and me. We can reason, but they don't understand our reasoning. They also feel they are reasonable, but we don't understand their reasoning. And it ain't gonna change.
Here I have to tell you what I wrote on another site: If we were to get out of Iraq, then the entire world would deem us cowards, and the terrorists would be over here killing liberals and conservatives indiscriminately. And the liberals would run to Canada and watch the news. Then they would say to their new Canadian liberal friends: "American's are so stupid. They should never have gotten out of Iraq. But what can you expect with a president like George W. Bush!" He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't by liberals because their only grief is that they lost the election. Not to mention they have learned how to flip-flop from the best flip-flopper of them all: John Kerry.
Okay, I have had my say. The libs can now write all the nasty things about me that they want. It won't change my opinion that if Clinton had been in power when all this happened we would now be kissing the you-know-what of the UN.
One final thought, although I'm perfectly certain only BushCheney08 is going to appreciate it: You brought a lot of opposition out of the woodwork with this one. I hope I have helped. Many people who don't comment do surf this site, and the opposition is plainly showing everyone who they are. Given enough rope........
I just read your last post, Saint. And I have to say I'm proud of you for losing weight and beating type two diabetis. That's wonderful! And it's also great that you appreciate the body God gave you.
But you are still busted. I think you are every bit as political as the rest of us.
gayle: yeah, its seems that we are. Your have some really good input. Keep it up.
dan trabue: your right, I have encountered that with almost all liberals I have debated. As for the person who made death threats to you let me make it clear that that person is not with my political party. As for the others, Im sure they had some good things to say, if they would have been more civil in thier arguments and didnt do the massive overgeneralizations.
Saint:
"I also love the attitude that "you don't agree with me, so you must be one of the enemy, because naturally no one but those indoctrinated in liberal/republican lies could see things any differently than I do!". Yeah, I'm OBVIOUSLY a liberal. The only hole in your theory is that I get the same treatment from extremist lefties, who insist that I am far too legalistic and conservative for my own good."
You've mentioned this point many times here. I hope your not talking to me, because I dropped that attitude long ago, and have been improving myself ever since. I know that your not a liberal, I dont think anyone believes that. I would call you a moderate, but all the moderates I know lean to the left a little.
Btw gayle: I saw your comment on conservatives for american values, and to confirm your belief yes, its all fake. I reccomend that you get off there, before they start stealing as your identity and posting as you. (they did it to me)
bushcheney08: Okay. Thanks for the tip! And how did you get it fixed?
Well, at first, I had no idea how they did it, I thought they broke into my account! but then I figured out how they did it. When you choose an identity, you choose other. then you type in the screenname you want to imitate, and then for your website you put in the link to the profile to that person.
see? now I am posting as you. It doesnt have the picture in it, but you can do that to, by entering html.
Thats interesting. Let me try.
actually dkfz said...
That was too easy. Whoever is in charge should fix that.
...but you can do that to, by entering html.
Actually, I tried it and you can't. Below "leave your comment" it says "you can use some html.
error message displayed if you try to enter an image tag:
Your HTML cannot be accepted: Tag is not allowed.
I agree with Anonymous... I know hypertext, and I couldn't do it either. Maybe it works on some blogs and not others. I don't know... it's a mystery! I don't like it, however. (But then I don't much like mysteries... they mystify me.) It's an oversight on the part of Blogger and should be fixed.
Another thought: When I did the links on "Let Our Voices Be Heard" I didn't have any problem. But the links on "My Republican Blog" had to be done away with because they didn't work. I inputted them the same exact way. Maybe it has something to do with the template?
Wait a minute, that can't be right because I have the same template for both blogs. I give up.
I am only 12 years old, almost 13, and i think all of you are wacky. Why would bush (why would anyone) intentionally hurt another human being or put them in danger. i don't care if you are a liberal or conservitist, we are all human. including bush. as a human why would you have the desire to harm another human?
-anynomous 12 year old-
Post a Comment
<< Home