Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Obamao's Katrina


Recommended Posts

logo_print.gif

Originally published 09:40 p.m., April 29, 2010, updated 01:46 p.m., April 30, 2010

 

Oil slick poses political peril for Obama

 

Joseph Curl

 

The rapidly expanding environmental catastrophe caused by the oil spill off the coast of Louisiana is presenting a growing political challenge to the Obama White House, with Mr. Obama and his aides at pains to defend the response and forestall comparisons to the Hurricane Katrina crisis.

Nine days after British Petroleum's Deepwater Horizon oil rig blew apart and began spewing 5,000 barrels of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico, a massive oil slick is set to wash ashore on the southern coast Thursday evening and, experts say, could dwarf the damage caused by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska.

 

Failure to get control of the relief effort and contain the environmental challenge could pose the same kind of political threat to Mr. Obama's popular standing that the much-criticized handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina did for former President George W. Bush. And unlike Katrina, it is likely the federal government will be the clear lead authority in dealing with the BP spill.

 

But Mr. Obama only Thursday dispatched Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson to help coordinate the federal response to the potential environmental disaster.

 

"We are being very aggressive and we are prepared for the worst case," Coast Guard Rear Adm. Sally Brice-O'Hara said at the White House.

 

The president said Thursday his administration has held daily briefings on the disater and will use "every single available resource at our disposal" to respond to the spill. His comments came at the opening of a Rose Garden event to honor teachers.

 

The spill has been sweeping across the gulf for nine days. At first, BP estimated the flow from the snapped-off, mile-down well at 1,000 barrels a day; now, officials say the flow is more like 5,000 barrels a day,

 

The spill, as of Tuesday, was 21 miles from shore, U.S. Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry said during a press conference. On Thursday, the slick was just three miles from shore and blowing in quickly.

 

The White House contends that the federal reaction to the spill was immediate.

 

"The response to the BP oil spill began as an emergency search-and-rescue mission by the U.S. Coast Guard and other partners. Concurrently, command center operations were stood up in the Gulf Coast to begin immediately addressing the environmental impact of the incident," administration spokesman Nick Shapiro said.

 

BP's response has so far also been aggressive: The company has sent more than 1,100 personnel, 33 ships and five planes to control and monitor the spill. BP officials say they are spending $6 million a day to shut off the flowing well and contain the spill.

 

The oil company is hoping to cover the well with a steel cap to avert an environmental disaster. However, the plan would take a month to complete, by which stage over 150,000 barrels could have been spilt.

 

Mr. Obama's response to the disaster will be closely scrutinized for parallels to the response of Mr. Bush to the devastating Hurricane Katrina that blew into New Orleans in August 2005, destroying levies and damaging the below-sea-level city. Later assessments by some organizations found that the primary responsibility for the disaster response lay with New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco, not federal officials, but that did not lessen the political damage to Mr. Bush's administration.

 

Then, the federal government was critcized for not taking over the local effort by state and local agencies. So far, no one has complained that the federal government has not taken over the operation now led by BP.

 

But few measures so far appear to have worked to curb the oil slick. Drilling a second well to plug the leak, an option BP has examined, would cost an estimated $100 million. The relief well would take two to three months, and by then, the spill could be over 300,000 barrels large than the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster in Prince William Spund, America's worst oil spill to date.

 

The White House went on a full offensive Thursday in hopes of showing that had the situation well in hand. Spokesman Robert Gibbs said the federal government had opened a command center in Robert, La., and are opening another in Mobile, Ala.

 

In a hastily called briefing Thursday with top administration officials, the White House bristled at the notion that the federal government was slow off the mark.

 

"BP is the responding party," said Mrs. Napolitano. "We are overseeing them. We're working very closely with all of the state and local partners."

 

The Homeland Security secretary said measures are underway and that a worst-case scenario is not a foregone conclusion.

 

The White House late Thursday put out a "readout" of calls Mr. Obama made to governors of states that could be affected by the spill.

 

"The president described the range of federal actions that are underway to respond to the spill and stressed the importance of maintaining close coordination with the Governors as this event continues to evolve. All of the governors appreciated the call and the actions being taken by the federal government," the e-mail said.

 

As dawn broke Thursday in the oil industry hub of Venice, about 75 miles from New Orleans and not far from the mouth of the Mississippi River, crews loaded an orange oil boom aboard a supply boat at Bud's Boat Launch. There, local officials expressed frustration with the pace of the government's response and the communication they were getting from the Coast Guard and BP officials.

 

"We're not doing everything we can do," said Billy Nungesser, president of Plaquemines Parish, which straddles the Mississippi River at the tip of Louisiana.

 

There's a growing tension in towns like Port Sulphur and Empire along the Louisiana coast, which runs south of New Orleans along the Mississippi River into prime oyster and shrimping waters.

 

Companies like Chevron and ConocoPhillips have facilities nearby, and some are hesitant to criticize BP or the federal government, knowing the oil industry is as much a staple of the local economy as the fishermen.

 

"I don't think there's a lot of blame going around here, people are just concerned about their livelihoods," said Sullivan Vullo, who owns La Casa Cafe in Port Sulphur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply
If it cannot be sealed, Deepwater Horizon might eventually exceed the Exxon Valdez catastrophe. And it's happening in the heart of the most productive marine fishery in the United States. The Gulf Coast wetlands threatened by the spill are the nursery for about half of America's shrimp.

 

Deepwater Horizon is also having impacts on American politics and public policy. The reputation and credibility of the oil industry, which repeatedly asserted that such a disaster could never happen again in the U.S. given the industry's safeguards, are as badly shattered as the rig itself. In applying for its permit, BP certified that the maximum potential spill from any disaster at the site would not exceed 162,000 gallons a day. By Thursday, the rate of leakage had already passed 200,000 gallons a day.

 

Early investigations have revealed that BP did not bother to install -- and that U.S. regulations do not require -- a backup device to provide another layer of protection in case the "fail-safe" shutoff valve failed (which is exactly what happened). Brazil requires such a device, and oil companies like Shell install it routinely even in the U.S. BP didn't because, at $500,000, it was "too expensive."

 

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope/dr...h_b_558473.html

 

Just like Katrina, no amount of money is going to stop the amount of damage that's going to be done. However, this happened out of BP's arrogance, and it really goes to show that the oil industry needs to take a step back and make sure this shit doesn't happen again. Not only is it destroying a bunch of ecosystems, and the animals that live in them, but it's also destroying parts of our economy through fisheries and tourism.

 

I think that the blame lies solely on BP. There is no technology that can stop a flow of oil this massive into the ocean, we pretty much have to wait for the pressure to equalize. I really wanted to enjoy my 8 days of free beer while in Daytona, but I'm really considering volunteering, if possible, to help clean this up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is cool, Vapor - but I think we just round up all the ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS,

 

make sure they know how to tread water, and shove em out of C-130's, each with

 

a bag of sawdust.

 

I get my best ideas reading this forum. GGG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AP ??? LOL

 

Josef Hebert has been described by some of his peers as "hysterical"...

 

and Erica Werner, LOL, is an ardent apologist and core lib supporter of Obamao.

 

Took you this long for THIS silly rebuttal?

 

ROF,L.

 

That's pretty good, Sev. Keep up the good work. @@

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AP ??? LOL

 

Josef Hebert has been described by some of his peers as "hysterical"...

 

and Erica Werner, LOL, is an ardent apologist and core lib supporter of Obamao.

 

Took you this long for THIS silly rebuttal?

 

ROF,L.

 

That's pretty good, Sev. Keep up the good work. @@

Cal your post was so ridiculous it did not merit a response.... The ap is not known for journalistic political hacks..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a priceless moment.

 

A man who'll post any amount of partisan garbage, and has just about daily for the last 4-5 years, just laughed off a post because it came from ...wait for it... the Associated Press.

 

That really tells you all you need to know about what's wrong with today's Republican Party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obamao has two Katrinas now!

 

Look how long it took the White House to respond to the flooding in Nashville plus having the White House EPA giving BP a pass on inspections on the rig that sunk in the gulf and continues to create a mess out in the gulf.

 

 

It seems as thoug the left wing media is only covering the fact that millionare country singers were flooded out of their mansions but what about all of those who lost homes that are not country artists? You dont get to here their stories.

 

 

play with class envy, and nobody cares. Typical communist move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha, Heck !

 

I did what you guys have always done. You diss any source that issues information you don't like.

 

But I can back up why I think their credibility is seriously to be questioned:

 

First, Erica Werner:

 

********************

Health Care Poll-Cooking: AP Headlines 'Tax the Rich' Finding, Ignores Opposition to ObamaCare, Other Key Items

 

By Tom Blumer

 

Tue, 11/17/2009 - 14:19 ET

 

 

That the Associated Press's basement-level poll-cooking and poll-reporting standards are quite low, and quite agenda-driven, might as well be an article of faith by this time. But the wire service-commissioned poll on health care, and Erica Warner's (saved here for future reference, fair use, and discussion purposes; HT JammieWearingFool via Instapundit; the full poll report in PDF format is here) plumbs new depths of partisanship while making errors of both omission and commission.

 

Warner and AP want the big takeaway to be that taxing "the rich" is the idea the public overwhelmingly favors to pay for ObamaCare -- never mind that the same public also opposes the plan itself.

 

What follows is a graphic containing selected paragraphs from Werner's report:

 

Werner's excerpted text compared to the actual poll betrays a fundamental misunderstanding that sadly permeates most discussions of income taxation:

 

  • Werner and AP turned the actual poll question about income taxes, which involved "increasing income taxes paid by people who earn more than $250,000 a year," into "Tax the Rich." It's really "Tax the Incomes of Anyone Who Happens to Have a Very High-Earning Year." It only coincidentally has something to do with going after those who are actually wealthy, i.e., "the rich." It's not exactly a secret that quite a few high-earners are anything but rich, for a variety of reasons.
  • Of course, the "objective" Warner somehow couldn't restrain her enthusiasm in how her misstated finding "will be welcome news for House Democrats." This Erica gal is really talented; her ability to wave pompoms and type at the same time is a sight to behold.
  • Werner compounded her obvious conceptual misunderstanding of the difference between income and net worth by highlighting the quote from Ms. Rondthaler, who seems to believe that anyone with very high earnings has a whole bunch of cash just lying around doing nothing that could be sent to Uncle Sam with no personal consequences, and no effect on the overall economy.
As to more important findings in the poll -- all totally ignored by Werner -- here is some of what JammieWearingFool noted:

 

Of course what the Associated Press does not even mention in their story is probably the most relevant part: "In general, do you support, oppose or neither support nor oppose the health care reform plans being discussed in Congress? (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE Is that strongly support/oppose or somewhat support/oppose?" To no surprise that's opposed by 43-41%. Eleven percent neither support or oppose and 4% "don't know."

 

Also conveniently left out of their story is the response to whether people should be penalized if they do not buy the government-run health care: Sixty-four percent oppose. Why do you suppose that was left out?

 

Also left out was of the respondents, 37% are unemployed or retired. No wonder they want someone to pick up the tab.

 

Forty-two percent think the economy will get worse if this scam is shoved down our throats, while 28% think it will improve. Again, this is left out of the story.

 

..... Another question left out: "How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington to do what is right – just about always, most of the time, or only some of the time?" A total of 24% said all or most of the time. And we're going to trust
them
?

 

 

 

Fans often complain about "home cooking," where the referees' calls seemingly tend to favor the home team over its opponents. In this case, Werner's and AP's home-cooking nullified the effect of every play it didn't like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and Josef Hebert is a liberal goof who was under contempt of court fines for refusing to

 

divulge his sources in the Wen Ho Lee court case....

 

not much credibility there, either:

 

**************************

<H2 class=page-title>H. Josef Hebert</H2>

AP: Polar Bears Will Save Us From Global Warming

By Lyndsi Thomas | Fri, 05/16/2008 - 12:50

 

In a May 15 article, Associated Press writer H. Josef Hebert practically cheered the addition of polar bears to a federal “threatened species” list thought of the subjectively positive effects this could have on the global warming debate: “The massive and powerful furry creature that lumbers across the Arctic ice may accomplish what 20 years of environmental activism has not done: force the issue that global warming already is having an effect and there is a price for both action and inaction.”

 

In his story, “Analysis: Polar Bear's Impact on People is Felt,” Hebert explained that the polar brings a “face” to the global warming debate. Whereas scientists have “long have talked of the visible damage that global warming has done to sea coral” this has “escaped the notice of the average person.” However, the polar bear, according to Wildlife Conservation Society President Steven E. Sanderson as quoted in the article, is different because it is “big, it's charismatic and it's powerful. It's beautiful and it generates sympathy. If it blinks out, you'll notice.”

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Josef is just one reporter for the AP, Heck. I didn't say all AP reporters... I just don't think much of Hebert and Werner.

and, I've explained why, which is what you libbies

don't do. You just diss, try to alienate, mock and you poof

jellybeans out of your noses.

************************

AP’s F. Josef Hebert Blunders on Climategate UPDATED

By: Bradley Fikes — December 10th, 2009 UPDATE: At the end of this post, I’ve added a short discussion of a much better explanation of Climategate, although still flawed, by McClatchy reporter Renee Schoof.

 

Longtime AP reporter F. Josef Hebert significantly advances the Climategate story, with an article titled, “Stolen e-mails embolden climate change skeptics”

 

Whooda thunkit?

 

Hebert’s warmed-over piece informs those who’ve been in a coma about how there’s political wrangling between that noted scientific authority, Global Warming Pope Al Gore I and opponents, variously called “doubters,” “skeptics,” and “deniers.”

 

The real problem is Hebert’s inaccurate account of what Climategate is. Without a shred of evidence, Hebert repeats the global warming activists’ line that the emails were “stolen” from University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, which Hebert describes as “highly respected” to give us the requisite dose of bias.

 

In fact, the alternative that the emails were leaked by an inside job has a lot of evidence for it.

 

Hebert gives the briefest description of a few of the most controversial emails including this:

 

One referred to using a “trick” that could be used to “hide the decline” of temperatures.

No, the “decline” was not about temperatures. This ignorant error is frequently made by those unfamiliar with the emails. The decline was in a chart of tree ring data. The tree rings were used as a proxy to estimate temperatures hundreds of years ago, when there were no accurate measurements. But beginning in 1960 and continuing for a few decades when temperatures were known to be heating up, the line unaccountably went down. This calls into question whether the proxy can be relied upon.

 

The proxy is one of the lines of evidence the AGW activists use to make the Medieval Warm Period go away. This was a time between 800-1300 a.d. in which temperatures were close to those of our times, perhaps even higher. The MWP calls into question the relentless bleat that carbon dioxide from human emissions is raising current temperature levels, since CO2 emissions were much lower then. So the troublesome MWP has to be got rid of.

 

The “trick” was to hide this embarrassing decline in the tree ring proxy by changing the way the proxy trend was calculated as the trend went down. In a close variation, the line was simply ended when it ran into another line, masking its termination.

 

Now this is complicated, and perhaps beyond the ability of Hebert to explain. In that case, he should have asked someone else to help him, or found another email. Such as this one, that even an AP reporter can understand that reeks of fraud, from Michael “Dirty Laundry” Mann:

 

p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on

this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So

please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of

“dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try

to distort things…

 

But that might be too much to expect of the bungling Hebert, who uncritically repeated Al Gore’s attack on the emails:

Former Vice President Al Gore, the most recognized U.S. voice on climate change, quickly rebutted Palin and accused the climate deniers in an interview with CNN of “taking things out of context and misrepresenting” what the e-mails actually said.

 

Hebert failed to mention Gore’s proven lie — since retracted – that the newest emails were sent a decade ago.

 

Question: Is this merely a case of sloppy reporting by Hebert, or is he actively trying to hide inconvenient truths?

 

UPDATE: McClatchy’s Renee School has written a much more informative piece on Climategate, although still flawed and limited.

 

 

 

Schoof puts Climategate in the correct context, that it calls IPCC’s reports on global warming into question. Unlike Hebert, she sticks to what she knows about how the Climategate emails were released.

 

Someone took e-mails from a server at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom. The e-mails are between the unit’s scientists and other climate scientists. Many are routine, but some have raised questions about the behavior of some scientists.

 

Mirable dictu, Schoof correctly explains the “trick” used by Phil Jones and Michael Mann!

 

However, Schoof flubs it with a half-truth in her Q and A piece:

 

Q: Does one of the e-mails show that scientists tried to block publication of scientists with opposing views?

 

The e-mail that critics cite on this matter is one from Mann in 2003: “I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”

 

Wrong! That email is just one of those cited by critics. There are others. Like this one from Phil Jones:

 

I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep

them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

 

And this one from Michael Mann:

 

This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the

“peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal!

So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a

legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate

research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also

need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently

sit on the editorial board…

 

And this one:from Tom Wigley:

 

“If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.”

 

If any reporters writing on Climategate happen to read this, I suggest they acquaint themselves with a list of the most controversial emails, from which my examples were taken, at the Bishop Hill blog.

 

Reporters can search all the emails here.

 

Finally, they can download the entire set of emails and associated files — some of which show incompetent programming and apparent data-rigging, by clicking right here.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

Reporters, you don’t have to take the word of proven Climategate liars like Al Gore about what the emails contain. Show a little initiative and examine them for yourself, and prove you can do actual reporting.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, touting AP as the end all super duper bunch of reporters that are outstanding?

 

LOL.

 

Give us all a break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think the Obama administration should have done differently, John? Would would you like to see him blamed for?

 

I would like him to be treated the same way has his predecessors.

 

This is BIG OILs issue. Dare I say HALIBURTON. Nevermind, Obammy is leaving all this to the evil empire called BP. In the meantime, the federal government sits on its hands.

 

Fair and balanced, Heck. That's all I want.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure we can imagine if it had happened on oil baron Bush's watch.

 

But to be fair to Obama I don'

t buy the gripe that it took him X number of days more to visit means nothing.

Same as any president who probably knows dick about the causes or remedies invoilved in the situation.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there's plenty more to come with this story. This is clearly just the beginning. And if they screw up the response to the oil spill in the same manner as the Bush administration did with Katrina, I'll be happy to get upset.

 

But what you guys are doing is something different. You're pretending that a display of massive government incompetence was a case of "scapegoating." And you'd like Obama to be scapegoated just like you think Bush and Brown were. These aren't two similar cases with hypocrisy being the only difference, as much as the right likes to dream.

 

Look at Mike Brown's statements in the past week. Yes, George Bush put this guy at the helm of one of the more important agencies in our government. He's not fit to run a 99 cent store. He's an idiot.

 

There's a difference between scapegoating and pointing out of the biggest government screw-ups in modern day history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not fit to run a 99 cent store. He's an idiot. Heck

 

NOT JUST MY OPINION... OF OBAMAO !!!

 

Yeah, the "big difference", Heck, is that you want to use the scapegoating

 

WHEN YOU want to, and towards WHO YOU want it to be towards.

 

Anything else, to you, is quite uncivilized.

 

A whole Heck of a lot like that, says I. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

 

For a guy who believes government never does anything right, why is it so hard to admit that in this case the government didn't do much of anything right?

 

You declare yourself above party (which, of course, you're not) and yet you call any attempt to hold the people responsible for the response to Katrina "scapegoating." Then you try to create an alternate universe where the army evacuates everyone and none of this happens. Then you want to see Obama attacked more for not being attacked more for ...you won't say. Neither will John.

 

Steve, it doesn't get any more hacktastic than that. It would almost cause someone to keep referring to Bush as "your boy" all the time. You know, if I thought that were a super clever dig that exposed you big time.

 

If you want to blame Obama for something to do with the oil spill, make your case. I don't know what that is, but go ahead. If you're upset that the Bush administration responded poorly to Katrina, and that a lot of people without their head up their ass noticed, and they said bad things about his and their competence level, what do you want me to tell you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just more and more examples showing how Obama is incompetent to perform as a leader. maybe he needs to set up a summit and talk about it then it will go away. lol!

 

Obama is the jokester andthe joke is on the american people who have to deal with this crap and we will be stuck with cleaning up all the dirty diapers that will be left over by this administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

 

For a guy who believes government never does anything right, why is it so hard to admit that in this case the government didn't do much of anything right?

 

Well to a guy who thinks government is the answer to all prayers huh? So you say that wouldn't have helped?

 

You declare yourself above party (which, of course, you're not) and yet you call any attempt to hold the people responsible for the response to Katrina "scapegoating." Then you try to create an alternate universe where the army evacuates everyone and none of this happens. Then you want to see Obama attacked more for not being attacked more for ...you won't say. Neither will John.

 

Actually I was referring to Captain Joe Hazelwood but I suppose it applies here too.

 

Steve, it doesn't get any more hacktastic than that. It would almost cause someone to keep referring to Bush as "your boy" all the time. You know, if I thought that were a super clever dig that exposed you big time.

 

Shrug. As you will.

 

If you want to blame Obama for something to do with the oil spill, make your case.

 

I did?

Gosh.

All I say is that he doesn't have any more expertise here than Mr T.

But if you wanna tell me that you wouldn't have been among the throng bellyaching about Bush getting big money from BP, I'm laughinhg already.

 

 

I don't know what that is, but go ahead. If you're upset that the Bush administration responded poorly to Katrina, and that a lot of people without their head up their ass noticed, and they said bad things about his and their competence level, what do you want me to tell you?

 

 

I say I don''t think the Katrina shit would have been much better or worse with Bush Kerry Obama or anybody in the white house.

This either.

 

And if they'd declared martial law and evacuated it'd have been better in hindsight.

Civil liberty?

That part is up to you to decide.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also Heck, I guess you'right in a way, I do favor one party but only because we have limited choice.

I'd prefer a collection of shit from both ideologies.

That's not to say I want a three party or a free for all but neither of the ones we have would be suited if and when I become king.

 

It ends up with two from column A and one from column B.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Well to a guy who thinks government is the answer to all prayers huh?"

 

You did it again.

 

"But if you wanna tell me that you wouldn't have been among the throng bellyaching about Bush getting big money from BP, I'm laughinhg already."

 

And then you did it again!

 

Yeah, I rarely, if ever, make the "campaign donations" argument, as they're among the laziest around. I don't imagine you can find me ever making that argument in five years on the board.

 

But that's okay. You can just make up that I do and then laugh at the thing you made up.

 

I say I don''t think the Katrina shit would have been much better or worse with Bush Kerry Obama or anybody in the white house.

This either.

 

Because you can't make distinctions.

 

Some people don't take governing all that seriously, and so they appoint a friend of a friend to a job of national importance, even though it's a really important job that very few people are qualified to do. Even though some people have done it extremely well in the past, and some people haven't. You don't think that matters at all.

 

You don't take governing very seriously either. You think you could put Sarah Palin in and it wouldn't matter. So I'm not surprised you can't see the difference between the two approaches.

 

But it keeps you from having to think about these things for more than a split-second.

 

"It's all the same."

 

There, you're done for the day. That was easy.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with Katrina was the peoples reaction to it. I saw thousands of healthy people standing around doing absolutely nothing to help themselves. It was pathetic to say the least. It shows the welfare mentality of some. After awhile, they become unable to help themselves. They have to have someone lift them up and save them. It, unfortunately shows the direction this country is headed.

 

People refused to evacutate. The chocolate city Mayor and his thug police department were a joke. I remember the video of to black female officers looting a store, while on camera mind you. Pitiful, just pitiful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also Heck, I guess you'right in a way, I do favor one party but only because we have limited choice.

I'd prefer a collection of shit from both ideologies.

That's not to say I want a three party or a free for all but neither of the ones we have would be suited if and when I become king.

 

It ends up with two from column A and one from column B.

 

WSS

 

That's pretty much where I am too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...