Jimmy Carter campaign to censure him - What the hell? [Archive]

Lynn7

05-29-2006, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by QUENTIN
Like continually ragging on private citizen, former president Clinton.

Not so private- just yesterday on Chris Matthews' Sunday show, the round table was wondering if Bill would ruin Hillary's chances for the presidential election because of his inability to control himself.And some of them were liberals.

FYI I am bitter at Clinton for the crappy way he has treated women. I don't think I have any reason to put away bitterness for someone who has treated people with contempt. In Carter's case the bitterness is over a lost election. There's a difference there. Although it is true that my bitterness over him will never do me any good so I should put it away. The problem is that when people praise him I feel it is important not to forget the content of his character cause that would be dangerous.

darchangel

05-29-2006, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Lynn7
The problem is that when people praise him I feel it is important not to forget the content of his character cause that would be dangerous.

Just like when you praise Bush people feel it necessary to point out that he has ruined our foreign policy, started a war that's a complete farce, and let the survivors of Hurricane Katrina suffer while he was on vacation.

I'm just saying...

~darchangel~

Lynn7

05-29-2006, 10:27 PM

The Iraqi government and most of the people are grateful to him for our intervention and are hopeful for a bright future. Why is our foreign policy ruined? Because the world is afraid to engage with terrorists? Cause that is what it is all about. When one of those countries are hit by them, who do you think will be the first country they call on?

And where will we all be when the next hurricane hits as there are so many each year? And people die in hurricanes and tornadoes each year too (and also earthquakes). In the age of phone, Internet and fax etc there is no reason why he can't communicate from his home in Texas. He wasn't on vacation in a luxury resort in Tahiti or anything.

When Pres Bush starts to hit on underling women in government and then tries to bash them when they speak out, then I will bash Bush too.

darchangel

05-30-2006, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
The Iraqi government and most of the people are grateful to him for our intervention and are hopeful for a bright future. Why is our foreign policy ruined? Because the world is afraid to engage with terrorists? Cause that is what it is all about. When one of those countries are hit by them, who do you think will be the first country they call on?

And where will we all be when the next hurricane hits as there are so many each year? And people die in hurricanes and tornadoes each year too (and also earthquakes). In the age of phone, Internet and fax etc there is no reason why he can't communicate from his home in Texas. He wasn't on vacation in a luxury resort in Tahiti or anything.

When Pres Bush starts to hit on underling women in government and then tries to bash them when they speak out, then I will bash Bush too.

so let me get this straight...you're more worried about a president having consensual sex with an employee than a president letting our citizens die in a natural disaster or starting a war FOR NO REASON?

i'd also like to point out to you once again that in order for the rest of the world to be 'afraid to engage with terrorist,' the Iraquis would in fact have to BE the terrorists...but apparently, you (along with the other 32% of the country) have forgotten all about that Bin Laden fellow...you know...the one who ACTUALLY attacked our country.

and as far as Katrina is concerned, I don't care WHERE he's on vacation...he needed to DO something about what was going on in New Orleans instead of letting those people stand in the streets and scream for help as AMERICAN CITIZENS got sick, were raped and died while he sat on the sidelines and did nothing for fucking DAYS.

i really don't see where you can say that Clinton getting head is worse than that...

~darchangel~

someguy

05-30-2006, 05:49 PM

Darch, this is no surprise. The more religious conservatives (and some Republicans) tend to act towards a belief of morals ahead of business. This is why Clinton almost got impeached, he went against what is morally right. He may have been good at his job in certain aspects, but since he cheated on his wife he must be an absolutely horrible president. Maybe if Clinton got murdered he would get the Kennedy treatment, a president that's worse in the moral department.

I've noticed this a lot, people go after a politician's personal life as a means to make them be a terrible business person. I'm not saying that we should ignore somebody's personal life if they do something bad like Clinton and Kennedy did, but when you take that BS drama and place it above running the country, you need to re-consider that decision.

echo_bravo

05-30-2006, 06:45 PM

I've noticed this a lot, people go after a politician's personal life as a means to make them be a terrible business person.

Yep, it is called "mud slinging" and BOTH parties do it all the time.

The Postmaster General

05-30-2006, 07:19 PM

Darch complained about Bush's job performance on multiple instances and Lynn equated that complaint to her complaint about Clinton's personal life. This is hardly the right context to accuse both sides of doing "it all the time".

That being said....

He wasn't on vacation in a luxury resort in Tahiti or anything.

I'm not sure who's with me on this, but I honestly think it would have been better if he was on vacation in Tahiti. It's a bit hard to explain, but there's something more understandable about not being able to make it back to work when you are in a foreign land, than when you are hanging around your house.

SITUATION A (TAHITI):

"President, we need you back. The country is in crisis."

BUSH: "Oh no! Look I'm in the middle of a tropical jungle. Let me see what I can sort out here until I get back."

SITUATION B (RANCH IN TEXAS):

""President, we need you back. The country is in crisis."

BUSH: "Oh no! Look, a Walker marathon just started and I'm in my underwear. Let me see what I can sort out here until I leave the ranch."

Purely hypothetical, but none-the-less, no boss in the history of the modern world will treat a vacation to Tahiti the same as a vacation to chill out around the house.

Sorry Lynn, you're basically saying that it's forgivable that he didn't get back to work because he was chilling out at his ranch, and not in some foreign land far away from the crisis. That seems a bit warped, especially since it shouldn't have really mattered where he was, but that he didn't get on the ball.

Lynn7

05-30-2006, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by someguy
Darch, this is no surprise. The more religious conservatives (and some Republicans) tend to act towards a belief of morals ahead of business. This is why Clinton almost got impeached, he went against what is morally right. He may have been good at his job in certain aspects, but since he cheated on his wife he must be an absolutely horrible president. Maybe if Clinton got murdered he would get the Kennedy treatment, a president that's worse in the moral department.

I've noticed this a lot, people go after a politician's personal life as a means to make them be a terrible business person. I'm not saying that we should ignore somebody's personal life if they do something bad like Clinton and Kennedy did, but when you take that BS drama and place it above running the country, you need to re-consider that decision.

Not about him cheating on his wife- about him cheating on his wife with an intern in the Oval Office and about him cheating on his wife with a woman who was in financial difficulties who came to him for a paying job instead of a volunteer job and he tries to hit on her. You guys might forget but I do not that Women's lib used to stand against this horrific practice of bosses using their power to use women sexually in order to get promotions etc. That is before NOW became a one issue organization. Well, I still think it is abhorrent for any boss to do that. And to emphasize her difficult situation, her husband committed suicide a few days later.

I don't think if a man cheats on his wife that makes him a bad business person. I think it makes him a dishonorable person who might be great at his daily job.

RE Hurricane:

The problem with the Bush vacation and hurricane situation is that you guys beleive in micromanagement (as Clinton did) and I beleive in big picture management (as Bush does). You hire qualified people to work under you and you let them do their job. That is how most businesses work. Bush should be able to handle 35 crisies at the same time because people are in place below him to handle it. The New Orleans thing was not his fault but it is a nice try to blame him for it. People just blame everything on Bush. Whatever works I guess. I just dont' buy it.

someguy

05-30-2006, 10:52 PM

So you admit that a person's bedside manners don't necessarily dictate how they do in their work field.

This is my problem with Bill Clinton, most people who are against him always bring up the Lewinsky thing as if it was a major policy or something. He cheated on his wife and took advantage of women, which looks bad but you can't like Bush because he doesn't do that. That's such a bad reason to. I hope that your primary reason for liking bush is not because he does not cheat while in office, like I said it's his own stuff and not involved with his work.

Bush is like the opposite of Clinton. Clinton did alright business wise, he got the surplus going (although that's kind of it). Nothing too horrible happened while he was in office except for his more gossip worthy news. Bush on the other hand does not have any gossip or bad treatment of women, but business wise he is doing pitiful. Two thirds of people who supported him agree that he is doing a bad job as president, and no matter how much dignity you bring to the position it won't mean a single thing if you can't do your job right.

The Postmaster General

05-31-2006, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Lynn7
You guys might forget but I do not that Women's lib used to stand against this horrific practice of bosses using their power to use women sexually in order to get promotions etc.

Women's lib is about empowering women to stand up for themselves and to have the same opportunities as men, not about feeling bad for them after they made a choice to use sex for their advantage.

This was the 1990s Lynn, not the 1890s. Women are very much aware of what is improper in the work place.

You say the people of New Orleans should have known better than to live there, but in the case of women screwing around with Clinton. Oh the horror bestowed upon these women!

So let me see if I get this straight -

People of New Orleans - shoudl have known better

Grown women who screw with Clinton - real victims with real problems.

Lynn7

05-31-2006, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by someguy
So you admit that a person's bedside manners don't necessarily dictate how they do in their work field.

This is my problem with Bill Clinton, most people who are against him always bring up the Lewinsky thing as if it was a major policy or something. He cheated on his wife and took advantage of women, which looks bad but you can't like Bush because he doesn't do that. That's such a bad reason to. I hope that your primary reason for liking bush is not because he does not cheat while in office, like I said it's his own stuff and not involved with his work.

Bush is like the opposite of Clinton. Clinton did alright business wise, he got the surplus going (although that's kind of it). Nothing too horrible happened while he was in office except for his more gossip worthy news. Bush on the other hand does not have any gossip or bad treatment of women, but business wise he is doing pitiful. Two thirds of people who supported him agree that he is doing a bad job as president, and no matter how much dignity you bring to the position it won't mean a single thing if you can't do your job right.

People were upset that Clinton was screwing around with the intern in the oval office, yes but they were more upset that he perjured himself- that was before we all realized that it is really no big deal to lie under oath. Until Clinton did it I always thought it was a bad thing to do and yet all of the talking heads said it really wasn't a bad thing-everyone does it. We can thank him for that of course.

I had a bit of a problem when Monica Lewinsky threatened Linda Tripp that if she told the truth about Bill and Monica's relationship to the Paula Jones trial that Linda might lose her job. That was a little icky. Jones was suing for sexual harrassment and of course it might have weakened Bill's case if it was known that Bill regularly hit on his underlings in the workplace.

Bush is not responsible for the high gas prices and yet our economy is doing well according to all the business reports. That is pretty amazing considering that the high gas prices are bound to start affecting every aspect of our lives.And because of Bush's leadership he was able to tuen around a huge financial crisis after 9-11 when everyone stopped traveling and the entire travel industry was crumbling and affecting everything else. He will go down in history as a great president who suffered from low opinion polls because ot the tough yet brave decisions he has had to make. I can't say the same thing about Clinton except that the economy was doing well during his years but it did start to slip in his final year or two. He had a good time as presidnent though and that is something we can appreciate. If Hillary every gets in he won't have a good time because he won't want her record to be better than his so he will spend his time sabatoging her, I think :D

Lynn7

05-31-2006, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Women's lib is about empowering women to stand up for themselves and to have the same opportunities as men, not about feeling bad for them after they made a choice to use sex for their advantage.

This was the 1990s Lynn, not the 1890s. Women are very much aware of what is improper in the work place.

You say the people of New Orleans should have known better than to live there, but in the case of women screwing around with Clinton. Oh the horror bestowed upon these women!

So let me see if I get this straight -

People of New Orleans - shoudl have known better

Grown women who screw with Clinton - real victims with real problems.

When you are making your case you are not addressing Willy. What was her recourse? Willy was not trying to get ahead by sex. She asked Bill if he could arrange for her to get a paying job and he stuck his tongue down her thoat, if I recall correctly. Not exactly a professional response to a woman's cry for help. And what about
the power imbalance here. What is a subordinate supposed to do when the person in power asks for sex? How do they go on in their jobs after they have refused their boss' advances? The bottom line is that bosses are not supposed to be hitting on people who work for them. It is sexual harrassment.

The Postmaster General

05-31-2006, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
The bottom line is that bosses are not supposed to be hitting on people who work for them. It is sexual harrassment.

No it's not.

Harassment is a pervasive pattern, not a one time incident that someone was uncomfortable with.

What you are saying is that dating should never be allowed in the work place, which even the most stringent corporate lawyer will tell you is a fantasy.

someguy

05-31-2006, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
People were upset that Clinton was screwing around with the intern in the oval office, yes but they were more upset that he perjured himself- that was before we all realized that it is really no big deal to lie under oath. Until Clinton did it I always thought it was a bad thing to do and yet all of the talking heads said it really wasn't a bad thing-everyone does it. We can thank him for that of course.

Last I checked, people still find it wrong to lie under oath. Those talking heads you speak of were just democrat supporters that scrambled to come up with something to defend themselves over what Clinton did for their party.

Bush is not responsible for the high gas prices and yet our economy is doing well according to all the business reports.

When you have a deficit in the trillions, I wouldn't say the economy is too excellent.

That is pretty amazing considering that the high gas prices are bound to start affecting every aspect of our lives.And because of Bush's leadership he was able to tuen around a huge financial crisis after 9-11 when everyone stopped traveling and the entire travel industry was crumbling and affecting everything else. He will go down in history as a great president who suffered from low opinion polls because ot the tough yet brave decisions he has had to make. I can't say the same thing about Clinton except that the economy was doing well during his years but it did start to slip in his final year or two. He had a good time as presidnent though and that is something we can appreciate. If Hillary every gets in he won't have a good time because he won't want her record to be better than his so he will spend his time sabatoging her, I think :D

I would say that the financial crisis did not turn around after 9/11, the current deficit shows this. There were 2 major disasters in America in the last 5 years, one by terrorists and one by nature. An entire town was pretty much underwater and two of America's biggest buildings got destroyed. The oil prices keep booming, and we still do not get a break because the oil companies want their giant profits. The war is costing America more and more every day. The tax cuts, while I'm sure it's helpful to some (read: the wealthy), are not helping anyone with a low income. People predict that there will be a recession from the giant deficit that Bush has made (and from what I've read, most of the money from it was not for homeland security/protection from terrorists).

Bush's 'tough' and 'brave' decisions have not been a success yet. His social security plan fell through pretty horribly (Clinton set aside 2.5 trillion from his projected 5+ trillion dollar surplus for social security, and I think that Bush's spending of that money could have been a factor for him wanting to privatize it). Iraq isn't working out so well right now, and if it does it will be in a long time from now. I do not find that he has made many (or any) good decisions in his time as president so far for America.

Although when I look at things now it's pretty screwed up. Clinton lies about cheating on his wife, and he almost gets impeached. Bush illegally spies on the country and makes them go to war based on bad intelligence and nothing has been done. In fact, the guy who gave Bush the faulty intelligence on WMDs got a medal! This is what I mean by putting a person's more moral part of themselves up before their business part, which is the main part of being president. It's just pretty topsy turvy to me for the president to nearly get fired over objectifying some women, yet causing the unnecessary deaths of over 30 000 civilians is just being a good ol' boy.

MacReady

05-31-2006, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
The problem with the Bush vacation and hurricane situation is that you guys beleive in micromanagement (as Clinton did) and I beleive in big picture management (as Bush does). You hire qualified people to work under you and you let them do their job. That is how most businesses work. Bush should be able to handle 35 crisies at the same time because people are in place below him to handle it. The New Orleans thing was not his fault but it is a nice try to blame him for it. People just blame everything on Bush. Whatever works I guess. I just dont' buy it.

You keep saying 'Micromanagement' and 'Big Picture'. You say that the government should obssess over every single issue in people lives, like if Clinton had tried to help them it would be like a CEO having to go fix the wiring in one of his stores on the other coast. There's two major problems with your analogy:

1. This isn't a small town bank robbery taking place in Wyoming. This was a major and devastating national catastrophe that was half as deadly as 9/11 (it's easily one of the deadliest things to take place on American soil since that date) and was much more economically damaging.

2. Your charge of assistance being the same as 'Micromanagement' is faulty. He was warned by one of the very same officials who was supposed to handle, and he didn't do anything. In real life, that's called 'Bystander effect', when somebody witnesses something bad happening but doesn't do anything to stop it. It's kinda like if a woman was being raped:

Woman: HELP ME!

Bush: I would, but there's a police station just a block away. Just scream loud enough for them to hear.

Woman: BUT YOU'RE RIGHT THERE!!

Bush: Yeah, but that's not my job.

Woman: Why don't you go bring them here!?!

Bush: Uh, um... *runs away*

He had no excuse to do absolutely nothing while people's lives were in danger. You can cry that we're trying to blame him, and while I'll try not to engage you in debate, your arguments on this subject are utterly sad and ridiculous.

QUENTIN

05-31-2006, 08:42 PM

All of what MacReady said rings true...AND, the person he chose to lead his big picture management of FEMA was a horse expert buddy who had no idea what the fuck to do in a crisis. Great management, really.

darchangel

06-01-2006, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
What was her recourse? What is a subordinate supposed to do when the person in power asks for sex? How do they go on in their jobs after they have refused their boss' advances?

http://www.cnn.com/books/news/9902/12/monicas.story/cover.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/290000/images/_290325_pressmonica.jpg

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1999/1101990315_400.jpg

http://www.anusha.com/lew-king.jpg

I'm not saying what Clinton did is right...I'm just saying that Monica wasn't a complete innocent in this ordeal as you would have everyone believe.

~darchangel~

Brando @$$ Fat

06-01-2006, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by echo_bravo
Yep, it is called "mud slinging" and BOTH parties do it all the time.

Yep, and Bush hiring some Arabian horse guy isn't new either. It's called the spoils system, it's been going on since the Jackson administration.

Censuring Carter is pointless and childish, but so are modern-day politics.

Lynn7

06-01-2006, 07:28 PM

Again, I wasn't talking about Lewinsky- that was consensual and she admits that she came on to him first. But he should've been dignified enough to not have sex with her in the Oval office with his wife working in the very same building. But that wasn't why he was impeached. His problem was with the Jones case and the fact that he withheld or suppressed evidence that he had a history of sex with employees that he wanted to hide so it made Jones look like she was lying. He also perjured himself.

Big picture management is simply having the right people in place under you who can handle the job so you don't have to attend to stuff personally. Bush's mistake was putting someone in that job who was not competent. Also the fact that the mayor and the governor were also inept and you have a recipe for disaster. I'm sure Bush thought everyone would handle it just fine. His biggest weakness is his tendency to always look for the best in people.

The Postmaster General

06-01-2006, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Again, I wasn't talking about Lewinsky- that was consensual and she admits that she came on to him first. But he should've been dignified enough to not have sex with her in the Oval office with his wife working in the very same building. But that wasn't why he was impeached. His problem was with the Jones case and the fact that he withheld or suppressed evidence that he had a history of sex with employees that he wanted to hide so it made Jones look like she was lying. He also perjured himself.

Lynn, you mixing up events there.

Also, you have no concept of what constitutes harassment. HItting on a woman, even grabbing her ass isn't harassment. Grabbing her ass would be something a company wouldn't approve of, but it's not harassment. You are basically implying that all women are incapable of enjoying sexual advances. That's not what harassment laws are designed for.

Big picture management is simply having the right people in place under you who can handle the job so you don't have to attend to stuff personally. Bush's mistake was putting someone in that job who was not competent. Also the fact that the mayor and the governor were also inept and you have a recipe for disaster. I'm sure Bush thought everyone would handle it just fine. His biggest weakness is his tendency to always look for the best in people.

What you are saying is like if you had some guy working in a pickle jarring factory, and he keeps breaking the jars; the manager finds out about this. Well, it's not the managers fault. He hired the guy on the level, and it's the guys fault for dropping the jars, not the managers.

Well what if they guy kept dropping jars for 9 days? Is the owner of the company going to go, "Aw shucks. That manager did the best he could. He was just looking for the best in the guy. I'm out of a thousand pickle jars, but I can't blame the manager."

Bush basically fired the guy dropping the jars after the factory closed down.

MacReady

06-02-2006, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
What you are saying is like if you had some guy working in a pickle jarring factory, and he keeps breaking the jars; the manager finds out about this. Well, it's not the managers fault. He hired the guy on the level, and it's the guys fault for dropping the jars, not the managers.

Well what if they guy kept dropping jars for 9 days? Is the owner of the company going to go, "Aw shucks. That manager did the best he could. He was just looking for the best in the guy. I'm out of a thousand pickle jars, but I can't blame the manager."

Bush basically fired the guy dropping the jars after the factory closed down.

Quit being such an idiot Bubba. Obviously the correct answer is that people who don't like the fact that the guy keeps dropping pickle jars should simply move to another place where there happens to be a different pickle factory nearby. I thought that you of all people would be smarter than this.

Seriously, going along with Bubba's metaphor, what if that same factory owner learned there was a leak in the basement and it very likely crumble soon due to the machinery that the ment use down there. Should he A) help them out since it would be really easy plus the fact that they are the ones who make sure he has a business to operate and put a roof over his damned head or B) let them all drown rather than breaking his precious and totally important "big picture" style management, along with making the factory lose more business due to parts of it being destroyed thanks to his silence.

Answer me please Lynn, because from where I'm standing, you're saying it was okay for the manager to keep a idiotic principle rather than likely saving people's lives.

Lynn7

06-02-2006, 08:05 PM

I did answer to this. Bush did make a mistake in putting him in this job.

Originally posted by Lynn7

Bush's mistake was putting someone in that job who was not competent. .......His biggest weakness is his tendency to always look for the best in people.

Not every person is capable of doing every job well. You can be a terrible pickle jar person but be a wonderful car salesman.

someguy

06-02-2006, 09:40 PM

Of course you think it's a mistake now, there's no way to get out of that Katrina situation without saying that Bush did SOMETHING wrong. After the hurricane, they played the blame game that they didn't want anyone playing, and they put all the problems on Brown. Even if he was head of FEMA, he's not the only person to be involved in this. Before the hurricane he should have taken the proper precautions, but he didn't. During and after the hurricane he still didn't. Now he should have just reacted based on common sense, but that didn't happen. I think that at that time someone above him should have told him to get out there. Nobody did. Lewis Black pretty much summed it up well. The president assigns people to jobs and they work in an office and do it. Then the president calls them up and goes 'did you do it?' and they go 'yeah.' Brown did not do his job, and rather than get someone else in there to help or give him a little push, they did nothing. The president is supposed to be smart and decisive enough to pick the right people to do the major jobs in the country. You think that Bush has no fault other than an 'oopsies' mistake for what happened even though he deemed Michael Brown good enough to take the job where he essentially has the power to save or destroy the lives of thousands or hundreds of thousands? I think that when it comes to something like this, you can't just brush off Bush's appointment as cronyism or something very little.

I mean, you do admit it was a mistake for him to appoint Bush but you don't even try to fault Bush in some way when you say this. You even turn it into a positive by saying he looks for the best in people. When you are the leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world, everything is on a much bigger scale and taken a lot more seriously. I just don't see how you can say that it was a mistake, but then just say accidents happen. I'm most likely putting words in your mouth here, but basically I want a clear cut answer on whether you think Bush has any fault in Katrina. In fact, I'd like to see how much of what happened is Bush's fault, would be very little or very big.

I was going to go on some more but I think what I've already posted is all over the place, so I'll stop now before things get even nastier.

darchangel

06-03-2006, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by Lynn7

Also the fact that the mayor and the governor were also inept and you have a recipe for disaster. I'm sure Bush thought everyone would handle it just fine. His biggest weakness is his tendency to always look for the best in people.

Really? Because as I recall, Nagin was quoted on television and radio stations TWO FUCKING DAYS before anybody in Washington did jack shit as saying that the people of New Orleans needed help and that the
folk in D.C. needed to get off their asses and help him out.

Here's a link to where he said that, too:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/02/katrina.nagin/index.html

~darchangel~

Lynn7

06-03-2006, 01:13 PM

Yes, yes, Nagin was wonderful and Bush is evil incarnate. Don't forget the fact that Nagin had tons of school buses that were left behind in the hurricane while so many people could not find a way to get out of the city. Bush should've known about those school buses cause Nagin did not seem to be aware of them.Whenever someone falls down on the job it is Bush's responsibility to go in and personally oversee the situation whether it is in New Orleans or Portland Maine.

Someguy- when you say you will stop now because things will get nastier that is the message I need to just stop right here. You have your view of Bush and I have mine. I like the guy and you don't.

MacReady

06-03-2006, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Yes, yes, Nagin was wonderful and Bush is evil incarnate. Don't forget the fact that Nagin had tons of school buses that were left behind in the hurricane while so many people could not find a way to get out of the city. Bush should've known about those school buses cause Nagin did not seem to be aware of them.Whenever someone falls down on the job it is Bush's responsibility to go in and personally oversee the situation whether it is in New Orleans or Portland Maine.

So, when somebody screws up over something that's their job and people are hurt and killed because of it, the higher ups should simply blame the guy who screwed up rather than trying to help the ones who are suffering?

Also, why is it that simply trying to call emergency personel (especially since you're the most powerful in the country) and make sure everything is ready in case of a major oncoming storm which you've just been warned about that could kill thousands is everybit as complex and excessive as asking him to literally go to the city and swim around resuing people on his own?

Finally, you haven't answered any of my questions.

Originally posted by Lynn7
Someguy- when you say you will stop now because things will get nastier that is the message I need to just stop right here. You have your view of Bush and I have mine. I like the guy and you don't.

Haha, I've noticed your new tactic now. Whenever somebody writes a long-winded paragraph that has a snippy comment or a negative statement about you attached, you focus on that attack, and totally ignore and refuse to answer anything, choosing to scold the other poster's manners.

I can understand not wanting to talk to people who you feel mistreat you, but someguy didn't even get nasty, he just said he was losing his temper. He's point is still a damn good one. Even if people aren't nice to you on these boards, not answering their questions actually makes it worse (I got furious when you ignored my points the last time this happened).

someguy

06-03-2006, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Someguy- when you say you will stop now because things will get nastier that is the message I need to just stop right here. You have your view of Bush and I have mine. I like the guy and you don't.

I didn't mean that. I read over what I said and it basically just made no sense and was all over the place, if I typed more I would have probably confused you even more. I'm trying to not be like the other members on here and just put you down constantly rather than actually try to bring up points and get my message across in a way that you would actually want to respond to.

We're looking at something specific here, not the whole thing with Bush in general. You like the guy, but you admit he makes mistakes.

Lynn7

06-03-2006, 10:32 PM

Thanks Someguy- I did decide that I don't want to talk anymore when things get too nasty. I really don't like that kind of debate. I am fine with any arguments anyone wants to throw at me but I really don't like it when it gets hateful.

I am with you on some of the stuff you said. Bush appoints people and then asks if they are doing stuff or if they need anything and then trusts them. I do think he sees the best in people but the negative is that he sometimes gives people too much credit (more than they deserve) and at times he can be pretty naive about some things. If Bush had fault in what happened about the hurricane then that is what I think it was. But I also think that Nagin was to blame and the governor and the police who deserted and even the people who should've taken the warnings more seriously than they did (the ones I saw on TV who repeatedly said to the camera that they werne't going any where but they were going to wait it out despite the warnings).

There is blame enough for everyone. There is blame for the fact the levees weren't built to withstand, and blame that the people who run the city didn't forsee this. They do live in hurricane territiory and happen to be situated on land that is below sea level. They did spend funds in ways that did not serve their people the best. The city should've had an evacuation plan that they practiced from time to time that took into account the hospitals and the nursing homes and who the invalids were and etc. Hurricanes aren't like tornadoes. There is plenty of warning before the hit land. I just don't think it is fair to blame all of this on Bush.

Vong

06-03-2006, 10:56 PM

Can't we all end this argument and finally just agree that Ralph Nader was the best president America SHOULD have had instead of Clinton? :cool:

MacReady

06-04-2006, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by Lynn7
There is plenty of warning before the hit land. I just don't think it is fair to blame all of this on Bush.

Haha, nice try. I never claimed this was all to blame on Bush. I just think that you insistently claim that Bush hasn't the slightest responsibility in the first place for anything that might taint his perfect presidency.

You still haven't answered my question about why it was okay for him to let New Orleans be devastated without doing anything to stop it.

darchangel

06-04-2006, 09:41 AM

The Postmaster General

06-04-2006, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by darchangel

C)Yes, it's Bush's responsiblity as president of this country to take care of American citizens that are dying and being raped, even if it means he has to go in and personally oversee the project. But as we all know, his biggest weakness is to look for the best in people...maybe he had so much faith in the people of New Orleans that he thought they'd be able to find the food and water themselves (hence the looting).

Excellent point. He was probably waiting for a Moses-like miracle to arise from the whole thing.

Again, don't you love how Bush is redeemed for looking for the best in people, which results in various missteps in New Orleans.

But the people living in New Orleans - they weren't looking for the best in people (like that people would come and help) - they just should have known better.

Brando @$$ Fat

06-04-2006, 05:08 PM

Ok, back to the topic, I bet those people who run that site are dumbasses who pretty much believe anything their inbred friends and FOX news tells them.

Jon Lyrik

06-04-2006, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by Vong
Can't we all end this argument and finally just agree that Ralph Nader was the best president America SHOULD have had instead of Clinton? :cool:

Nader has been off the deep end for about 10 years now.

Lynn7

06-04-2006, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by MacReady
Haha, nice try. I never claimed this was all to blame on Bush. I just think that you insistently claim that Bush hasn't the slightest responsibility in the first place for anything that might taint his perfect presidency.

You still haven't answered my question about why it was okay for him to let New Orleans be devastated without doing anything to stop it.

I did answer it. I think he had people in place that were supposed to take care of things (including the mayor and the governor).That is my point of view. I know you disagree with me.

Lynn7

06-04-2006, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by darchangel
A) I never said Nagin was wonderful...I said he was asking for help that was received in a LUDICROUSLY slow fashion...in the future, please actually read my posts instead of seeing what you want to see and then 'quoting' things that you made up and attributed to me.

B) I would imagine it's kind of hard to get out of New Orleans via bus when the roads are under four and half feet of water.

C)Yes, it's Bush's responsiblity as president of this country to take care of American citizens that are dying and being raped, even if it means he has to go in and personally oversee the project. But as we all know, his biggest weakness is to look for the best in people...maybe he had so much faith in the people of New Orleans that he thought they'd be able to find the food and water themselves (hence the looting).

~darchangel~

Well it would've been good to take the buses the first 4 days when they kept talking about the hurricane which was still way out at sea was coming in their direction. Four or more days cause I watched the whole thing unfold and it seemed like they were talking about the hurricane for a month before the thing finally hit.

The job of president is not to go into states and take over. There is a little thing of state versus feds that is a huge deal to many. The feds are to provide support as REQUESTED by the states.

Brando @$$ Fat

06-04-2006, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
Nader has been off the deep end for about 10 years now.

Definitely. Hell, I heard the reason he's never been married is because women are faulty products who do not come with a label concerning how bitchy and controlling they are.

someguy

06-04-2006, 07:54 PM

Lynn, just to touch on the issue of the buses.

Nagin planned for buses to evacuate the city days before the hurricane hit, but he could not because nobody volunteered to drive the buses.

MR. RUSSERT: Many people point, Mr. Mayor, that on Friday before the hurricane, President Bush declared an impending disaster. And The Houston Chronicle wrote it this way. "[Mayor Nagin's] mandatory evacuation order was issued 20 hours before the storm struck the Louisiana coast, less than half the time researchers determined would be needed to get everyone out. City officials had 550 municipal buses and hundreds of additional school buses at their disposal but made no plans to use them to get people out of New Orleans before the storm, said Chester Wilmot, a civil engineering professor at Louisiana State University and an expert in transportation planning, who helped the city put together its evacuation plan." And we've all see this photograph of these submerged school buses. Why did you not declare, order, a mandatory evacuation on Friday, when the president declared an emergency, and have utilized those buses to get people out?

MAYOR NAGIN: You know, Tim, that's one of the things that will be debated. There has never been a catastrophe in the history of New Orleans like this. There has never been any Category 5 storm of this magnitude that has hit New Orleans directly. We did the things that we thought were best based upon the information that we had. Sure, here was lots of buses out there. But guess what? You can't find drivers that would stay behind with a Category 5 hurricane, you know, pending down on New Orleans. We barely got enough drivers to move people on Sunday, or Saturday and Sunday, to move them to the Superdome. We barely had enough drivers for that. So sure, we had the assets, but the drivers just weren't available.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9240461

MacReady

06-04-2006, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
I did answer it. I think he had people in place that were supposed to take care of things (including the mayor and the governor).That is my point of view. I know you disagree with me.

Oh, you didn't answer it. I was asking why it was okay for Bush to look the other way when he was specifically warned that thousands of American lives (you know, those people he's elected to serve?) He was directly involved and did nothing. I don't see how the president of the United States of America isn't responsible for citizens of the United States of America is completely absurd.

Those idiots he put in charge totally fucking screwed up. There, happy now? Is that what you wanted me to hear? Fine, now that it's out of the way:

Why was it okay for a world leader to do absolutely nothing at all to protect his own people when he knew of imminent danger? Just because somebody else might have been in charge does not absolve Bush from any responsibility, especially when he was warned beforehand which at the very least makes him involved in the disaster.

darchangel

06-06-2006, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
The job of president is not to go into states and take over. There is a little thing of state versus feds that is a huge deal to many. The feds are to provide support as REQUESTED by the states.

To the first point here:

So it's not his job to go into New Orleans and take over, but it's fine if he goes into Iraq and takes over?

To the last point:

The feds WERE requested...that was the whole point of me posting a link that showed Nagin BEGGING for help...he did it more than once, too.

~darchangel~

Lynn7

06-06-2006, 04:34 PM

You guys all seem to have unending sympathy for Nagin but Bush is evil. He turned his back on the poor people. I was watching it all on TV. I never saw that. I saw Bush saying they could get whatever they wanted.

If they couldn't find "volunteers' to drive the buses. why not have the people drive them themselves? They were going to get killed anyway right? None of this is sensible.What kind of a police force deserts in a crisis?What kind of a fire department does that? In New York City we saw the NYPD and the NYFD running into buring buildings on 9-11 but the employees of New Orleans all scamper? That's pretty lame. It's time to put the blame where it really belongs.

darchangel

06-06-2006, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
You guys all seem to have unending sympathy for Nagin but Bush is evil. He turned his back on the poor people. I was watching it all on TV. I never saw that. I saw Bush saying they could get whatever they wanted.

If they couldn't find "volunteers' to drive the buses. why not have the people drive them themselves? They were going to get killed anyway right? None of this is sensible.What kind of a police force deserts in a crisis?What kind of a fire department does that? In New York City we saw the NYPD and the NYFD running into buring buildings on 9-11 but the employees of New Orleans all scamper? That's pretty lame. It's time to put the blame where it really belongs.

First of all, where did you see Bush doing ANYTHING for the people of New Orleans? Fox News, perhaps? All I ever saw him say (keep in mind that I didn't see him say anything for the first few days because he wasn't even aware of what was going on) was that it was hard to get supplies down there with all the roads being out, which seems funny to me since the news anchors and camera crews filming the people dying at the Dome and the Convention Center apparently had no problem getting there.

Also, you have no idea what being in those kind of conditions are like...and neither do I. Some of those people had a chance to leave and they took it, if not for themselves and their own well-being, then to try and find their missing family members and friends. Furthermore, if you're saying that the people who died in New Orleans deserved what happened to them, then I feel no guilt in saying you're a completely sick human being.

~darchangel~

someguy

06-06-2006, 05:28 PM

It's not unending sympathy for Nagin. He failed, his precautions for the hurricane worked out poorly, and just brought up things like an evacuation when it was too late to even have a somewhat successful one. After the hurricane, when he saw the damages that the hurricane has done, he got the whole 'too little too late' feeling and asked for help from the Federal government. He didn't get anything for days.

You obviously were watching something else during the hurricane coverage. Are you suggesting that Nagin didn't ask for help or anything since Bush said on TV that they could get any help that they wanted? (could you find this by the way, was this the day after, before or a week after the hurricane when he said this? I would like to know, since all I remember him saying was that no one anticipated the breach of the levees although he himself was told that they would breach beforehand).

Nagin was begging on radio, TV and anything else he could find that he needed federal aid. He didn't get any for days. So if you are right that Bush said he could get all the help he wanted, where was it? I didn't see it, all I saw were dead bodies floating around, the people trapped in their houses who drowned and had nobody come to them, the tens of thousands of people trapped in the convention center that FEMA did not know about until days after the news reported it on TV. I saw Bush telling Michael Brown he was doing a 'heck of a job,' and even you agree that Brown did not do a good job at all.

And I was talking about bus drivers, not the police force. Do you think the police know how to drive buses? Do firefighters know? These are just bus drivers, not everyone has this patriotic 'do your duty' feeling inside them. A lot of people are pretty selfish, and I'm sure a lot of the bus drivers did not want to go through the giant hassle of transporting all those people out when they had to care about their own selves.

There is no mention in the quote I provided about the police and firemen scampering, and your assumption of that along with assuming that the bus drivers have a job that is on the same level of that is not making sense to me.

someguy

06-06-2006, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by darchangel
Furthermore, if you're saying that the people who died in New Orleans deserved what happened to them, then I feel no guilt in saying you're a completely sick human being.

Stop this nonsense please. Darchy, you're better than this. We all know Lynn has opinions that are wildly different from ours, but if you're going to say stuff like this why do you even bother typing anything out in the first place. If someone calls me a sick human being, do you think that I am going to take their opinion seriously in any way?

I don't see any reason for this, I disagree with Lynn as much as you and other schmoes who treat her the same way on here but I'm not going to be so downright rude to her because of it. It's annoying to try and discuss on this forum now since the entire thing looks like a celebratory mud slinging on Lynn. Try having some civility, and that goes to a few others who act the same way.

MacReady

06-06-2006, 08:37 PM

darchangel

06-07-2006, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by someguy
Stop this nonsense please. Darchy, you're better than this. We all know Lynn has opinions that are wildly different from ours, but if you're going to say stuff like this why do you even bother typing anything out in the first place. If someone calls me a sick human being, do you think that I am going to take their opinion seriously in any way?

I don't see any reason for this, I disagree with Lynn as much as you and other schmoes who treat her the same way on here but I'm not going to be so downright rude to her because of it. It's annoying to try and discuss on this forum now since the entire thing looks like a celebratory mud slinging on Lynn. Try having some civility, and that goes to a few others who act the same way.

I'm not the one saying that the New Orleans police and emergency units were lame. Lynn also basically stated that the fault of these people dying rests on themselves, not a president who was either unwilling or unable to help citizens of this country as they begged for his (or anyone else's) help.

The point to this post is that I'm not calling her sick to be a mudslinger; I'm calling her sick because she should have some more respect for the suffering of the people of New Orleans, rather than criticizing them and calling their lack of outside help (federal or otherwise) during a state of extreme disaster 'lame.'

~darchangel~