NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm surprised no one has published these pictures on this forum yet. Instead of being in Washington acting like a President who cares about perhaps the most devastating natural disaster in our history, Bush was in California giving a speech about Iraq and Japan, and doing this:

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b1/thenazz/bushnero.jpg

Yep--that's President Nero there, diddling while New Orleans drowns.

Now it's not like I expect him to be down there pulling people out of the water, but I don't think it's too much to expect him to be in the Oval Office, maybe trying to round up some international support or coordinating the relief efforts or just generally acting like he gives a shit about the massive death and destruction.

I'm surprised no one has published these pictures on this forum yet. Instead of being in Washington acting like a President who cares about perhaps the most devastating natural disaster in our history, Bush was in California giving a speech about Iraq and Japan, and doing this:

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20050830/capt.capm10208301856.bush__capm102.jpg?x=380&y=325&sig=xlaGyc1Muc3K7iAJg1KmkA--


Yep--that's President Nero there, diddling while New Orleans drowns.

Now it's not like I expect him to be down there pulling people out of the water, but I don't think it's too much to expect him to be in the Oval Office, maybe trying to round up some international support or coordinating the relief efforts or just generally acting like he gives a shit about the massive death and destruction.


Hardly. Nero fiddled while Rome burned. At least fiddling takes some talent. While America is burning, Bush is busy falling off bicycles, choking on pretzels, and finding new ways to avoid taking accountability.

I don't really have anything to say about the man that hasn't already been said or obviously implied by his actions. He's is [morally] one of the worst politicians to taint the Oval Office.

Unfortunately, he's more shrewd than you might think, and he's definately smarter than most publications make it seem. Older recordings of his debates with people like Ann Richards has him speaking very obviously above the 9th grade level he deployed in his ealry presidency. I think he's a very dangerous and morally reprehensible man.

Perhaps, for a sense of Fairness, you could have had maybe a no option in your poll.

Antre_Travarious']Perhaps, for a sense of Fairness, you could have had maybe a no option in your poll.
Try thinking outside the box--the one with the question mark could be taken as being said with a hint of disbelief.

Oh come on now. Hurricanes are nothing in first world countries like the US. The whole series of 'em last year killed less than ten people.

Antre_Travarious']Perhaps, for a sense of Fairness, you could have had maybe a no option in your poll.
Too true, but at the same time.....Nero.

And who would vote "Nero?" and admit that they don't know a thing about it? I mean, look it up dudes......

((suddenly, taking three years of Latin in high school turns up something positive, aside from a higher verbal SAT score))

Oh come on now. Hurricanes are nothing in first world countries like the US. The whole series of 'em last year killed less than ten people.
This one is different. We don't even have an estimated death count yet, but I'm willing to bet that it will reach triple digits easily. The devastation is unbelievable.

Oh come on now. Hurricanes are nothing in first world countries like the US. The whole series of 'em last year killed less than ten people.
And Katrina killed 11 in its first landfall alone--as a category one. 50 are dead in Biloxi alone. "Nothing" my ass--this shit's going to cost at least 20 billion to fix, and it will take 3-5 years.

I'm surprised no one has published these pictures on this forum yet. Instead of being in Washington acting like a President who cares about perhaps the most devastating natural disaster in our history, Bush was in California giving a speech about Iraq and Japan, and doing this:

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b1/thenazz/bushnero.jpg

Yep--that's President Nero there, diddling while New Orleans drowns.

Now it's not like I expect him to be down there pulling people out of the water, but I don't think it's too much to expect him to be in the Oval Office, maybe trying to round up some international support or coordinating the relief efforts or just generally acting like he gives a shit about the massive death and destruction.

Why the only people left in the city are the trashy people..

Plus, he already opened up all the funding for disaster aid...there is nothing else he can do your just bitching because you hate him to begin with

And Katrina killed 11 in its first landfall alone--as a category one. 50 are dead in Biloxi alone. "Nothing" my ass--this shit's going to cost at least 20 billion to fix, and it will take 3-5 years.
True---but compare it to some Carribean nations' issues with the last bout of hurricanes. Hundreds, if not thousands died. Yes, it's bad, but a President doesn't have to respond to everything, now does he? Besides, I doubt he expected it to be this bad.

And Katrina killed 11 in its first landfall alone--as a category one. 50 are dead in Biloxi alone. "Nothing" my ass--this shit's going to cost at least 20 billion to fix, and it will take 3-5 years.


And thats the americans own fault for building a city below sea level surrounded by water on 3 sides...

if this happened in to the Dutch, you americans would be like..well maybe you shouldnt of built up there...so get a taste of your own damn medicine for once...

But seriously, international aid isnt going to come to the americans...the world demands from them, but never lends them support when THEY need it...be it terror or disaster..for that i pity them..the world sucks, they hate the leaders and will do anything to bring them down, they did it to the romans they do it to the americans.

Why the only people left in the city are the trashy people..

Plus, he already opened up all the funding for disaster aid...there is nothing else he can do your just bitching because you hate him to begin with
Ill agree that The Nazz's reaction is something of a knee-jerk one: in order to keep things going at a proper rate I'm sure the Preisdent has to do what ultimately amounts to a bunch of bullshit--this picture is an excellent example. I'm surprised that his fingering actually appears to indicate that he knows [or someone bothered to show him] what he's doing.

At any rate, I digress. Put aside, for the moment, your initial reaction to the initial post, and take a moment wo weigh in on the actual issue. A curt reply like this is worse than no reply at all really, because all you're doing is coming along and saying "you're justwhining because you hate him" without taking the time to examine the reasons why he might not happen to like him.

It's called debate. That's what this is supposed to be.

Oh come on now. Hurricanes are nothing in first world countries like the US. The whole series of 'em last year killed less than ten people.

And this one ALONE...has killed 55....and counting.
And Bush still doesn't even act like he gives a shit.

ON EDIT: And may I add here, that those who signed up for the National Guard...believed that they would be called upon to assist in just such situations as this....NOT BE SENT TO FUCKING IRAQ!! Now, where's the National Guard now that we need them to do what they were ACTUALLY TRAINED FOR...WHAT THEY ACTUALLY VOLUNTEERED FOR...AND WHAT THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVED THEY WOULD BE DOING???

Why the only people left in the city are the trashy people..First off--Fuck you. Secondly, if you're right, and you aren't, then why does that make their lives worth less?

Plus, he already opened up all the funding for disaster aid...there is nothing else he can do your just bitching because you hate him to begin with
You're half right--I do hate him. I used to hate him because of what he was doing to my country, but now it's personal. I hate him because I grew up in that place--the town where I went to high school is under water right now--and because instead of acting like a goddamn president and pretending to care about the widespread death and destruction, he's playing a goddamn guitar. His utter lack of respect for what those people are going through is what makes it personal now.

When I read the topic title, I read "Is Bush a Modern Hero"

And then I see the Picture, and I'm like

"FUCK YEAH! ALL HEROES PLAY BANJOS!"

And thats the americans own fault for building a city below sea level surrounded by water on 3 sides...

if this happened in to the Dutch, you americans would be like..well maybe you shouldnt of built up there...so get a taste of your own damn medicine for once...

But seriously, international aid isnt going to come to the americans...the world demands from them, but never lends them support when THEY need it...be it terror or disaster..for that i pity them..the world sucks, they hate the leaders and will do anything to bring them down, they did it to the romans they do it to the americans.
We don't need foreign aid. The idea that we do or would is laughable at best, and downright uninformed at worst. We'll assume, for the moment, that the damage caused by Katrina would be twice as much [for the sake of argument] as the damage caused by the [monetarily] worst natural disaster in US history: Hurricane Andrew. Andrew caused the rough equivalent of $36billion in damages in 2005 dollars. If Katrina caused $72 billion we'd more than certainly be able to pay all or most of it out in a fairly timely fashion.

Whether we choose to do so or not is another matter.

That being said, I don't particularly care to justify New Orleans' construction because I didn't do it. It's not a valid lynchpin for any culpability argument, which I'm surprised you chose to deploy. I just love how its "our fault" for a city that was build hundreds of years before any of us were even born. Back when it was built, I'd venture to guess we didn't have that much experience with giant tropical storm systems. Your statements are completel baffling and quite frankly almost offensive. I can't beleive that a hurricane hitting a goddamned city is someone's "fault."

True---but compare it to some Carribean nations' issues with the last bout of hurricanes. Hundreds, if not thousands died. Yes, it's bad, but a President doesn't have to respond to everything, now does he? Besides, I doubt he expected it to be this bad.
Actually, it ended up not being as bad as most forecasters had thought. New Orleans did not suffer the worst case scenario by any stretch of the imagination.

And no, he doesn't. I already noted this but you may not have seen it.

First off--Fuck you. Secondly, if you're right, and you aren't, then why does that make their lives worth less
Nice flame, Nazz...

Why the only people left in the city are the trashy people..


Ah, but for the grace of God, YOU might have been born into a family with lesser resources, and maybe someone would say that about YOU.

"Oh, Gulf Republics is stuck down there...well, so what, he's just one of the trashy people!" Now, how would you feel? It feels pretty lousy, doesn't it?

Maybe next time you should THINK before opening your pie-hole.

If you can't afford a damn car, buy a bike, and PEDAL the HELL out of there. Or ask to hitchhike with another family out of New Orleans.

A car isn't everything, you can survive without a car.

Nice flame, Nazz...
If I'd wanted to flame him, I'd have done it. He called the people who were unable to leave the place where I grew up trashy. If he'd said it to my face, he'd be swallowing his damn teeth. Under the circumstances, I think my response was not only appropriate, but it was moderate.

Everyone calm down. Don't post any more flames, for Christ's fucking sake, there's a Game Moderator in this thread.

In the future, the correct place to make these replies is in the Moderation forum, and it's best to avoid the invective. I will dispense with the necessary disciplinary action now, so anyone who posted something that may be viewed as actionable might want to hurry off to their inboxes in about 5 minutes.

If I'd wanted to flame him, I'd have done it. He called the people who were unable to leave the place where I grew up trashy. If he'd said it to my face, he'd be swallowing his damn teeth. Under the circumstances, I think my response was not only appropriate, but it was moderate.
I think you could've found a nicer more eloquant way of saying what you said. I don't agree with him, but at the same time, I think you did step out of line with the direct comment.

First off--Fuck you. Secondly, if you're right, and you aren't, then why does that make their lives worth less?


You're half right--I do hate him. I used to hate him because of what he was doing to my country, but now it's personal. I hate him because I grew up in that place--the town where I went to high school is under water right now--and because instead of acting like a goddamn president and pretending to care about the widespread death and destruction, he's playing a goddamn guitar. His utter lack of respect for what those people are going through is what makes it personal now.


Because trashy people are low life scum that do nothing for the good of life, all they do is suck humanity dry...the media has been told to suppress just how bad the looting really is going on down there, because NO is the poorest city in the USA, it sucks, is was and always will be shit hole, if anything the water will clean it out a bit.

And contrary to what your narrow mind wants to believe, there is more to the USA then just N O going on...you just dont stop the world spinning because of this, he did what he could, he isnt HITLER commanding where every unit should be or where it should go like you want him to be (that turned out grate for germany didnt it?)...the people with actual knowledge of what they are doing are leading the way...all he is is the money man...the backer if you will...he opened the flood gates of money for your gay fucking city that shouldnt exist where it is in the first fucking place, thats ALL HE CAN DO...

If anything he should of just ordered the dikes blown up and submereged the city...where people can actually build a new new orleans on ground that is actually above sea level...so maybe next time a mild hurricane comes through your trashy townsfolk dont die so much since they arnt living like idiots in the bottom of a valley and the country saves a bit of change istead of spending billions fighting off mother nature.

Everyone calm down. Don't post any more flames, for Christ's fucking sake, there's a Game Moderator in this thread.

In the future, the correct place to make these replies is in the Moderation forum, and it's best to avoid the invective. I will dispense with the necessary disciplinary action now, so anyone who posted something that may be viewed as actionable might want to hurry off to their inboxes in about 5 minutes.
I did already! In fact, I did it before I got back to see this in the thread. :D

If I'd wanted to flame him, I'd have done it. He called the people who were unable to leave the place where I grew up trashy. If he'd said it to my face, he'd be swallowing his damn teeth. Under the circumstances, I think my response was not only appropriate, but it was moderate.

I feel ya, Nazz...but I'm afraid Kryozerkia is right. It is a flame. Not at all unjustified, but nevertheless a flame. As much as I do not care for Gulf Republics...or his politics...and as much as I hate defending him...that really WAS a flame.

Again, I feel ya, Nazz. But the Mods don't take things like that into consideration.

Because trashy people are low life scum that do nothing for the good of life, all they do is suck humanity dry...the media has been told to suppress just how bad the looting really is going on down there, because NO is the poorest city in the USA, it sucks, is was and always will be shit hole, if anything the water will clean it out a bit.

And contrary to what your narrow mind wants to believe, there is more to the USA then just N O going on...you just dont stop the world spinning because of this, he did what he could, he isnt HITLER commanding where every unit should be or where it should go like you want him to be (that turned out grate for germany didnt it?)...the people with actual knowledge of what they are doing are leading the way...all he is is the money man...the backer if you will...he opened the flood gates of money for your gay fucking city that shouldnt exist where it is in the first fucking place, thats ALL HE CAN DO...

If anything he should of just ordered the dikes blown up and submereged the city...where people can actually build a new new orleans on ground that is actually above sea level...so maybe next time a mild hurricane comes through your trashy townsfolk dont die so much since they arnt living like idiots in the bottom of a valley and the country saves a bit of change istead of spending billions fighting off mother nature.
Melkor, I'm walking away before I get in trouble here.

Melkor, I'm walking away before I get in trouble here.
Can't say as though I blame ya. I think I'm following you out, because Gulf Republic's last post really just pissed ME the hell off, too....and I never lived in New Orleans. But for him to make comments like that...which are obvious flamebait and invective...it really pisses me off, and I hope that the Mod in this thread takes due notice.

Melkor, I'm walking away before I get in trouble here.
Noted.

EDIT: heh, I wrote the first half of that telegram off to you before he even posted, and I wasn't done reading it until my surprisingly lengthy telegram was nearly done. Thank God I started with you, eh? :eek:

Oh the drama :p

But anyway, for my contribution: Didn't Bush visit Florida (Jeb) during their last crisis? I guess you need to marry into the imperial family to get some attention.

I'm just wondering if the government is going to blame the damage to the levees and New Orleans on the most obvious target mother-@#*% I mean it's obvious this was the bidding of the terrorists residing within the dictatorial state of Iran. They planned to destroy our south but our spirit cannot be broken

ON TO IRAN!!!

And thats the americans own fault for building a city below sea level surrounded by water on 3 sides...
New Orleans was built by the French in a strategic position to control the Mississippi.

New Orleans was built by the French in a strategic position to control the Mississippi.

The French Quarter is higher than the rest of the town, and has been hit less hard. They clearly never planned for a city this large.

Firstly, as has already been pointed out, the French built New Orleans, not our American cousins.

Secondly, New Orleans wasn't originally under sea level - the city's foundations have continued to settle over the last couple of centuries, causing a gradual fall in the city's surface level. One might potentially argue that well-intentioned but arguably misguided efforts over the years to control the Mississippi (particularly by the the US Army Corps of Engineers) have reduced sediment flow in the river to an extent that exacerbates the settling, but I'm not an engineer - so can hardly comment in detail - and this isn't the fault of the city founders anyway.

Finally, by no means am I a fan of Bush - in fact I've participated in anti-war marches in my home country - but as I understand it he has cut short his vacation and is returning to DC early. The following is from the Washington Post (itself hardly a staunch pro-Bush institution):

"Bush Cuts Texas Vacation Short to Oversee Hurricane Response

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 31, 2005; Page A16

CORONADO, Calif., Aug. 30 -- As the devastation from Hurricane Katrina grew clearer Tuesday, President Bush decided to cut short his month-long vacation and return to Washington to oversee the response to what the White House called "one of the most devastating storms in our nation's history."

After attending ceremonies here to mark the anniversary of the end of World War II, Bush flew back to his ranch near Crawford, Tex., in the afternoon and prepared to leave for Washington on Wednesday morning, moving up his return to the capital by two days. Aides said he was conferring through the day with advisers and would chair a special task force on his return to the White House to coordinate federal relief efforts."

Which in its generalities strikes me as a wholly reasonable response (I have no comment on specifics because I don't know what they are) - this is hardly Vladimir Putin in the wake of the Kursk.

You could reasonably argue that Bush is metaphorically fiddling while Iraq burns (is there a Plan B if the Sunnis reject the constitution, as is likely?), but having a go at him - and American city planners - over Katrina strikes me as unfair, especially in a Federal system where the State and local authorities presumably bear considerable responsibility for immediate reaction on the ground.

Because trashy people are low life scum that do nothing for the good of life, all they do is suck humanity dry...the media has been told to suppress just how bad the looting really is going on down there, because NO is the poorest city in the USA, it sucks, is was and always will be shit hole, if anything the water will clean it out a bit.

And contrary to what your narrow mind wants to believe, there is more to the USA then just N O going on...you just dont stop the world spinning because of this, he did what he could, he isnt HITLER commanding where every unit should be or where it should go like you want him to be (that turned out grate for germany didnt it?)...the people with actual knowledge of what they are doing are leading the way...all he is is the money man...the backer if you will...he opened the flood gates of money for your gay fucking city that shouldnt exist where it is in the first fucking place, thats ALL HE CAN DO...

If anything he should of just ordered the dikes blown up and submereged the city...where people can actually build a new new orleans on ground that is actually above sea level...so maybe next time a mild hurricane comes through your trashy townsfolk dont die so much since they arnt living like idiots in the bottom of a valley and the country saves a bit of change istead of spending billions fighting off mother nature.

Yeah, twenty feet of floodwater complete with sewage, oil leaks from refineries, and floating dead people will clean the city. :rolleyes:

Of course, if Bush had been paying attention to the weather forecasts the day before landfall, he could have mobilized military assets (the part of the National Guard that isn't in Iraq, military aircraft, nearby military bases and MSY for staging areas) to assist in evacuating those who could not evacuate themselves...the "scum" to which you refer. Even a paragraph-long executive order instructing the Pentagon to do this would have sufficed.

Some of that "scum" also performed useful work, such as refining oil for your car or unloading/handling waterborne shipments of liquefied natural gas for your stove. Of course, now their places of work have been flooded.

But seriously, international aid isnt going to come to the americans...the world demands from them, but never lends them support when THEY need it...be it terror or disaster..for that i pity them..the world sucks, they hate the leaders and will do anything to bring them down, they did it to the romans they do it to the americans.
That is untrue. Other countries help out the US.

...for Christ's fucking sake ....



You’re in the position so you need to regulate yourself … that is offensive and uncalled for language, I think it's flamebait reprehensible as a matter of fact.

Oh the drama :p

But anyway, for my contribution: Didn't Bush visit Florida (Jeb) during their last crisis? I guess you need to marry into the imperial family to get some attention.The difference now is he isn't up for reelection, so he's not rushing over there so people will vote for him; yes, he is a slimy man.

The difference now is he isn't up for reelection, so he's not rushing over there so people will vote for him; yes, he is a slimy man.


It wont make a nice photo until they clean up a little and can show some grass and a tree with the sun shining down on him

Oh come on now. Hurricanes are nothing in first world countries like the US. The whole series of 'em last year killed less than ten people.

Absolutely incorrect. I was living on the west coast of Florida at the time. There were a lot more than 10 deaths. And this one hurricance did more damage than all the hurricanes that hit Florida last year.

Lots of jumping to stupid conclusions here. That gets on my nerves.

1) It is not a President's job to micromanage a situation like this, nor should it be. The job of coordinating organizations in Louisiana should be left to the people who can effectivly monitor the situation: the government of Louisiana.

2) The President does not need to be sitting at his desk to care. His ability to care is not linked to the White House in any way. If you cannot assume that he has heard of the disaster and does care about it without seeing him give a sob speech then you are not very perceptive.

The difference between Nero and George Bush is that it is probable that Nero ordered Rome to be burned, and if he didn't then it was a convenient coincidence for him. Nero had reason to celebrate. George Bush, on the other hand, has no desire to see the southern portions of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama destroyed. We assume Nero fiddled out of happiness because he had a motive. Because it is silly to think that George Bush is actually happy that this hurricane would be devistating (why would he be happy about it?), then we cannot seriously attribute him playing the guitar to happiness.

We also cannot attribute it to grief since you usually don't play guitar out of sadness after giving a speech and proceeding to mingle with the crowd (or as close to mingling as a President gets). You could say that George Bush playing the guitar displays neutral feelings toward the hurricane, but then you would be ignoring a more plausible explaination. It could just be that George Bush does not have to, nor should he (Being President, he has to address many issues. We would be angry if he didn't), have the hurricane foremost on his mind every waking hour until every single piece of rubble is cleared.

We can assume that the President had decided on the day that he would give this speech before the hurricane landed on shore. Since I already explained that the President should not have to run the relief efforts, then I couldn't give a reason that he should have returned to the White House. Sitting around and moaning about the hurricane would do no good. Since no other incidents worthy of the President's immediate and undivided attention had come up since he had decided when he would give his speech, he had no reason not to give it. So he did. While he was giving his speech it was its subject matter that was most on his mind. When he was done giving the speech, it was probably planned that he would shake hands with a few people there and chat with them. One guy happened to have a guitar (unless it belongs to the President) and the President agreed to tool around with it for a few minutes. We cannot conclude from the given information that he had neutral feelings toward the disaster (believe me, I didn't leave out any smoking gun). Therefore, we can only concule that giving a speech and playing guitar at that speech is a red herring when trying to determine the President's feelings toward the hurricane. Any comparison of George Bush to Nero in this respect is fallacy and nothing more then a distraction.

3) The United States is amazingly wealthy. We don't need international help to solve this problem. They wouldn't give it to us even if we asked because they know as well as we do that we don't need it.

4) George Bush is has not fallen of a bicycle or choked on a pretzel since the hurricane landed (I can't verify that, but I'm fairly sure he hasn't) nor can he be held accountable for causing a hurricane to hit our country (!).

5) The National Guard has men working along the coast right now. Not every single member of the National Guard is in Iraq. The National Guard has the manpower to help take care of this disaster even with men in Iraq (suprise!).

6) I don't see a 'Not Nero' option on the poll. Don't you think that's a bit one sided? And to think, the people that are giving George Bush a hard time now are the same people that complained that his administration cheated to win the 2000 and 2004 elections. The reason that was given to explain why there is no 'Not Nero' option is a cop out.

Why the only people left in the city are the trashy people..


and tourists...

3) The United States is amazingly wealthy. We don't need international help to solve this problem. They wouldn't give it to us even if we asked because they know as well as we do that we don't need it.



Untrue, if the US asked other nations for help, it would get help. :rolleyes:

Untrue, if the US asked other nations for help, it would get help. :rolleyes:

Why? Why would they give us money when we can pay for it ourselves? No government would create public support for themselves if they gave away theie country's tax dollars to the United States in the form of aid.

Why? Why would they give us money when we can pay for it ourselves? No government would create public support for themselves if they gave away theie country's tax dollars to the United States in the form of aid.
Money is not the only form of aid. It would be a churlish government that agreed to help out and then sent a bill afterwards. There may be a few such governments about the place, but given the fact that there are so many more who wouldnt send a bill after helping out, why would the US ask one who only helped on a for-profit (or at most generous, break-even) basis?

Lots of jumping to stupid conclusions here. That gets on my nerves.

1) It is not a President's job to micromanage a situation like this, nor should it be. The job of coordinating organizations in Louisiana should be left to the people who can effectivly monitor the situation: the government of Louisiana.

http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/WWLBLOG.ac3fcea.html

Apparently, Louisiana does not have the resources to manage this on its own.

Oh, and funding cuts for disaster mitigation (http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=9166) couldn't have helped Louisiana's efforts to prepare.

2) The President does not need to be sitting at his desk to care. His ability to care is not linked to the White House in any way. If you cannot assume that he has heard of the disaster and does care about it without seeing him give a sob speech then you are not very perceptive.

The difference between Nero and George Bush is that it is probable that Nero ordered Rome to be burned, and if he didn't then it was a convenient coincidence for him. Nero had reason to celebrate. George Bush, on the other hand, has no desire to see the southern portions of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama destroyed. We assume Nero fiddled out of happiness because he had a motive. Because it is silly to think that George Bush is actually happy that this hurricane would be devistating (why would he be happy about it?), then we cannot seriously attribute him playing the guitar to happiness.

We also cannot attribute it to grief since you usually don't play guitar out of sadness after giving a speech and proceeding to mingle with the crowd (or as close to mingling as a President gets). You could say that George Bush playing the guitar displays neutral feelings toward the hurricane, but then you would be ignoring a more plausible explaination. It could just be that George Bush does not have to, nor should he (Being President, he has to address many issues. We would be angry if he didn't), have the hurricane foremost on his mind every waking hour until every single piece of rubble is cleared.

We can assume that the President had decided on the day that he would give this speech before the hurricane landed on shore. Since I already explained that the President should not have to run the relief efforts, then I couldn't give a reason that he should have returned to the White House. Sitting around and moaning about the hurricane would do no good. Since no other incidents worthy of the President's immediate and undivided attention had come up since he had decided when he would give his speech, he had no reason not to give it. So he did. While he was giving his speech it was its subject matter that was most on his mind. When he was done giving the speech, it was probably planned that he would shake hands with a few people there and chat with them. One guy happened to have a guitar (unless it belongs to the President) and the President agreed to tool around with it for a few minutes. We cannot conclude from the given information that he had neutral feelings toward the disaster (believe me, I didn't leave out any smoking gun). Therefore, we can only concule that giving a speech and playing guitar at that speech is a red herring when trying to determine the President's feelings toward the hurricane. Any comparison of George Bush to Nero in this respect is fallacy and nothing more then a distraction.

And if Clinton had been in office during a similar natural disaster and done the same things Bush has (or hasn't) done, you could be sure the Republicans would be demanding his head on a silver platter.

Oh, and I'm sure Bush's oil buddies have plenty to gain from speculation in oil futures now, and can make more profit if rebuilding the oil/natural gas infrastructure is only a local priority and not a national one.

3) The United States is amazingly wealthy. We don't need international help to solve this problem. They wouldn't give it to us even if we asked because they know as well as we do that we don't need it.

Well, at least Venezuela (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050829/pl_afp/usweathervenezuelaoil) has offered us aid. I believe Canada has too, but I can't find a link.

4) George Bush is has not fallen of a bicycle or choked on a pretzel since the hurricane landed (I can't verify that, but I'm fairly sure he hasn't) nor can he be held accountable for causing a hurricane to hit our country (!).

Point conceded. :D

5) The National Guard has men working along the coast right now. Not every single member of the National Guard is in Iraq. The National Guard has the manpower to help take care of this disaster even with men in Iraq (suprise!).

Well, I'm sure that New Orleans could have found some uses for the "almost one third" (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/27/tech/main619868.shtml) of Louisiana National Guard soldiers who just happen to be in Iraq.

6) I don't see a 'Not Nero' option on the poll. Don't you think that's a bit one sided? And to think, the people that are giving George Bush a hard time now are the same people that complained that his administration cheated to win the 2000 and 2004 elections. The reason that was given to explain why there is no 'Not Nero' option is a cop out.

Yes, this poll was a bit biased. :D

Money is not the only form of aid. It would be a churlish government that agreed to help out and then sent a bill afterwards. There may be a few such governments about the place, but given the fact that there are so many more who wouldnt send a bill after helping out, why would the US ask one who only helped on a for-profit (or at most generous, break-even) basis?

So you're saying they'd send equipment and manpower to help clean up the damage, for instance? I suppose that doesn't have the same connotations as just sending money to us does.

So you're saying they'd send equipment and manpower to help clean up the damage, for instance?
Well yes, and to help prevent further damage in cases where this is feasable.

I suppose that doesn't have the same connotations as just sending money to us does.
That's right, it is far more useful than sending money, and therefore a bigger help.

http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/WWLBLOG.ac3fcea.html

Apparently, Louisiana does not have the resources to manage this on its own.

Oh, and funding cuts for disaster mitigation (http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=9166) couldn't have helped Louisiana's efforts to prepare.

Isn't there federal aid to help pay for everything? There'll be a significant amount of supplies and money coming in the form of charity already. Charity certainly won't be the billions of dollars in expenses that we're hearing thrown around, but Washington will help pay, won't it?

And if Clinton had been in office during a similar natural disaster and done the same things Bush has (or hasn't) done, you could be sure the Republicans would be demanding his head on a silver platter.

I thought the same thing as I was writing those paragraphs. "The people that are ragging on President Bush now would be saying the exact same thing I am if Bush were Clinton." The Republicans would still be wrong, though.

Oh, and I'm sure Bush's oil buddies have plenty to gain from speculation in oil futures now, and can make more profit if rebuilding the oil/natural gas infrastructure is only a local priority and not a national one.

Unless it was his oil buddies' rigs that were damaged, in which case we'd see nothing less then divine intervention on the part of the President to speed up the damage control process.[/tinfoilhat] I don't know who his supposed buddies are, besides Haliburton, nor who owned those rigs.

Well, at least Venezuela (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050829/pl_afp/usweathervenezuelaoil) has offered us aid. I believe Canada has too, but I can't find a link.

Chavez is obviously planning to run for President in the US in '08. There's no other explaination. I've ruled out altruism since I imagine him as the most condescending person on the planet as he tells us that he will alivate our water shortages (that's a good enough reason for me). Canada is as close to being a part of our country as you can get without being a part of our country. Aid from them doesn't suprise me.

Point conceded. :D

Yeah, that was the strongest point of my post.

Well, I'm sure that New Orleans could have found some uses for the "almost one third" (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/27/tech/main619868.shtml) of Louisiana National Guard soldiers who just happen to be in Iraq.

"'Even with a large-scale disaster, that would not overtax our abilities in the state,' says North Carolina Guard spokesman Lt. Col. Barney Barnhill. 'We can handle any disaster that may come up.'"

Extra men might just be redundant. Or maybe they wouldn't be. I can't tell.

Because trashy people are low life scum that do nothing for the good of life, all they do is suck humanity dry...the media has been told to suppress just how bad the looting really is going on down there, because NO is the poorest city in the USA, it sucks, is was and always will be shit hole, if anything the water will clean it out a bit.

And contrary to what your narrow mind wants to believe, there is more to the USA then just N O going on...you just dont stop the world spinning because of this, he did what he could, he isnt HITLER commanding where every unit should be or where it should go like you want him to be (that turned out grate for germany didnt it?)...the people with actual knowledge of what they are doing are leading the way...all he is is the money man...the backer if you will...he opened the flood gates of money for your gay fucking city that shouldnt exist where it is in the first fucking place, thats ALL HE CAN DO...

If anything he should of just ordered the dikes blown up and submereged the city...where people can actually build a new new orleans on ground that is actually above sea level...so maybe next time a mild hurricane comes through your trashy townsfolk dont die so much since they arnt living like idiots in the bottom of a valley and the country saves a bit of change istead of spending billions fighting off mother nature.

Nazz and Lyric walked away from this. I should to. However, I am going to attempt to do this in a calm manner. We'll see, eh?

Yes, the looting is bad. There is no question that it should not be happening. However, they are not the only ones trapped. How about the 1000 people trapped in Tulane Medical? How about (seeing as this is a city) the people who don't own a car? It was mentioned before that you could bike or hitchhike out of the city. This doesn't make sense. You are about to be hit by a hurricane. Your house, in all probability, will be destroyed. You therefore need to take clothing, money, and your insurance policies with you, along with anything of high value not insured, or atleast some form of proof of ownership. It is not like leaving the city for a few hours. For many people, their lives are going (or were) washed away.

I do not know if NO is the poorest city. I do know, however, that my state has 3 of the poorest cities in America (Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport). That does not mean that good people don't live there. It is not only the poor and thieves stuck there. There are poor people there who don't steal. there are people there who had no choice. there are people there who were too sick to leave.

Yes, there is more in the US and world going on. We aren't stupid, we know that. However, he is the leader of our nation, and therefore in a position to give strength to those without. He does not HAVE to do anything. However, HAVE and SHOULD are two very different things. He should be showing sympathy. He should have and air of somberness. Or at the very least should be giving a speech to give sympathy. He gave money. Sometimes, money isn't what is important. No money will bring back the (in all possibility) hundreds dead. Sometimes, a word of caring, no matter how insincere, helps.

As for the location of NO, theres quite a bit to that. The original city was built on the crescent (crecent city, anyone?) Once pumps were designed and built, and the bayous drained, the city expanded into low areas. Perhaps not the best idea, but it was done. Should we abandon Florida because it gets hit by lots of hurricanes? Should we abandon the midwest because of tornados? How about California because of earthquakes. And while we're at it, lets abandon the rest of the world, seeing as severe weather hits all spots on earth atleast once. This was no mild hurricane. Had it been a 1, 2, 3, or low 4, the city would be in much better shape. Originally, it was supposed to hit as a 5. We lucked out and it weakened at the exact right moment, and hit as a 4. This was not mild. It was said to be potentially the strongest hurricane on record. It was not mild. (am I getting my point across that it was not mild yet?)

None the less, your comments were quite rude, and offensive. I did not even grow up in NO (hell, I'm a Northern boy, born and bred), and yet your comments struck a nerve. Connecticut was nearly wiped out by the hurricane of '38 killed about 600 people. Does that mean that we are in a "stupid" location? New Orleans has gone hundreds of years without being destroyed. They are statistically just as likely to be hit by a severe hurricane head on as New York City and Connecticut. Should we abandon every place because there is a risk of disaster?

Melkor, I sincerely hope I have not created more work for you, however, I am way to tired right now to go back and read what I wrote. My apologies if any of this was flaming.

Isn't there federal aid to help pay for everything? There'll be a significant amount of supplies and money coming in the form of charity already. Charity certainly won't be the billions of dollars in expenses that we're hearing thrown around, but Washington will help pay, won't it?

I was referring more specifically to preventative flood-control projects (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313) that got cut to finance certain overseas adventures and tax cuts.

I thought the same thing as I was writing those paragraphs. "The people that are ragging on President Bush now would be saying the exact same thing I am if Bush were Clinton." The Republicans would still be wrong, though.

Well, at least you're consistent. However, I believe that lives could have been saved if the federal government would have intervened to assist with the evacuation instead of the "If you have a car to get the hell out with, evacuate; if you don't have the means to leave, screw you and we'll try to cram as many of you into the Superdome as we can fit" mentality to the evacuation excercised by more local authorities.

Unless it was his oil buddies' rigs that were damaged, in which case we'd see nothing less then divine intervention on the part of the President to speed up the damage control process.[/tinfoilhat] I don't know who his supposed buddies are, besides Haliburton, nor who owned those rigs.

We'll have to see what happens to the oil markets, but I have a bad feeling that somebody, somewhere close to the administration stands to make a lot of money from price spikes, which might be enough to offset lost production from a revenue standpoint. (I might be wrong on this--I'm speculating on the future.)

Chavez is obviously planning to run for President in the US in '08. There's no other explaination. I've ruled out altruism since I imagine him as the most condescending person on the planet as he tells us that he will alivate our water shortages (that's a good enough reason for me). Canada is as close to being a part of our country as you can get without being a part of our country. Aid from them doesn't suprise me.

Chavez 1)is not a US citizen and 2)isn't so stupid that he doesn't realize he is ineligible for the candidacy.

Yeah, that was the strongest point of my post.

:D

"'Even with a large-scale disaster, that would not overtax our abilities in the state,' says North Carolina Guard spokesman Lt. Col. Barney Barnhill. 'We can handle any disaster that may come up.'"

Extra men might just be redundant. Or maybe they wouldn't be. I can't tell.

Um, we're talking about Louisiana and Mississippi here, not North Carolina. (Mississippi also got hit really hard.)

I was referring more specifically to preventative flood-control projects (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313) that got cut to finance certain overseas adventures and tax cuts.

Oh. Yeah, the people that wanted those cuts passed must be kicking themselves right now.

Well, at least you're consistent. However, I believe that lives could have been saved if the federal government would have intervened to assist with the evacuation instead of the "If you have a car to get the hell out with, evacuate; if you don't have the means to leave, screw you and we'll try to cram as many of you into the Superdome as we can fit" mentality to the evacuation excercised by more local authorities.

I think it's questionable whether a proceedure for that kind of evacuation in the event of a natural disaster even exists (if one does then I don't know about it). If it didn't, it might have been a pretty good idea here. It's not something I heard anyone suggest before the hurricane, though. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say. We might see changes in how evacuations are done.

We'll have to see what happens to the oil markets, but I have a bad feeling that somebody, somewhere close to the administration stands to make a lot of money from price spikes, which might be enough to offset lost production from a revenue standpoint. (I might be wrong on this--I'm speculating on the future.)

I won't pretend to know, either. I'll just stick my head in the sand and wait for someone with little bias to clear that up.

Chavez 1)is not a US citizen and 2)isn't so stupid that he doesn't realize he is ineligible for the candidacy.

Maybe he's trying to butter us up in an effort to get us to overlook those details. I'm trying to find a logical explanation that doesn't involve altruism. I can't believe that he actually feels that our citizens are the needy victims of an oppressive government and is just trying to make our lives better. I don't think he's that benevolent. Even if he is, I still don't like it. I like the aid; I just don't like the intentions.

Um, we're talking about Louisiana and Mississippi here, not North Carolina. (Mississippi also got hit really hard.)

Oops. I didn't notice that the quote was about North Carolina. Here's an addition to my quote.

"Added Louisiana Guard spokesman Dusty Shenofsky: 'We will never be in a position that our community and state manpower is so low that we cannot handle state emergencies.'"

This was no mild hurricane. Had it been a 1, 2, 3, or low 4, the city would be in much better shape. Originally, it was supposed to hit as a 5. We lucked out and it weakened at the exact right moment, and hit as a 4.

We didn't luck out by much. If memeory serves me, the hurricane was only 5 mph below the lowest speed of a CAT 5 hurricane when it made landfall.

I think it's questionable whether a proceedure for that kind of evacuation in the event of a natural disaster even exists (if one does then I don't know about it). If it didn't, it might have been a pretty good idea here. It's not something I heard anyone suggest before the hurricane, though. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say. We might see changes in how evacuations are done.

The city of New Orleans has known it would be screwed by something like this eventually for years...it just couldn't secure the resources to make every possible preparation.

Maybe he's trying to butter us up in an effort to get us to overlook those details. I'm trying to find a logical explanation that doesn't involve altruism. I can't believe that he actually feels that our citizens are the needy victims of an oppressive government and is just trying to make our lives better. I don't think he's that benevolent. Even if he is, I still don't like it. I like the aid; I just don't like the intentions.

Maybe he is trolling for PR after Pat Robertson called for his assassination; maybe he really does feel like we could use some help. The optimist in me wants to believe the latter. I just said he had made the offer; I hadn't commented on why up until now.

Oops. I didn't notice that the quote was about North Carolina. Here's an addition to my quote.

"Added Louisiana Guard spokesman Dusty Shenofsky: 'We will never be in a position that our community and state manpower is so low that we cannot handle state emergencies.'"

Well, considering that the NG will probably need to troll every house for survivors trapped in attics, evacuate the Superdome because it has turned into a giant sewer, etc., I think that that statement is little more than chest-puffing propaganda.

As far as the rest of your post goes, I think you might be coming around. :D

(Nearly 4 am here, time for bed)

And thats the americans own fault for building a city below sea level surrounded by water on 3 sides...

if this happened in to the Dutch, you americans would be like..well maybe you shouldnt of built up there...so get a taste of your own damn medicine for once...

But seriously, international aid isnt going to come to the americans...the world demands from them, but never lends them support when THEY need it...be it terror or disaster..for that i pity them..the world sucks, they hate the leaders and will do anything to bring them down, they did it to the romans they do it to the americans.

I think Americans should heed what this poster said. I thank you for being brutally honest.

I think Americans should heed what this poster said. I thank you for being brutally honest.

Allow me to correct a few misconceptions on your part. First and foremost, money isn't going to really help anyone right now, so that's a moot issue.

Second. The use of equipment and troops to secure the evacuation. As some people so often like to parrot, America and Britain are the only countries to have the kind of carrier task force that is capable of providing the heavy lift required to move troops in any significant quantity across the Atlantic. Any movement of aid will take time.

Thirdly, how many times have we seen the very same people complaining about the lack of help now go "Screw the UN! Screw the World! We don't need you!"? Can you really expect any form of assistance after such attitudes were brazenly displayed? It will take a very magnanimious nation to provide aid after that.

Fourth. As has been pointed out, the United States is capable of channeling far more resources and aid to its own states when faced with disasters than any other country to date. Case in point, the Tsunami in December. Compared to the aid channeled to their own coastal areas (California I believe), government aid to foreign countries was far less.

Fifth. No aid was asked for from the other nations or the UN. Aid was requested and recieved by nations who applied to the UN during the Tsunami disaster. To my knowledge, the US has made no such appeal. If you cannot be bothered to ask, do not expect much.

I dont suppose that anyone has mentioned that Nero didnt actually play a musicalinstrument when Rome burnt, and its merely a metaphor?

I'm surprised no one has published these pictures on this forum yet. Instead of being in Washington acting like a President who cares about perhaps the most devastating natural disaster in our history, Bush was in California giving a speech about Iraq and Japan, and doing this:

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b1/thenazz/bushnero.jpg

Yep--that's President Nero there, diddling while New Orleans drowns.

Now it's not like I expect him to be down there pulling people out of the water, but I don't think it's too much to expect him to be in the Oval Office, maybe trying to round up some international support or coordinating the relief efforts or just generally acting like he gives a shit about the massive death and destruction.

Maybe you don't quite get it but...
Nero was an insane narcissitic maniac who spent his time forcing citizens to listen to his concerts and Rome burning was his fault. (As no one was allowed to fight the fires while he was fiddling away). (Metaphorically) (Nero neglected everything in exclusion to his own pleasure.)

Unless your about to suggest some government weather control device started Katrina in some plot to drown New Orleans for no reason there is no comparison.

Most of you seem to dislike Bush because you stereotype him as an "evil republican" when your all (to Republicans) "Degenerate Liberals".

But as usual, it comes down to childish snide remarks about intellect when he went to an ivy league college most of you could never dream of even getting into in the first place. Jealousy perhaps?

Regardless, if it reassures you to make childish jokes about intelligence and manipulate reality to fit your own twisted little republican hating view of it, by my guest, after all, unlike in Neros time, its a free country and you won't get executed for it.

So go ahead and use this to fuel your Bush hatred that I've been seeing since the first minute he was elected and that began the moment he ran as a republican. Unless your claiming he's got some psychic powers to read the future you have to realize that hindsight is 20/20.

I'd just like to note that including a survey with no options to disagree with you weakens your supposition rather than strengthening it.

On an unrelated note, I like to think of Bush as a less interesting version of 'The Smiler' from Transmetropolitan.

I'm sure the Dutch would happily supply any aid asked for, even if most of us think the US made a stinking mess in Iraq. The two aren't related in any way. If people need help you give it, you don't go "Well, now that I have your attention, I've been meaning to talk to you about...". (Which, btw, was more or less the reasoning behind sending dutch troops to Iraq: "We don't agree with the invasion, but now that you're already there...")

Thing is though I wouldn't know what we could help the US with that the US don't have themselves. We're experts with controlling water (I think about half our people live beneath sea level), and dutch companies have experience nobody else on the planet have, but this is all about doing things *before* a disaster and not emergency aid.

As for Bush, I'm a "foreigner" so ... oh wait, I'm not supposed to flame here, am I? :p ;)

I'm sure the Dutch would happily supply any aid asked for, even if most of us think the US made a stinking mess in Iraq. The two aren't related in any way. If people need help you give it, you don't go "Well, now that I have your attention, I've been meaning to talk to you about...". (Which, btw, was more or less the reasoning behind sending dutch troops to Iraq: "We don't agree with the invasion, but now that you're already there...")


This is something I respect immensely. Even if you don't agree with the war, you show your authenticity to the welfare of a people and send troops to make the best of a situation.


Thing is though I wouldn't know what we could help the US with that the US don't have themselves. We're experts with controlling water (I think about half our people live beneath sea level), and dutch companies have experience nobody else on the planet have, but this is all about doing things *before* a disaster and not emergency aid.

As for Bush, I'm a "foreigner" so ... oh wait, I'm not supposed to flame here, am I? :p ;)
I have a feeling the Levys around New Orleans were not designed to handle hurricanes of Katrinas magnitude, besides the fact they may not have even been well maintained. After all, it only takes on crack in the right spot to drop a levy.

Lots of jumping to stupid conclusions here. That gets on my nerves.

1) It is not a President's job to micromanage a situation like this, nor should it be. The job of coordinating organizations in Louisiana should be left to the people who can effectivly monitor the situation: the government of Louisiana.

2) The President does not need to be sitting at his desk to care. His ability to care is not linked to the White House in any way. If you cannot assume that he has heard of the disaster and does care about it without seeing him give a sob speech then you are not very perceptive.

The difference between Nero and George Bush is that it is probable that Nero ordered Rome to be burned, and if he didn't then it was a convenient coincidence for him. Nero had reason to celebrate. George Bush, on the other hand, has no desire to see the southern portions of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama destroyed. We assume Nero fiddled out of happiness because he had a motive. Because it is silly to think that George Bush is actually happy that this hurricane would be devistating (why would he be happy about it?), then we cannot seriously attribute him playing the guitar to happiness.

We also cannot attribute it to grief since you usually don't play guitar out of sadness after giving a speech and proceeding to mingle with the crowd (or as close to mingling as a President gets). You could say that George Bush playing the guitar displays neutral feelings toward the hurricane, but then you would be ignoring a more plausible explaination. It could just be that George Bush does not have to, nor should he (Being President, he has to address many issues. We would be angry if he didn't), have the hurricane foremost on his mind every waking hour until every single piece of rubble is cleared.

We can assume that the President had decided on the day that he would give this speech before the hurricane landed on shore. Since I already explained that the President should not have to run the relief efforts, then I couldn't give a reason that he should have returned to the White House. Sitting around and moaning about the hurricane would do no good. Since no other incidents worthy of the President's immediate and undivided attention had come up since he had decided when he would give his speech, he had no reason not to give it. So he did. While he was giving his speech it was its subject matter that was most on his mind. When he was done giving the speech, it was probably planned that he would shake hands with a few people there and chat with them. One guy happened to have a guitar (unless it belongs to the President) and the President agreed to tool around with it for a few minutes. We cannot conclude from the given information that he had neutral feelings toward the disaster (believe me, I didn't leave out any smoking gun). Therefore, we can only concule that giving a speech and playing guitar at that speech is a red herring when trying to determine the President's feelings toward the hurricane. Any comparison of George Bush to Nero in this respect is fallacy and nothing more then a distraction.

3) The United States is amazingly wealthy. We don't need international help to solve this problem. They wouldn't give it to us even if we asked because they know as well as we do that we don't need it.

4) George Bush is has not fallen of a bicycle or choked on a pretzel since the hurricane landed (I can't verify that, but I'm fairly sure he hasn't) nor can he be held accountable for causing a hurricane to hit our country (!).

5) The National Guard has men working along the coast right now. Not every single member of the National Guard is in Iraq. The National Guard has the manpower to help take care of this disaster even with men in Iraq (suprise!).

6) I don't see a 'Not Nero' option on the poll. Don't you think that's a bit one sided? And to think, the people that are giving George Bush a hard time now are the same people that complained that his administration cheated to win the 2000 and 2004 elections. The reason that was given to explain why there is no 'Not Nero' option is a cop out.


Yeah...and the very NAME of your nation betrays your biases!
At least ya remembered to put the EVIL in it, since evil and conservative are basically synonyms.

Yeah...and the very NAME of your nation betrays your biases!
At least ya remembered to put the EVIL in it, since evil and conservative are basically synonyms.
And that is exactly why the american people here "liberal", and istead of thinking about moderates like myself, they think of extremist, like you.

Thanks. :rolleyes:

Antre_Travarious']And that is exactly why the american people here "liberal", and istead of thinking about moderates like myself, they think of extremist, like you.

Thanks. :rolleyes:

Look...all I REALLY want...is FOR ONCE IN THEIR PUTRID LIVES...the conservatives be FORCED to accept accountability for the human suffering their agenda and policies create! JUST ONCE!!

goddam, if it was a Democratic President, the stinking Republicans would be ALL OVER HIM!! Hell, look at the six-year fuss they made over what turned out to be nothing (Whitewater) and ended up settling on trying to impeach him over Monica. CHRIST, Bush has done far worse than Monica, and does anyone talk about impeaching HIS ASS??!!?!?

Look...all I REALLY want...is FOR ONCE IN THEIR PUTRID LIVES...the conservatives be FORCED to accept accountability for the human suffering their agenda and policies create! JUST ONCE!!

goddam, if it was a Democratic President, the stinking Republicans would be ALL OVER HIM!! Hell, look at the six-year fuss they made over what turned out to be nothing (Whitewater) and ended up settling on trying to impeach him over Monica. CHRIST, Bush has done far worse than Monica, and does anyone talk about impeaching HIS ASS??!!?!?

i wouldn't mind if they impeached Bush. I think he deserves it. but that goes for another thread.

What sets middle-of-the-road ppl like me off of your ideals is your angry attitude. You need to take a xanax and calm down ;)

Look...all I REALLY want...is FOR ONCE IN THEIR PUTRID LIVES...the conservatives be FORCED to accept accountability for the human suffering their agenda and policies create! JUST ONCE!!

goddam, if it was a Democratic President, the stinking Republicans would be ALL OVER HIM!! Hell, look at the six-year fuss they made over what turned out to be nothing (Whitewater) and ended up settling on trying to impeach him over Monica. CHRIST, Bush has done far worse than Monica, and does anyone talk about impeaching HIS ASS??!!?!?

The human suffering whose agenda and policies create? Mother Nature's? Certainly, you're not suggesting conservatives CAUSED the hurricane? That they CAUSED this suffering. You are complaining that Bush didn't react the way you'd like him to. You called an above poster evil for suggesting their reactions are reasonable in this situation. Not the best way to get people to listen.

it is the state's own responsibility to protect itself during natural disasters. this is why the governors of states 'ask the federal government to declare ___ in a state of emergency'. when declared a state of emergency, certain federal assets like naval ships can be deployed with aid, as they have been. it is not the president's role to sit in his office and forego all other responsibilities and meetings with people and groups and countries and the occupation [anyone who says it's still a war has lost their mind]of iraq, and deal with something that is the responsibility of the state itself. he just gives the order to provide some extra help.

the president does a lot more than play guitar and choke on pretzels. the problem is-nobody likes him, so the news, and people, make fun of him and cover things like falling off a bicycle. don't take this as support for him, or his policies/etc. i'm just trying to show that he's human like the rest of us, and being the president of the world's only superpower means you have a lot of responsibilities and you don't baby-sit your states.

Yeah...and the very NAME of your nation betrays your biases!
At least ya remembered to put the EVIL in it, since evil and conservative are basically synonyms.

The contrast between my post and your reply is just absurd.

The human suffering whose agenda and policies create? Mother Nature's? Certainly, you're not suggesting conservatives CAUSED the hurricane? That they CAUSED this suffering. You are complaining that Bush didn't react the way you'd like him to. You called an above poster evil for suggesting their reactions are reasonable in this situation. Not the best way to get people to listen.

The Republicans agenda and policies crerate human suffering. Want examples?

Iraq.
3-dollar-a-gallon gasoline
tanked economy
I haven't had a fucking decent job in a year and a half! I had to move home with Mommy at the age of 34, marking me a complete and total loser at life, thanks to the economic policies of George Bush that tanked the motherfuckin' economy!

And you expect me to LIKE or even RESPECT the man whose policies have created such hardship and misery in my life?!!?

Bull-shit! Or, should I say Bushit!!

God, I can't honestly think of any person on the face of the EARTH that I have ever hated worse than George W. Bush. He is to blame for all of it.

The suffering wasn't Bush's fault. No one expected it to be this bad. Next time, you predict the magnitude of the next disaster. Plus, why should the president just sit in the oval office every day? The president gets vacations just like everyone else. Being president is a much harder job. One miscalculation and millions will be plotting your assasination. A NATURAL disaster, like Katrina, happens and people blame you for it happening. Try to think before posting. Try to not let your hatred of all things unliberal and unatheist cloud your better judgement. Bush could not have stopped Katrina. Bush could not have stopped the suffering without nuking the disaster zone. It's easy to base criticism on your own ignorance. It's hard to admit mistakes. I know. I just try to take the right route instead of the easy route. If everyone took the easy way, the world would become even more of a hellhole than it is now.

The contrast between my post and your reply is just absurd.

Try having had a relatively decent life...never rich, but not really poor, either...managing to get by...going thru the occasional hardship, and coming out okay on the other end, because the hardship never lasted long, and you had enough resources to get you through the occasional short hard times, and unexpected crises, like car repairs. That was me in the 90's (CLINTON'S PRESIDENCY - DEMOCRAT)

Now try having all of that stripped away from you, having your pride and independence taken from you, and having to walk thru an economic shitstorm of such magnitude that you ended up, at age 34, having to move back home with Mommy...thus marking you a complete and total failure at life. And realizing that if Bush hadn't tanked the economy it never would have happened. That is me today (BUSH'S PRESIDENCY - REPUBLICAN)

Need I explain further why I hate the fuck out of Republicans and conservatives?

True---but compare it to some Carribean nations' issues with the last bout of hurricanes. Hundreds, if not thousands died. Yes, it's bad, but a President doesn't have to respond to everything, now does he? Besides, I doubt he expected it to be this bad.
The NOAA was claiming the Apocalypse.

So basically, you're mad because the president isn't in a state of sorrow.

I find it funny that all these people mad at bush probably havn't done a single thing to help with the relief.

If you really feel that the president or anybody should drop everything and go help, then I'd better see you on the first train, plane, car or whatever.

The suffering wasn't Bush's fault. No one expected it to be this bad. Next time, you predict the magnitude of the next disaster. Plus, why should the president just sit in the oval office every day? The president gets vacations just like everyone else. Being president is a much harder job. One miscalculation and millions will be plotting your assasination. A NATURAL disaster, like Katrina, happens and people blame you for it happening. Try to think before posting. Try to not let your hatred of all things unliberal and unatheist cloud your better judgement. Bush could not have stopped Katrina. Bush could not have stopped the suffering without nuking the disaster zone. It's easy to base criticism on your own ignorance. It's hard to admit mistakes. I know. I just try to take the right route instead of the easy route. If everyone took the easy way, the world would become even more of a hellhole than it is now.

Bush cut back funding on PREVENTATIVE PROGRAMS that could have made the disaster less...and for what??? TO GIVE TAX BREAKS TO ALREADY-WEALTHY ASSHOLES who won't pass it on to their workers in the form of higher wages, better jobs, etc.

Try having had a relatively decent life...never rich, but not really poor, either...managing to get by...going thru the occasional hardship, and coming out okay on the other end, because the hardship never lasted long, and you had enough resources to get you through the occasional short hard times, and unexpected crises, like car repairs. That was me in the 90's (CLINTON'S PRESIDENCY - DEMOCRAT)

Now try having all of that stripped away from you, having your pride and independence taken from you, and having to walk thru an economic shitstorm of such magnitude that you ended up, at age 34, having to move back home with Mommy...thus marking you a complete and total failure at life. And realizing that if Bush hadn't tanked the economy it never would have happened. That is me today (BUSH'S PRESIDENCY - REPUBLICAN)

Need I explain further why I hate the fuck out of Republicans and conservatives?

You're not really giving a lot of details here, how can you prove that it was this "economic shithole" and not just a swing of bad luck? Nobody I can think of is any worse of with Bush as opposed to Clinton.

So basically, you're mad because the president isn't in a state of sorrow.

I find it funny that all these people mad at bush probably havn't done a single thing to help with the relief.

If you really feel that the president or anybody should drop everything and go help, then I'd better see you on the first train, plane, car or whatever.

Well, I'll tell you what.
I'm unemployed right now. As I have been, virtually, for a year and a half, minus what temp jobs I could get. I'm drawing unemployment right now. and I have shit to my name. It's so bad I had to move in with mommy.

So here's the deal. If the government would like to send me a round-trip plane, train, or bus ticket to the disaster area, and keep paying me my unemployment while I'm there, so that I don't starve...I'll be the first one to go and help, okay?

How's that deal?

I'd LOVE to help. bush made sure I didn't have the RESOURCES to help, by tannking the fucking economy. Hell, I don't have the resources to help MYSELF...let alone anyone else. So that's my deal. Provide for me room and board in the disaster area, including three meals a day...a round-trip ticket by any conveyeance they see fit, plane, train, bus, automobile, I don't care...and continue my unemployment payments while I'm down in the disaster area, and I'm there, man! All's I ask is that it don't cost me anything financially, because I have nothing financially to give. Bush saw to that.

So whaddaya think?

Well, I'll tell you what.
I'm unemployed right now. As I have been, virtually, for a year and a half, minus what temp jobs I could get. I'm drawing unemployment right now. and I have shit to my name. It's so bad I had to move in with mommy.

So here's the deal. If the government would like to send me a round-trip plane, train, or bus ticket to the disaster area, and keep paying me my unemployment while I'm there, so that I don't starve...I'll be the first one to go and help, okay?

How's that deal?

I'd LOVE to help. bush made sure I didn't have the RESOURCES to help, by tannking the fucking economy. Hell, I don't have the resources to help MYSELF...let alone anyone else. So that's my deal. Provide for me room and board in the disaster area, including three meals a day...a round-trip ticket by any conveyeance they see fit, plane, train, bus, automobile, I don't care...and continue my unemployment payments while I'm down in the disaster area, and I'm there, man! All's I ask is that it don't cost me anything financially, because I have nothing financially to give. Bush saw to that.

So whaddaya think?

I would say that's a good reason. I just have problems with people who would bitch about this and would not take the time to actually do something. As for me, I'm a college student and I really can't leave, though I would iun a heartbeat. So there you have it.

I haven't had a fucking decent job in a year and a half! I had to move home with Mommy at the age of 34, marking me a complete and total loser at life, thanks to the economic policies of George Bush that tanked the motherfuckin' economy!

Do you have a degree from college? What was it in? If you don't then where were you working before you lost your job? Why was losing you job related to the President's policies or why are his policies related to you not being able to find a job now?

I'm not saying that it couldn't be the fault of his policies. I just want to know what it was that caused you to lose your job.

dude ok i'm english and i dont kno all the ins and outs of your country but compare him to something else will you? Nero presecuted christians like no other in His day and Bush is doing exactly the opposite if you look at him. OK he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer and he could get a someone else to write his speeches but think about it, he has been landed with some of the toughest decisions that any president has yet had to make and even if he hasnt done what you see as right, he is doing what he believes is best (though sometimes it is a too bit long termish for my tastes)

For those who predicted that help wouldn't come to the US: oh ye of little faith!

Canadian Red Cross sends volunteer (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1125454082610_27/?hub=TopStories)

Emergency efforts

More than one million residents remained without electricity across Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama -- some without clean drinking water. And full restoration could be a few months away.

There were about 40,000 people in Red Cross shelters, and officials say it could be weeks or months before most of them will be able to return home.

Emergency medical teams from across the country were sent into the region and President George W. Bush cut his Texas vacation short to focus on the hurricane file.

Bush asked individual Americans to get involved with the relief effort, suggesting anyone who wishes to help could call 1-800-HELPNOW, log on to the Red Cross website at www.redcross.org or get in touch with the Salvation Army.

"The good folks in Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama and other affected areas are going to need the help and compassion and prayers of our fellow citizens,'' Bush said during a speech in California.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has sent medical teams and rescue squads to the stricken areas, plus supplies like baby formula, communications equipment, generators, water and ice.

And about 7,500 National Guard soldiers and airmen have been mobilized by state governors to assist in the relief effort.

Canada, meanwhile, sent condolences to the victims and offered help.

Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan said she told U.S. secretary of homeland security Michael Chertoff that Canada was ready to provide assistance if needed.

The Canadian Red Cross will send about 200 volunteers with special skills in managing disaster shelters, but the organization said they're not asking the public at this point for donations.

"The States has a huge capacity, so when there's a disaster like this, we're not asking people to open their wallets in this particular instance," Don Shropshire of the Canadian Red Cross told CTV News.

With reports from CTV News and the Associated Press

So yeah, we might not send money but we do send help. And the Canadian government made it clear that if the US ask, we shall try to help.

Also, I've heard on the radio that some eletric companies up north are sending specialist teams to the area to help their counterparts in the US but I'm not sure if the information is accurate.

For those who predicted that help wouldn't come to the US: oh ye of little faith!

Canadian Red Cross sends volunteer (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1125454082610_27/?hub=TopStories)



So yeah, we might not send money but we do send help. And the Canadian government made it clear that if the US ask, we shall try to help.

Also, I've heard on the radio that some eletric companies up north are sending specialist teams to the area to help their counterparts in the US but I'm not sure if the information is accurate.

I like Canada.

For those who predicted that help wouldn't come to the US: oh ye of little faith!

Canadian Red Cross sends volunteer (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1125454082610_27/?hub=TopStories)



So yeah, we might not send money but we do send help. And the Canadian government made it clear that if the US ask, we shall try to help.

Also, I've heard on the radio that some eletric companies up north are sending specialist teams to the area to help their counterparts in the US but I'm not sure if the information is accurate.

We have some softwood lumber for you in return. ;)

We have some softwood lumber for you in return. ;)
For some softwood.. or the money you owe us, I will personnally send money to the american red cross... :)

dude ok i'm english and i dont kno all the ins and outs of your country but compare him to something else will you? Nero presecuted christians like no other in His day and Bush is doing exactly the opposite if you look at him. OK he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer and he could get a someone else to write his speeches but think about it, he has been landed with some of the toughest decisions that any president has yet had to make and even if he hasnt done what you see as right, he is doing what he believes is best (though sometimes it is a too bit long termish for my tastes)

plus bush doesnt play the fiddle :p
but seriously it would be wrong to compare two world leader seperated by 2000 years. things are a little different nowadays.

Why the only people left in the city are the trashy people..

Ummm ... I have friends and family still in New Orleans.

Anyway, Nero didn't fiddle. The viola was not invented until the 1500s. :p

You're not really giving a lot of details here, how can you prove that it was this "economic shithole" and not just a swing of bad luck? Nobody I can think of is any worse of with Bush as opposed to Clinton.

If the unemployment rate hadn't risen so sharply as a result of Bush's economic policies, my employer in 2004 would not have been able to pull the shit they did.

You want deatails? fine. You got them.

Timeline - November 2002 - April 2004

November 2002 - learned that my current company had lost in the bidding for a contract we had to process Medicaid claims for the State of Texas. We would all be out of work in December 2003. Meaning we had just over a year left.

April, 2003 - the company that won the contract held an "open house" for all the employees of my company, and recruited and pitched for us to come work for them when our contract was up. They told us, at that meeting, that they paid on a piece-rate, rather than an hourly wage. however, they assured us, no one would see thier wages go down, they expected the average wage to work out to be between 11 to 13 dollars an hour. As I was, at the time, making $10.50 an hour, this sounded okay with me. And, as I was one of the top producers at my company, it seemed fairly certain I would be offered a job.

September 2003 - officially offered and accepted a job with the new company, to begin in December 2003.

December 2003 - began with the new company. Until they had the piece rates in place, we all were started at a "training wage" of $9.50 an hour. This was already a dollar less an hour than I had been making. well, since this was only temporary, and we had been promised between 11 and 13 dollars an hour on average, I accepted this.

February, 2004 - We've been working 24 hours a week in mandatory overtime, plus our normal 40 hour week, with no relief in sight. We have no personal lives anymore. And all this for a dollar an hour LESS than I had been making. THEN they brought in the piece-rates. They were WAY too low. turns out the average company-wide wage was "nearly eight dollars an hour" according to a memo. Whatever happened to 11 to 13 bucks an hour?? During that same time period, my own wage was calculated out at $8.77 an hour, so I was ahead of the company curve, and therefore, this is not due to any inability on my part to do my job.

March, 2004 - When I and several employees expressed concerns over the low wages, and the fact that they didn't even come close to what we'd been promised...the response of the company became "prove we said that...prove it, where's it in writing, prove it prove it prove it!"

April, 2004 - New piece-rates rolled out, and it turns out they cut them, universally, across the board!! They claimed that they had introduced new "efficiencies" that would take up the slack, and we would not see a reduction in wages as a result. More lies. The company-wide average went down to "just over seven dollars an hour" whereas my wage went to $7.87 an hour, now nearl ythree dollars an hour less than I had been making. and the memo made it clear that if more "efficiences" were introduced, the piece rates could be LOWERED EVEN FURTHER. The same memo never indicated piece rates might ever be raised for any reason. In spite of numerous meetings and grievances filed with my boss, his boss, and HR...no resolve was forthcoming, and so I resigned my position. I haven't had a decent job since.

NOW, if the company had been UP-FRONT AND HONEST with us, back in April, 2003, of what the wages were going to be...I would have had eight months, while still working...to locate alternate employment, and, failing that...a nice, safe layoff, with unemployment benefits. Instead, they chose to deny me the ability to make a reasoned, informed decision about my own career path BY LYING TO ME ABOUT WHAT I COULD EXPECT MY WAGES TO BE!! They never could have gotten away with this, if Bush hadn't so badly tanked the economy as to cause such job loss that others would be willing to work for such shitty wages.

And the kicker? Part of the policies of this new company was that every new employee had to take a business ethics course...TAUGHT BY EXECUTIVES OF THIS COMPANY....THE SAME COMPANY THAT HAD JUST LIED TO US ABOUT WHAT OUR SALARIES WOULD BE!!

What the fuck would THESE people know about business ethics?!?! I realized immediately I was in a "Geroge Jetson" situation. You know...help, Jane, stop this crazy thing...!! That my reward for working harder was NOT, as they claimed, going to be more money....IT WAS JUST GOING TO BE MORE WORK...because they would keep lowering the piece-rates as we got better and better and more efficient at our jobs. So, no matter how hard we worked, our reward was not going to be more money...just more work. so I fuckin' walked out. And I was far from the only one.

Which was probably their plan from day one. Get all the higher-paid workers out, and replace them with seven-dollar an-hour schlumps. and they wanna talk to me about business ethics!?!?!

Now, is that enough fucking detail for you?? Now do you understand WHY I blame George W. Bush for the year-and-a-half long shitstorm I have been walking thru??

IT'S ALL HIS FAULT!! IF HE HADN'T TANKED THE ECONOMY, THIS FUCKING EMPLOYER COULD'VE NEVER GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT!!

Ummm ... I have friends and family still in New Orleans.

Anyway, Nero didn't fiddle. The viola was not invented until the 1500s. :p


i know that he played a lyre if he played at all i was just going with the common misconception

:)

Do you have a degree from college? What was it in? If you don't then where were you working before you lost your job? Why was losing you job related to the President's policies or why are his policies related to you not being able to find a job now?

I'm not saying that it couldn't be the fault of his policies. I just want to know what it was that caused you to lose your job.

See timeline provided above.

and, NO, I don't have a college degree. Never had an opportunity to get one. couldn't qualify for student loans out of high school, because Dad was working under the table, that was all my worthless, shithead, alcoholic father was able to do...and he was unwilling to release financial records required by student loans, for fear of the IRS.

By the time I moved out of my folk's house, at 24...I was not making enough money to where I could afford college on my own, but I was "making too much" to qualify for any grants.

I briefly qualified, when I was 27, the year of my dad's death, ironically enough...and briefly attended for Paralegal...but then my qualification lapsed, and I had to quit. Haven't had a chance to go back since.

the whole point of my moving back home was so that I COULD go back to school, now, at age 34. Problem is...I gotta get a styeady JOB, FIRST....THEN, I can go back to school in the evenings.

And thanks to the fucking lousy economy....I CAN'T FIND A JOB!!

How's that for a fucking Catch-22? Thanks, Dubya!

If the unemployment rate hadn't risen so sharply as a result of Bush's economic policies, my employer in 2004 would not have been able to pull the shit they did.

You want deatails? fine. You got them.

Timeline - November 2002 - April 2004

November 2002 - learned that my current company had lost in the bidding for a contract we had to process Medicaid claims for the State of Texas. We would all be out of work in December 2003. Meaning we had just over a year left.

April, 2003 - the company that won the contract held an "open house" for all the employees of my company, and recruited and pitched for us to come work for them when our contract was up. They told us, at that meeting, that they paid on a piece-rate, rather than an hourly wage. however, they assured us, no one would see thier wages go down, they expected the average wage to work out to be between 11 to 13 dollars an hour. As I was, at the time, making $10.50 an hour, this sounded okay with me. And, as I was one of the top producers at my company, it seemed fairly certain I would be offered a job.

September 2003 - officially offered and accepted a job with the new company, to begin in December 2003.

December 2003 - began with the new company. Until they had the piece rates in place, we all were started at a "training wage" of $9.50 an hour. This was already a dollar less an hour than I had been making. well, since this was only temporary, and we had been promised between 11 and 13 dollars an hour on average, I accepted this.

February, 2004 - We've been working 24 hours a week in mandatory overtime, plus our normal 40 hour week, with no relief in sight. We have no personal lives anymore. And all this for a dollar an hour LESS than I had been making. THEN they brought in the piece-rates. They were WAY too low. turns out the average company-wide wage was "nearly eight dollars an hour" according to a memo. Whatever happened to 11 to 13 bucks an hour?? During that same time period, my own wage was calculated out at $8.77 an hour, so I was ahead of the company curve, and therefore, this is not due to any inability on my part to do my job.

March, 2004 - When I and several employees expressed concerns over the low wages, and the fact that they didn't even come close to what we'd been promised...the response of the company became "prove we said that...prove it, where's it in writing, prove it prove it prove it!"

April, 2004 - New piece-rates rolled out, and it turns out they cut them, universally, across the board!! They claimed that they had introduced new "efficiencies" that would take up the slack, and we would not see a reduction in wages as a result. More lies. The company-wide average went down to "just over seven dollars an hour" whereas my wage went to $7.87 an hour, now nearl ythree dollars an hour less than I had been making. and the memo made it clear that if more "efficiences" were introduced, the piece rates could be LOWERED EVEN FURTHER. The same memo never indicated piece rates might ever be raised for any reason. In spite of numerous meetings and grievances filed with my boss, his boss, and HR...no resolve was forthcoming, and so I resigned my position. I haven't had a decent job since.

NOW, if the company had been UP-FRONT AND HONEST with us, back in April, 2003, of what the wages were going to be...I would have had eight months, while still working...to locate alternate employment, and, failing that...a nice, safe layoff, with unemployment benefits. Instead, they chose to deny me the ability to make a reasoned, informed decision about my own career path BY LYING TO ME ABOUT WHAT I COULD EXPECT MY WAGES TO BE!! They never could have gotten away with this, if Bush hadn't so badly tanked the economy as to cause such job loss that others would be willing to work for such shitty wages.

And the kicker? Part of the policies of this new company was that every new employee had to take a business ethics course...TAUGHT BY EXECUTIVES OF THIS COMPANY....THE SAME COMPANY THAT HAD JUST LIED TO US ABOUT WHAT OUR SALARIES WOULD BE!!

What the fuck would THESE people know about business ethics?!?! I realized immediately I was in a "Geroge Jetson" situation. You know...help, Jane, stop this crazy thing...!! That my reward for working harder was NOT, as they claimed, going to be more money....IT WAS JUST GOING TO BE MORE WORK...because they would keep lowering the piece-rates as we got better and better and more efficient at our jobs. So, no matter how hard we worked, our reward was not going to be more money...just more work. so I fuckin' walked out. And I was far from the only one.

Which was probably their plan from day one. Get all the higher-paid workers out, and replace them with seven-dollar an-hour schlumps. and they wanna talk to me about business ethics!?!?!

Now, is that enough fucking detail for you?? Now do you understand WHY I blame George W. Bush for the year-and-a-half long shitstorm I have been walking thru??

IT'S ALL HIS FAULT!! IF HE HADN'T TANKED THE ECONOMY, THIS FUCKING EMPLOYER COULD'VE NEVER GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT!!
I see. That sucks. too be honest though, it sounds a lot less like bush's fault than some greedy buisnessmen's fault. But not to say that bush in part isn't to blame. But I still don't lke that the only reasoning is "cause bush tanked the economy"

I see. That sucks. too be honest though, it sounds a lot less like bush's fault than some greedy buisnessmen's fault. But not to say that bush in part isn't to blame. But I still don't lke that the only reasoning is "cause bush tanked the economy"

I agree with you. BUT...if Bush hadn't tanked the economy...the greedy businessmen (who support Bush, incidentally) would never have been able to get away with it.

So, in the end, directly or indirectly...my suffering is a result of Bush's economic policies, and he (Bush) has caused human suffering.

I agree with you. BUT...if Bush hadn't tanked the economy...the greedy businessmen (who support Bush, incidentally) would never have been able to get away with it.

So, in the end, directly or indirectly...my suffering is a result of Bush's economic policies, and he (Bush) has caused human suffering.

Well I agree with you there. Not that I supported John Kerry, I do think the republicans could have made a better choice though. Honestly, I wish all candidates were far more central than they are. But I'm off topic. so

Incidentally, was bush in charge when you were 24? :confused:

Incidentally, was bush in charge when you were 24? :confused:

No. Clinton was. And if you notice, I was doing far better off, financially, at 24...than I am now....at 34.

I have said I always did well under Clinton. It's only when Republicans have been in the White House that I have suffered economic hardship.

Bush Sr. I suffered. Bush Jr. I am suffering. Reagan...my family suffered.

Clinton...I prospered.

Now ask yourself again why I just might be a little more inclined to support Democrats!

Incidentally, was bush in charge when you were 24? :confused:

Oh, C'mon. He already mentioned that the problems there pertained to his drunken father/lack of funds for college/etc. He didn't blame El Presidente on that one.

No. Clinton was. And if you notice, I was doing far better off, financially, at 24...than I am now....at 34.

I have said I always did well under Clinton. It's only when Republicans have been in the White House that I have suffered economic hardship.

Bush Sr. I suffered. Bush Jr. I am suffering. Reagan...my family suffered.

Clinton...I prospered.

Now ask yourself again why I just might be a little more inclined to support Democrats!

im not questioning your political inclinations.

Oh, C'mon. He already mentioned that the problems there pertained to his drunken father/lack of funds for college/etc. He didn't blame El Presidente on that one.


yeah he did

if you all care so much about peoples lives why do u care about hurricanes and natural disasters when on average 80,000 people die everyday of hunger cause we are stealin their food from under their noses :confused: deal with that first then hurricanes.

ok, i'll try to break this down as the way i see it...

If the unemployment rate hadn't risen so sharply as a result of Bush's economic policies, my employer in 2004 would not have been able to pull the shit they did.
i was laid off twice, from the same company, once in 2003 and then again 2004. I have since then been able to get a job and hold it. (i don't mind naming names, but apparently you do) The company in question was Gateway Computers. it took me 3 months each time after being laid off to find a job. (constantly looking every day, at least 3-5 jobs a day applying, not the minimum 5 a week Unemployment requires in Texas)


Timeline - November 2002 - April 2004

November 2002 - learned that my current company had lost in the bidding for a contract we had to process Medicaid claims for the State of Texas. We would all be out of work in December 2003. Meaning we had just over a year left.
That sucks, but companies always try to go for the bottom dollar.

April, 2003 - the company that won the contract held an "open house" for all the employees of my company, and recruited and pitched for us to come work for them when our contract was up. They told us, at that meeting, that they paid on a piece-rate, rather than an hourly wage. however, they assured us, no one would see thier wages go down, they expected the average wage to work out to be between 11 to 13 dollars an hour.
One thing i've learned in this life is that you shouldn't take something w/o it being in writing first. It's unfortunate, but I hope you've learned from this experience in doing that.

As I was, at the time, making $10.50 an hour, this sounded okay with me. And, as I was one of the top producers at my company, it seemed fairly certain I would be offered a job.
Not trying to attack you personally, but 10.50 an hour for a 30something isn't very much. More on this later in the post....


September 2003 - officially offered and accepted a job with the new company, to begin in December 2003.
when you signed on to the company, was there not paperwork that you filled out detailing your earnings?

December 2003 - began with the new company. Until they had the piece rates in place, we all were started at a "training wage" of $9.50 an hour. This was already a dollar less an hour than I had been making. well, since this was only temporary, and we had been promised between 11 and 13 dollars an hour on average, I accepted this.
if you began in December, how come you didn't get your benefits from your previous company's layoff? The only way you shouldn't have gotten the benefits is if you quit before they laid you off, otherwise, you having a job lined up for you in Dec. shouldn't prevent you from getting benefits. Promises aren't worth anything unless they're on paper, when it comes to businesses.

February, 2004 - We've been working 24 hours a week in mandatory overtime, plus our normal 40 hour week, with no relief in sight. We have no personal lives anymore. And all this for a dollar an hour LESS than I had been making. THEN they brought in the piece-rates. They were WAY too low. turns out the average company-wide wage was "nearly eight dollars an hour" according to a memo. Whatever happened to 11 to 13 bucks an hour?? During that same time period, my own wage was calculated out at $8.77 an hour, so I was ahead of the company curve, and therefore, this is not due to any inability on my part to do my job.

March, 2004 - When I and several employees expressed concerns over the low wages, and the fact that they didn't even come close to what we'd been promised...the response of the company became "prove we said that...prove it, where's it in writing, prove it prove it prove it!"
Hate to repeat it, but again, it's all about what's in writing. It sucks that they did this do you, but companies don't care about you, no matter who's President.

April, 2004 - *snip*
again, it sucks, but life is harsh.

I haven't had a decent job since.
There are more possibilites for this than just the president's changing. What are your skills? have you tried looking for jobs out of state? Have you used job recruiters? etc...

They never could have gotten away with this, if Bush hadn't so badly tanked the economy as to cause such job loss that others would be willing to work for such shitty wages.
ok... so Bush caused your company to lose the bid for the medicare? I think i would blame the company, not Bush.
*snip*
so I fuckin' walked out. And I was far from the only one.
This is why you don't leave a job until you have another one.

Now, is that enough fucking detail for you?? Now do you understand WHY I blame George W. Bush for the year-and-a-half long shitstorm I have been walking thru??

IT'S ALL HIS FAULT!! IF HE HADN'T TANKED THE ECONOMY, THIS FUCKING EMPLOYER COULD'VE NEVER GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT!!
I think you're looking for someone to blame and using him as a scapegoat. I don't like the man either, but it's not HIS fault you lost your first job, that you QUIT your second job.

Back to the 10.50 an hour thing, now that you're back home w/ your mom, why don't you try to go back to school and get some type of degree or certifcation that you can use to get a job? Don't say you can't afford it, because there is financial aid. Especially if you've been w/o a decent job for over a year.

Hell, my g/f was working 20 hours a week, on 8something an hour and was able to attend a 4 year university. Community Colleges are cheaper than that.

and on another note of your handling medical insurance... have you tried Trail Blazer (company in Texas that handles blue cross/shield stuff)? or was that one of the companies that was treating you unfairly?

Final point, quit blaming someone else and try to do something about it. Forgot the exact quote i've read in the past, but it's something like this: "Losers blame someone for a problem, Winners fix the problem."

if you all care so much about peoples lives why do u care about hurricanes and natural disasters when on average 80,000 people die everyday of hunger cause we are stealin their food from under their noses :confused: deal with that first then hurricanes.

We do what we can when we can. I haven't stolen anyone's food.

I agree with you. BUT...if Bush hadn't tanked the economy...the greedy businessmen (who support Bush, incidentally) would never have been able to get away with it.

So, in the end, directly or indirectly...my suffering is a result of Bush's economic policies, and he (Bush) has caused human suffering.
"greedy businessmen" try to get away w/ whatever they can, it doesn't matter who the president is. How would a democratic president prevented businessmen from being greedy?

And this one ALONE...has killed 55....and counting.
And Bush still doesn't even act like he gives a shit.

ON EDIT: And may I add here, that those who signed up for the National Guard...believed that they would be called upon to assist in just such situations as this....NOT BE SENT TO FUCKING IRAQ!! Now, where's the National Guard now that we need them to do what they were ACTUALLY TRAINED FOR...WHAT THEY ACTUALLY VOLUNTEERED FOR...AND WHAT THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVED THEY WOULD BE DOING???

The NG is trained to defeat and kill the enemy whoever that may be. They can provide security and transport and there has been 10,000 members of the NG called up for this.

Now it's not like I expect him to be down there pulling people out of the water, but I don't think it's too much to expect him to be in the Oval Office, maybe trying to round up some international support or coordinating the relief efforts or just generally acting like he gives a shit about the massive death and destruction.
I didn't know that Bush played guitar! To address your points:

1. America needs no international assistance. It's a resourceful nation.

2. Professionals can coordinate the relief efforts better than Bush could.

3. I agree, at least a sympathetic speech would be nice.

"greedy businessmen" try to get away w/ whatever they can, it doesn't matter who the president is. How would a democratic president prevented businessmen from being greedy?
That's a good point too.

Because trashy people are low life scum that do nothing for the good of life, all they do is suck humanity dry...the media has been told to suppress just how bad the looting really is going on down there, because NO is the poorest city in the USA, it sucks, is was and always will be shit hole, if anything the water will clean it out a bit.

And contrary to what your narrow mind wants to believe, there is more to the USA then just N O going on...you just dont stop the world spinning because of this, he did what he could, he isnt HITLER commanding where every unit should be or where it should go like you want him to be (that turned out grate for germany didnt it?)...the people with actual knowledge of what they are doing are leading the way...all he is is the money man...the backer if you will...he opened the flood gates of money for your gay fucking city that shouldnt exist where it is in the first fucking place, thats ALL HE CAN DO...

If anything he should of just ordered the dikes blown up and submereged the city...where people can actually build a new new orleans on ground that is actually above sea level...so maybe next time a mild hurricane comes through your trashy townsfolk dont die so much since they arnt living like idiots in the bottom of a valley and the country saves a bit of change istead of spending billions fighting off mother nature.

If I get the info about an incident in which someone you love dies, I'll make sure to send you (and the forums) something more or less to the effect of this piece of despise for human life you just wrote, but only about them, because, unlike you, I don't enjoy harming innocents. I can say without flaming, because I'm backed by scientific evidence: This kind of callousness is the main signal of psychopathy.

If I get the info about an incident in which someone you love dies, I'll make sure to send you (and the forums) something more or less to the effect of this piece of despise for human life you just wrote, but only about them, because, unlike you, I don't enjoy harming innocents. I can say without flaming, because I'm backed by scientific evidence: This kind of callousness is the main signal of psychopathy.

I had to read that three times before I understood it and at that point it sounded deeply hypocritical. :(

The Republicans agenda and policies crerate human suffering. Want examples?

Iraq.
3-dollar-a-gallon gasoline
tanked economy
I haven't had a fucking decent job in a year and a half! I had to move home with Mommy at the age of 34, marking me a complete and total loser at life, thanks to the economic policies of George Bush that tanked the motherfuckin' economy!

And you expect me to LIKE or even RESPECT the man whose policies have created such hardship and misery in my life?!!?

Bull-shit! Or, should I say Bushit!!

God, I can't honestly think of any person on the face of the EARTH that I have ever hated worse than George W. Bush. He is to blame for all of it.

Oh, and here I thought you were replying to a post about the hurricane and his reaction to it. Gosh, I must have missed where this was all about all the things Bush did NOT related to this disaster.

No. Clinton was. And if you notice, I was doing far better off, financially, at 24...than I am now....at 34.

I have said I always did well under Clinton. It's only when Republicans have been in the White House that I have suffered economic hardship.

Bush Sr. I suffered. Bush Jr. I am suffering. Reagan...my family suffered.

Clinton...I prospered.

Now ask yourself again why I just might be a little more inclined to support Democrats!

Couldn't be coincidence that Clinton just happened to take office a year after the internet was opened to commercial traffic (1991) creating an entirely new industry responsible for the whole of the eight year economic boon that ended in 1999, one year BEFORE Bush took office. In other words, Clinton entered the office on a rising economy and left on a falling economy. Yep, I can see why so many consider him a hero. :rolleyes:

Is it just me, or is his popularity really taking a hit? Not surprising, he is a terrible president.

ok, i'll try to break this down as the way i see it...


i was laid off twice, from the same company, once in 2003 and then again 2004. I have since then been able to get a job and hold it. (i don't mind naming names, but apparently you do) The company in question was Gateway Computers. it took me 3 months each time after being laid off to find a job. (constantly looking every day, at least 3-5 jobs a day applying, not the minimum 5 a week Unemployment requires in Texas)


Timeline - November 2002 - April 2004


That sucks, but companies always try to go for the bottom dollar.


One thing i've learned in this life is that you shouldn't take something w/o it being in writing first. It's unfortunate, but I hope you've learned from this experience in doing that.


Not trying to attack you personally, but 10.50 an hour for a 30something isn't very much. More on this later in the post....



when you signed on to the company, was there not paperwork that you filled out detailing your earnings?


if you began in December, how come you didn't get your benefits from your previous company's layoff? The only way you shouldn't have gotten the benefits is if you quit before they laid you off, otherwise, you having a job lined up for you in Dec. shouldn't prevent you from getting benefits. Promises aren't worth anything unless they're on paper, when it comes to businesses.


Hate to repeat it, but again, it's all about what's in writing. It sucks that they did this do you, but companies don't care about you, no matter who's President.


again, it sucks, but life is harsh.


There are more possibilites for this than just the president's changing. What are your skills? have you tried looking for jobs out of state? Have you used job recruiters? etc...


ok... so Bush caused your company to lose the bid for the medicare? I think i would blame the company, not Bush.

This is why you don't leave a job until you have another one.


I think you're looking for someone to blame and using him as a scapegoat. I don't like the man either, but it's not HIS fault you lost your first job, that you QUIT your second job.

Back to the 10.50 an hour thing, now that you're back home w/ your mom, why don't you try to go back to school and get some type of degree or certifcation that you can use to get a job? Don't say you can't afford it, because there is financial aid. Especially if you've been w/o a decent job for over a year.

Hell, my g/f was working 20 hours a week, on 8something an hour and was able to attend a 4 year university. Community Colleges are cheaper than that.

and on another note of your handling medical insurance... have you tried Trail Blazer (company in Texas that handles blue cross/shield stuff)? or was that one of the companies that was treating you unfairly?

Final point, quit blaming someone else and try to do something about it. Forgot the exact quote i've read in the past, but it's something like this: "Losers blame someone for a problem, Winners fix the problem."


I don't mind naming names. I just didn't think it was necessary. In my case, my original employer was a company called Mediclaim, who had a contract with EDS (Ross Perot's company) to process those claims...and the EDS lost the contract, and, since our wagon was hitched to EDS's...we lost out, too. the new company, that got the contract...is called ACS.

Exactly how do you ask a potential employer for something in writing? That is starting off a business relationship with the implication that you don't trust them...and that is likely to make it certain you won't GET the job!!

No, 10.50 isn't much...but, damn, it was enough for my needs, as I lived very simply. I didn't party...I lived alone, no family, just a dog...never went out weekends, no social life, etc.

No, the paperwork only stated piece-rate...but not what the piece rate actually was. so I was stupid enough to take them at their word. I guess that makes me an asshole, huh?

I WOULD have gotten unemployment benefits. Instead, my one job ended...and the new one started on the very next day. Otherwise, had I not accepted a job in the first place, I'd have gotten laid off, and gotten benefits. Instead, I quit four months later, and got no benefits, because I had quit. I had to earn six times my weekly benefit rate, doing temp jobs and delivering newspapers...in order to then get approved for benefits.

I'm now LIVING out of state and collecting benefits from Texas. My mom paid for my moving truck to get me up to Pennsylvania. Not that the economy's any better up here, but at least I don't have to worry about a heartless landlord throwing me out on the street!

Yeah, do "winners" have as many fucking roadblocks thrown in their path as I have? I don't think so.

"greedy businessmen" try to get away w/ whatever they can, it doesn't matter who the president is. How would a democratic president prevented businessmen from being greedy?

CLINTON kept people working. The unemployment rate was sufficiently low that people would not have been WILLING to work for such shitty wages, and so the greedy businessmen wouldn't be able to get away with it.

BUT...since the economy sucked, and lots of people were desperate...the greedy businessmen WERE able to get away with it. Now do you understand?

I'm surprised no one has published these pictures on this forum yet. Instead of being in Washington acting like a President who cares about perhaps the most devastating natural disaster in our history, Bush was in California giving a speech about Iraq and Japan, and doing this:

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b1/thenazz/bushnero.jpg

Yep--that's President Nero there, diddling while New Orleans drowns.

Now it's not like I expect him to be down there pulling people out of the water, but I don't think it's too much to expect him to be in the Oval Office, maybe trying to round up some international support or coordinating the relief efforts or just generally acting like he gives a shit about the massive death and destruction.

When and where was this picture supposedly taken?

I don't mind naming names. I just didn't think it was necessary. In my case, my original employer was a company called Mediclaim, who had a contract with EDS (Ross Perot's company) to process those claims...and the EDS lost the contract, and, since our wagon was hitched to EDS's...we lost out, too. the new company, that got the contract...is called ACS.

Exactly how do you ask a potential employer for something in writing? That is starting off a business relationship with the implication that you don't trust them...and that is likely to make it certain you won't GET the job!!

No, 10.50 isn't much...but, damn, it was enough for my needs, as I lived very simply. I didn't party...I lived alone, no family, just a dog...never went out weekends, no social life, etc.

No, the paperwork only stated piece-rate...but not what the piece rate actually was. so I was stupid enough to take them at their word. I guess that makes me an asshole, huh?

I WOULD have gotten unemployment benefits. Instead, my one job ended...and the new one started on the very next day. Otherwise, had I not accepted a job in the first place, I'd have gotten laid off, and gotten benefits. Instead, I quit four months later, and got no benefits, because I had quit. I had to earn six times my weekly benefit rate, doing temp jobs and delivering newspapers...in order to then get approved for benefits.

I'm now LIVING out of state and collecting benefits from Texas. My mom paid for my moving truck to get me up to Pennsylvania. Not that the economy's any better up here, but at least I don't have to worry about a heartless landlord throwing me out on the street!

Yeah, do "winners" have as many fucking roadblocks thrown in their path as I have? I don't think so.


Is that you Labrydor? (i forgot the spelling of the name - if I am even right)

CLINTON kept people working. The unemployment rate was sufficiently low that people would not have been WILLING to work for such shitty wages, and so the greedy businessmen wouldn't be able to get away with it.

BUT...since the economy sucked, and lots of people were desperate...the greedy businessmen WERE able to get away with it. Now do you understand?

That's not 100% true. A lot of the wage gains and jobs came as a result of the speculative dot-com bubble, which burst and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and plummeting wages in 2001-2002.

Don't forget, greedy businessmen thrived during the Clinton years. While, I will always credit him for his pro-economy, pro-jobs programs and fiscal conservatism, I have to disagree that the greedy prospered off of the recession.

Those corporate collapses and scandals were directly tied to the 90's boom, and the hundreds of thousands who lost their jobs lost them because of unchecked greed. That's the more unsavory product of a bubble; greed and it's counterpart, crime.

I had to read that three times before I understood it and at that point it sounded deeply hypocritical. :(

Oh, don't get me wrong: I'd CARE about the person, but I'd make sure to SEEM not to to offend Gulf Reps.

CLINTON kept people working. The unemployment rate was sufficiently low that people would not have been WILLING to work for such shitty wages, and so the greedy businessmen wouldn't be able to get away with it.

BUT...since the economy sucked, and lots of people were desperate...the greedy businessmen WERE able to get away with it. Now do you understand?

Clinton didn't keep people working, the internet bubble did. The internet was opened to commercial traffic through no efforts of Clinton. That happened in 1991, under Bush Sr.

The bubble BURST under Clinton, circa 1999. That was what started the downward spiral of the economy.

That's not 100% true. A lot of the wage gains and jobs came as a result of the speculative dot-com bubble, which burst and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and plummeting wages in 2001-2002.

Don't forget, greedy businessmen thrived during the Clinton years. While, I will always credit him for his pro-economy, pro-jobs programs and fiscal conservatism, I have to disagree that the greedy prospered off of the recession.

Those corporate collapses and scandals were directly tied to the 90's boom, and the hundreds of thousands who lost their jobs lost them because of unchecked greed. That's the more unsavory product of a bubble; greed and it's counterpart, crime.

The dot-com bubble burst in 1999.

He called the people who were unable to leave the place where I grew up trashy.
Can we at least agree that the people stealing things other than food are trashy?

Can we at least agree that the people stealing things other than food are trashy?

And what do you call the oil companies right now? THEY aren't LOOTING, are they?? fucking gas just shot up FORTY FUCKING CENTS in one day here. FORTY FUCKIN' CENTS!!

But that's not LOOTING, is it? That's not PROFITEERING, is it? That's not taking advantage of a tragedy, is it? That's not, when you get right down to it...scummy and trashy....IS IT???

I'm sorry, but you can't fucking make me believe that the oil companies can't afford to give us a little break at this point, and take it on the chin for America, in this time of so much devastation and tragedy! I mean, lots of people have already lost EVERYTHING, and so these evil bastards raise gas prices FORTY FUCKING CENTS, OVERNIGHT?!!?

You can't mean to tell me that you really think Katrina cost the oil companies FORTY FUCKING CENTS A GALLON?? You can't actually ask me to believe that! I mean, I mighta been born at night, but it wasn't last night! Exxon-Mobil has made RECORD FUCKING PROFITS over the last two quarters, they could give us a break, instead of GOUGING THE FUCK OUT OF US!!!

But that isn't trashy behavior on the oil company's part, though....IS IT???

Why is it when poor, desperate people "loot" things, it's trashy...but when big, rich prick oil companies gouge the crap outta us, that's A-okay?!!? WTF is up with that bunch of fresh bullshit?

And what do you call the oil companies right now? THEY aren't LOOTING, are they?? fucking gas just shot up FORTY FUCKING CENTS in one day here. FORTY FUCKIN' CENTS!!

But that's not LOOTING, is it? That's not PROFITEERING, is it? That's not taking advantage of a tragedy, is it? That's not, when you get right down to it...scummy and trashy....IS IT???

I'm sorry, but you can't fucking make me believe that the oil companies can't afford to give us a little break at this point, and take it on the chin for America, in this time of so much devastation and tragedy! I mean, lots of people have already lost EVERYTHING, and so these evil bastards raise gas prices FORTY FUCKING CENTS, OVERNIGHT?!!?

You can't mean to tell me that you really think Katrina cost the oil companies FORTY FUCKING CENTS A GALLON?? You can't actually ask me to believe that! I mean, I mighta been born at night, but it wasn't last night! Exxon-Mobil has made RECORD FUCKING PROFITS over the last two quarters, they could give us a break, instead of GOUGING THE FUCK OUT OF US!!!

But that isn't trashy behavior on the oil company's part, though....IS IT???

Why is it when poor, desperate people "loot" things, it's trashy...but when big, rich prick oil companies gouge the crap outta us, that's A-okay?!!? WTF is up with that bunch of fresh bullshit?

You need to CALM DOWN. Swearing isn't necessarily against the rules, but an excessive amount of it leads to flaming, so quit it.