NationStates Jolt Archive

FEMA has suffered ‘brain drain’ since 2001
Sept. 9, 2005

Five of eight top Federal Emergency Management Agency officials came to their posts with virtually no experience in handling disasters and now lead an agency whose ranks of seasoned crisis managers have thinned dramatically...

FEMA's top three leaders -- Director Michael D. Brown, Chief of Staff Patrick J. Rhode and Deputy Chief of Staff Brooks D. Altshuler -- arrived with ties to President Bush's 2000 campaign or to the White House advance operation, according to the agency. Two other senior operational jobs are filled by a former Republican lieutenant governor of Nebraska and a U.S. Chamber of Commerce official who was once a political operative.

Meanwhile, veterans such as U.S. hurricane specialist Eric Tolbert and World Trade Center disaster managers Laurence W. Zensinger and Bruce P. Baughman -- who led FEMA's offices of response, recovery and preparedness, respectively -- have left since 2003, taking jobs as consultants or state emergency managers, according to current and former officials.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

Because of the turnover, three of the five FEMA chiefs for natural disaster-related operations and nine of 10 regional directors are working in an acting capacity, agency officials said.

Patronage appointments to the crisis-response agency is nothing new to Washington administrations. But inexperience in FEMA's top ranks is emerging as a key concern of local, state and federal leaders as investigators begin to sift through what the government has admitted was a bungled response to Hurricane Katrina.

"FEMA requires strong leadership and experience because state and local governments rely on them," said Trina Sheets, executive director of the National Emergency Management Association. "When you don't have trained, qualified people in those positions, the program suffers as a whole."
© 2005 The Washington Post

*snip
...scorching criticism has been aimed at FEMA, and it starts at the top with Brown, who has admitted to errors in responding to Hurricane Katrina and the flooding in New Orleans. The Oklahoma native, 50, was hired to the agency after a rocky tenure as commissioner of a horse sporting group by former FEMA director Joe M. Allbaugh, the 2000 Bush campaign manager and a college friend of Brown's.

Rhode, Brown's chief of staff, is a former television reporter who came to Washington as advance deputy director for Bush's Austin-based 2000 campaign and then the White House. He joined FEMA in April 2003 after stints at the Commerce Department and the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Altshuler is a former presidential advance man. His predecessor, Scott Morris, was a media strategist for Bush with the Austin firm Maverick Media.

David I. Maurstad, who stepped down as Nebraska lieutenant governor in 2001 to join FEMA, has served as acting director for risk reduction and federal insurance administrator since June 2004. Daniel A. Craig, a onetime political fundraiser and campaign adviser, came to FEMA in 2001 from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, where he directed the eastern regional office, after working as a lobbyist for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.

Department of Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said Brown has managed more than 160 natural disasters as FEMA general counsel and deputy director since 2001, "hands-on experience [that] cannot be understated. Other leadership at FEMA brings particular skill sets -- policy management leadership, for example."

page2 © 2005 The Washington Post

FEAM brain drain? God, that's terrifying. Or it should be for you USians. Considering FEMA has so much potential power, you'd probably want the smartest possible people on the job.

Disgusting. Patronage appointments are hardly new, but at least in recent times our elected officials at least made the attempt to appoint qualified people. Now even that pretense is long gone.

This is the crap that those of us who have been wary of Bush for some time have been trying to point out. It takes a national tragedy (and even that isn't good enough for some people,) to make some people aware of the glaring incompetence of the Bush administration.

Still, some people will continue to support (misplaced) political ideology over competence.

--snip--"...Other leadership at FEMA brings particular skill sets -- policy management leadership, for example."



Policy management? Policy management?? Aaaaaaaggggghhh! These people are F-tards!

*snip...
Touring the wrecked Gulf Coast with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff yesterday, Vice President Cheney also defended FEMA leaders, saying, "We're always trying to strike the right balance" between political appointees and "career professionals that fill the jobs underneath them."

But experts inside and out of government said a "brain drain" of experienced disaster hands throughout the agency, hastened in part by the appointment of leaders without backgrounds in emergency management, has weakened the agency's ability to respond to natural disasters. Some security experts and congressional critics say the exodus was fueled by a bureaucratic reshuffling in Washington in 2003, when FEMA was stripped of its independent Cabinet-level status and folded into the Department of Homeland Security.

Emergency preparedness has atrophied as a result, some analysts said, extending from Washington to localities.

FEMA "has gone downhill within the department, drained of resources and leadership," said I.M. "Mac" Destler, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy. "The crippling of FEMA was one important reason why it failed."

Richard A. Andrews, former emergency services director for the state of California and a member of the president's Homeland Security Advisory Council, said state and local failures were critical in the Katrina response, but competence, funding and political will in Washington were also lacking.

"I do not think fundamentally this is an organizational issue," Andrews said. "You need people in there who have both experience and the confidence of the president, who are able to fight and articulate what FEMA's mission and role is, and who understand how emergency management works."

The agency's troubles are no secret. The Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit group that promotes careers in federal government, ranked FEMA last of 28 agencies studied in 2003.

last page © 2005 The Washington Post

Feel safer yet America? We are reaping the rewards of Bush's War on Competence.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/i/f/bush_worstdisaster.jpg

This entire thread is a bonfire. It needs to be locked!

This entire thread is a bonfire. It needs to be locked!

I think you're attempting to be humorous. At least I hope so. Just in case you're not, may I ask what you find to be so objectionable?

Policy management? Policy management?? Aaaaaaaggggghhh! These people are F-tards!
This, added to the fact that this is the billionth thread about how "Bush can't do anything right" is just the beginning of the reasons this thread is burning. It serves NO other purpose than to bad mouth Bush and piss of conservatives.

It serves NO other purpose than to bad mouth Bush and piss of conservatives.Really... wow...

sicko... look at this pic:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/L/c/bush_abdullah_chaching.jpg

does it piss you off?

Good :D

Really... wow...

sicko... look at this pic:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/L/c/bush_abdullah_chaching.jpg

does it piss you off?

Good :D
Doesn't piss me off a bit. I like Bush, I like his foreign policy, and I like seeing people who don't like him squirm. So just sit there and accept the fact that Bush is in charge, and you aren't. Piss YOU off? :D And check THIS (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=443295) thread out!

*yawn*

So just sit there and accept the fact that Bush is in charge,Oh YEAH...he is in charge all rite...Even if I wanted to forget...CNN keeps reminding me.

Oh YEAH...he is in charge all rite...Even if I wanted to forget...CNN keeps reminding me.
Ha Ha

This, added to the fact that this is the billionth thread about how "Bush can't do anything right" is just the beginning of the reasons this thread is burning. It serves NO other purpose than to bad mouth Bush and piss of conservatives.

When telling the truth is considered to be a flame and that it should be locked down, that is a sign that the so-called free speech of the "free'est" land in the world is nothing more than a sham.

When telling the truth is considered to be a flame and that it should be locked down, that is a sign that the so-called free speech of the "free'est" land in the world is nothing more than a sham.
You think thats bad? Wait for NWO !!!

This, added to the fact that this is the billionth thread about how "Bush can't do anything right" is just the beginning of the reasons this thread is burning. It serves NO other purpose than to bad mouth Bush and piss of conservatives.

Sir, when 1000's of people are dead and their main concern was "policy management," instead of competent emergency management, I think the criticism of the Bush administration, whose main claim was their ability to keep us safe, is not just justified but deperately needed.

I'm sorry if the truth pisses off "conservatives" (though I can't believe any real conservatives would be pleased about the wasteful bumbling of the Bush administration,) but it's high time to remove your head from the sand and recognize the sheer incompetence of the "Bush Policy Management."

I think your comment above, which is dire need of shortening so that it doesn't mess up the page, is more an example of spam or flamage than anything else in this thread.

Five of eight top Federal Emergency Management Agency officials came to their posts with virtually no experience in handling disasters and now lead an agency whose ranks of seasoned crisis managers have thinned dramatically...
Cronyism sucks no matter who does it. It's a sad commentary on politics in general. :(

Cronyism sucks no matter who does it. It's a sad commentary on politics in general. :(

Agreed. Eventually, it reaches a point where we as a people have to put our collective foot down and stop the nonsense.

I'm (for once) as serious as a heart attack that it is my belief that now is that point. All political ideologies aside, we have to punish those who allowed things to erode to this point.

I wish there was a congressional and executive branch reset button so that we could get a whole new group in. They may suck, but at least they won't be comfortable.

Agreed. Eventually, it reaches a point where we as a people have to put our collective foot down and stop the nonsense.

I'm (for once) as serious as a heart attack that it is my belief that now is that point. All political ideologies aside, we have to punish those who allowed things to erode to this point.

I wish there was a congressional and executive branch reset button so that we could get a whole new group in. They may suck, but at least they won't be comfortable.
You and I actually agree on something? [ faints! ] **THUD** ;)

Personally, I would love to see Colin Powell become President of the US. I would work my ass off for the man. Probably ain't gonna happen, though. :(

You and I actually agree on something? [ faints! ] **THUD** ;)

Personally, I would love to see Colin Powell become President of the US. I would work my ass off for the man. Probably ain't gonna happen, though. :(

Actually, I'm more surprised to see you agreeing on this thing. At least inexperience should be recognized as such when it doesn't belong in a department with such responsibilities as head of crisis management eh?

Oh, and welcome back Eut.

You and I actually agree on something? [ faints! ] **THUD** ;)

Personally, I would love to see Colin Powell become President of the US. I would work my ass off for the man. Probably ain't gonna happen, though. :(


He would get my vote.

Actually, I'm more surprised to see you agreeing on this thing. At least inexperience should be recognized as such when it doesn't belong in a department with such responsibilities as head of crisis management eh?

Oh, and welcome back Eut.
Thanks. I appreciate that.

Actually, most on here would be totally shocked at how many times I am at odds with the current administration. I tend to climb all over leftists' cases because they seem to me to know so much better than I what is best for me, and to be arrogant about it. But I have almost as much against the far right as I do against the far left. It just doesn't come out as often because the left does such a bang-up job of criticising GWB. ;)

Many presidents have appointed political supporters to a public office no matter what the office, the competence or incompetence of the director is the real question, if the director was incompetent it is unfortunate, but that is all.

Personally, I would love to see Colin Powell become President of the US. I would work my ass off for the man. Colin Powell was one of the rare brigth spots of the Bush Adm.

I just love it when all the demos go skitzo over Bush
and try so hard to badmouth EVERY DAMN THING HE does.
You know what, in 2008, if, and thats a big IF, the democrates
get one of there own into the White House, I say,
we republicans should criticize, scream, pout, point fingers,
obstruct, undermine every single damn thing that the new guy
will do. For what reason? Because he's a DEMOCRATE!!
everyday, everynight. even when he does something
right, we shall bitch, and moan and groan, just like every single
lib has done so for the past five years. Just bitch, bitch, bitch.
And you wonder why democrates are losing seats in elections!!
HAH!!!!

I just love it when all the demos go skitzo over Bush
and try so hard to badmouth EVERY DAMN THING HE does.
You know what, in 2008, if, and thats a big IF, the democrates
get one of there own into the White House, I say,
we republicans should criticize, scream, pout, point fingers,
obstruct, undermine every single damn thing that the new guy
will do. For what reason? Because he's a DEMOCRATE!!
everyday, everynight. even when he does something
right, we shall bitch, and moan and groan, just like every single
lib has done so for the past five years. Just bitch, bitch, bitch.
And you wonder why democrates are losing seats in elections!!
HAH!!!!

We expect it...it is, after all, exactly what the Republicans did during Clinton's Presidentcy.

The difference: Clinton, for all his faults, was actually competent.

... IF, the democrates
get one of there own into the White House, I say,
we republicans should criticize, scream, pout, point fingers,
obstruct, undermine every single damn thing that the new guy
will do. For what reason? Because he's a DEMOCRATE!!
everyday, everynight. even when he does something
right, we shall bitch, and moan and groan, just like every single
lib has done so for the past five years. Just bitch, bitch, bitch.
And you wonder why democrates are losing seats in elections!!
HAH!!!!sure.... its called Free Speech...

But dont forget...

It all your bitching is baseless...You will simply be ignored.

The difference: Clinton, for all his faults, was actually competent.To be honest...its unfar for Bush...

Clinton had a brainpool full of intelligent competent people...It was hard to find someone like FEMAs Brownie in Clinton ranks...

Clinton had a high quality pool of supporters to choose from.

Its either that...or Bush is so st00pid...that everyone looks like a rocket scientist to him

We expect it...it is, after all, exactly what the Republicans did during Clinton's Presidentcy.

The difference: Clinton, for all his faults, was actually competent.
To be honest, I havent heard as much criticizing of Clinton
as I have during this president's term. Most of what was critisized about Clinton was the fact he couldn't keep his pants on in the White House and then lie about it to the jury. (but thats what liberalism does to ya,)
However, every single damn day I hear, blah blah blah, Bush fucked up, blah blah, idiot, blah blah blah. I mean come on, you mean to tell me every single damn thing he has done the past 5 years was bad? Have you even looked into some of his recent succeses. Oh wait, thats right, the media does not want to credit Bush with anything. Just oooh, he lied to us about the war. He just wants to kill soldiers and keep killing them because he already has.
(Oh, by the way, I'll bet you just love Cindy Sheenan.)
Free speech is what it is, however it does not justify hate speech, to the degree it has come to against Bush.

To be honest...its unfar for Bush...

Clinton had a brainpool full of intelligent competent people...It was hard to find someone like FEMAs Brownie in Clinton ranks...

Clinton had a high quality pool of supporters to choose from.

Its either that...or Bush is so st00pid...that everyone looks like a rocket scientist to him

At least Bush was not caught with his pants down, literally, in the Oval office.
I dont he is dumb enough to go do something like that. Oh what's that? Clinton is a genius? I think not.

At least Bush was not caught with his pants down, literally, in the Oval office.
I dont he is dumb enough to go do something like that. Oh what's that? Clinton is a genius? I think not.

Well, Clinton was a Rhode Scholar, so yes, he likely can be classified as a genius. Even geniuses do stupid things though.

Clinton, to my knowledge, never did cocaine or drove into a ditch while under the influence either.

sure.... its called Free Speech...

But dont forget...

It all your bitching is baseless...You will simply be ignored.

Most of the bitching done on the left is pretty baseless as well,
yet it always makes the top story headlines.
carl Rove, Roberts, Powell, Rice, all have been screwed over and
over by the libs. From calling Carl Rove a traitor and being hanged, to saying Justice Roberts will take us back to the old days of Jim Crow laws. every thing to try and undermine every move Bush makes.
Why?

Well, Clinton was a Rhode Scholar, so yes, he likely can be classified as a genius. Even geniuses do stupid things though.

Clinton, to my knowledge, never did cocaine or drove into a ditch while under the influence either.

I suppose Clinton giving China and North Korea nuclear secrets is ok right?
As long as they use it for good?
D'OH! Now the Koreans and China want to nuke us!

To be honest, I havent heard as much criticizing of Clinton
as I have during this president's term. Most of what was critisized about Clinton was the fact he couldn't keep his pants on in the White House and then lie about it to the jury. (but thats what liberalism does to ya,)
However, every single damn day I hear, blah blah blah, Bush fucked up, blah blah, idiot, blah blah blah. I mean come on, you mean to tell me every single damn thing he has done the past 5 years was bad? Have you even looked into some of his recent succeses. Oh wait, thats right, the media does not want to credit Bush with anything. Just oooh, he lied to us about the war. He just wants to kill soldiers and keep killing them because he already has.
(Oh, by the way, I'll bet you just love Cindy Sheenan.)
Free speech is what it is, however it does not justify hate speech, to the degree it has come to against Bush.

Dude, did you sleep through the 90's? Man, the amount of vitriol over Kosovo alone was ridiculous...and the funny thing was, a lot of the criticism of our going into Kosovo sounds a lot like the Iraq criticism. Republicans were even spouting off things like "you can criticize the president without criticizing the troops." The difference was that Kosovo was quick, relatively cheap, and we didn't lose a single serviceman in battle. Also, the world was with us there, and Clinton had no diplomatic failings during the preamble to the conflict.

The Republicans durning the 90's were ruthless in their criticism of Clinton, and the current air of indignation from them is hypocritical in the extreme.

There's still people who swear that Clinton sold secrets to the Chinese (with no proof whatsoever.)

The big difference was that things were going exceedingly well in the 90's, and yet the Republicans still bitched.

Most of the bitching done on the left is pretty baseless as well,
yet it always makes the top story headlines.
carl Rove, Roberts, Powell, Rice, all have been screwed over and
over by the libs. From calling Carl Rove a traitor and being hanged, to saying Justice Roberts will take us back to the old days of Jim Crow laws. every thing to try and undermine every move Bush makes.
Why?

Well, Karl Rove was irrefutably involved in passing the name of a covert agent to a reporter. Now, as to whether that constitutes a crime...that's still up in the air.

Dude, did you sleep through the 90's? Man, the amount of vitriol over Kosovo alone was ridiculous...and the funny thing was, a lot of the criticism of our going into Kosovo sounds a lot like the Iraq criticism. Republicans were even spouting off things like "you can criticize the president without criticizing the troops." The difference was that Kosovo was quick, relatively cheap, and we didn't lose a single serviceman in battle. Also, the world was with us there, and Clinton had no diplomatic failings during the preamble to the conflict.

The Republicans durning the 90's were ruthless in their criticism of Clinton, and the current air of indignation from them is hypocritical in the extreme.

There's still people who swear that Clinton sold secrets to the Chinese (with no proof whatsoever.)

The big difference was that things were going exceedingly well in the 90's, and yet the Republicans still bitched.

Dude, he did give China secrets on nuclear technology. He sold it to them! it was under the premise of, dont go making bombs out of it now. Why is it that now China is completely revamping its nuclear forces.

Well, Karl Rove was irrefutably involved in passing the name of a covert agent to a reporter. Now, as to whether that constitutes a crime...that's still up in the air.

Mind you Carl Rove never did release the name of any covert agent.
The woman was a pencil pusher who was just sitting in an office in DC for the past six years. To be qualified as a cover agent, she had to have been overseas in the past three years on a covert assignment. She never was. Plus everyone already knew her name, and Rove stated during the interview was for the reporter to go ask the wife of that guy because she would know more about the uranium cake from Africa. Never mentioned the name at all.
She never was a covert, secret agent. Just a desk jocky. It would be saying that every single person who works in the CIA is a secret agent and we cannot say thier names at all, when this is far from the truth.

I suppose Clinton giving China and North Korea nuclear secrets is ok right?
As long as they use it for good?
D'OH! Now the Koreans and China want to nuke us!

See? You're so willing to believe something with no factual basis, just because it fits into your ideological predilection. Where's your proof for this? Hmmm? Ever seen any? I've asked numerous times. No one's even tried to present proof, so excuse me of being a bit leery. Please please please don't present a right-wing blog as proof. You wouldn't accept a left-wing blog as proof of Bush skullduggery, so why should I be laxer in my standards than you?
If you were given an equal amount of proof involving some misconduct by Bush, would you believe it?

Dude, did you sleep through the 90's? Man, the amount of vitriol over Kosovo alone was ridiculous...and the funny thing was, a lot of the criticism of our going into Kosovo sounds a lot like the Iraq criticism. Republicans were even spouting off things like "you can criticize the president without criticizing the troops." The difference was that Kosovo was quick, relatively cheap, and we didn't lose a single serviceman in battle. Also, the world was with us there, and Clinton had no diplomatic failings during the preamble to the conflict.

The Republicans durning the 90's were ruthless in their criticism of Clinton, and the current air of indignation from them is hypocritical in the extreme.

There's still people who swear that Clinton sold secrets to the Chinese (with no proof whatsoever.)

The big difference was that things were going exceedingly well in the 90's, and yet the Republicans still bitched.

Kosovo is alittle different. What about Mogadishu Somalia 1993? 18 US rangers and delta boys killed. Not enough backup? Base closing and and MASSIVE military budget cuts. What about all those half asssed "attacks" on Iraq trying to shake Saddam up? What about his knowledge of a possible 9-11 attack? Why didnt he act after the Kobar Towers bombing? what about the 98 Us embassy bombings? Why didnt he act with a major force on Al Qaeda then, instead of launching a few Tomahawks at some empty training camps.

See? You're so willing to believe something with no factual basis, just because it fits into your ideological predilection. Where's your proof for this? Hmmm? Ever seen any? I've asked numerous times. No one's even tried to present proof, so excuse me of being a bit leery. Please please please don't present a right-wing blog as proof. You wouldn't accept a left-wing blog as proof of Bush skullduggery, so why should I be laxer in my standards than you?
If you were given an equal amount of proof involving some misconduct by Bush, would you believe it?

here ya go.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/29/25139.shtml
wow and it like two years old.

Mind you Carl Rove never did release the name of any covert agent.
The woman was a pencil pusher who was just sitting in an office in DC for the past six years. To be qualified as a cover agent, she had to have been overseas in the past three years on a covert assignment. She never was. Plus everyone already knew her name, and Rove stated during the interview was for the reporter to go ask the wife of that guy because she would know more about the uranium cake from Africa. Never mentioned the name at all.
She never was a covert, secret agent. Just a desk jocky. It would be saying that every single person who works in the CIA is a secret agent and we cannot say thier names at all, when this is far from the truth.

Nope. Sorry. Wrong. In order to be considered covert in just one of many statutes and I emphasize that because it's important, you have to be out of the country in the last 6 years. Other statutes may apply that do not make that distinction. Concentrating on only a single law is a red herring that you have been fed.

Second, she was not just a desk jockey. She was a NOC. That means she had Non Official Cover, meaning the government could not protect her if she was captured. Part of her cover was her desk job. Saying she never was overseas is an outright lie.

Next, and this is indisputable, it wa the CIA itself who called for the investigation into the outing of a covert agent. Are you seriously going to contend that the CIA didn't know if their own employee was covert or not?

Finally, and this is a very very important point. In the Novak article, not only was Plame's name revealed, but so was the fictional consulting company that she used as her cover when she went abroad.

Now, why is this important? Because other agents used the same company as their cover. All the relevant laws mention "information leading to the outing of a covert agent," they say nothing about specific names. In fact, names are unimportant. These as yet unnamed agents could still be undercover as we speak. Also, any contacts Plame had overseas (and she was overseas a lot in years past, and we get this directly from CIA sources) be they fellow agents or informants are now possibly open to scrutiny by foreign operatives.

So, whether Plame herself was applicable under that single statute is irrelevant. Do you think the Justice Department would waste 2 years (and the investigation is still ongoing,) investingating the outing of a CIA employee who was just a pencil pusher?

Okay. Now do you see the importance of the Rove investigation?

o wait, sorry, it appears to be from
a right wing source.
Apparently, declassified documents from
the government dont mean anything
when it comes from a right wing source.

here ya go.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/29/25139.shtml
wow and it like two years old.

Sigh. Didn't I say something about reputable sources? I'd even accept Fox. Like I said, if I presented a source as left-leaning as Newsmax is right-leaning, you'd never ever accept it, so why should I give you more respect than you give me?

Nope. Sorry. Wrong. In order to be considered covert in just one of many statutes and I emphasize that because it's important, you have to be out of the country in the last 6 years. Other statutes may apply that do not make that distinction. Concentrating on only a single law is a red herring that you have been fed.

Second, she was not just a desk jockey. She was a NOC. That means she had Non Official Cover, meaning the government could not protect her if she was captured. Part of her cover was her desk job. Saying she never was overseas is an outright lie.

Next, and this is indisputable, it wa the CIA itself who called for the investigation into the outing of a covert agent. Are you seriously going to contend that the CIA didn't know if their own employee was covert or not?

Finally, and this is a very very important point. In the Novak article, not only was Plame's name revealed, but so was the fictional consulting company that she used as her cover when she went abroad.

Now, why is this important? Because other agents used the same company as their cover. All the relevant laws mention "information leading to the outing of a covert agent," they say nothing about specific names. In fact, names are unimportant. These as yet unnamed agents could still be undercover as we speak. Also, any contacts Plame had overseas (and she was overseas a lot in years past, and we get this directly from CIA sources) be they fellow agents or informants are now possibly open to scrutiny by foreign operatives.

So, whether Plame herself was applicable under that single statute is irrelevant. Do you think the Justice Department would waste 2 years (and the investigation is still ongoing,) investingating the outing of a CIA employee who was just a pencil pusher?

Okay. Now do you see the importance of the Rove investigation?

Wait a minute, I heard her boss say that she never was over seas in the past 6 years on the Sean Hannity Show. It was a while ago and he was confused on why this was such a big deal.

Sigh. Didn't I say something about reputable sources? I'd even accept Fox. Like I said, if I presented a source as left-leaning as Newsmax is right-leaning, you'd never ever accept it, so why should I give you more respect than you give me?
then again, ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, BBC all are as left as humanly possible while Fox is well, the only right side one. and even then thats wrong.

by the way where did you get your info from Gymoor?

o wait, sorry, it appears to be from
a right wing source.
Apparently, declassified documents from
the government dont mean anything
when it comes from a right wing source.

It's a far right wing source. If I posted something from a source that was ideologically left as newsmax is right, you'd dismiss it outright as well. Right? Therefore in order to play this game, we both have to cite reputable mainstream sources. And please don't resort to "the left-wing media" hysteria. We both know the major media outlets are all corporate owned and are therefore at least have right-wing oversight.

lol seriously people, and how is Bush any different from every person before him? They have always done that stuff...only difference between Bush and say Clinton, is Clinton didnt have these kind of emergencies to deal with so his cronies never got called out for anything.. :rolleyes:

Apparently corruption tolerence levels are based solely on how happy the population is at the time... :D

Wait a minute, I heard her boss say that she never was over seas in the past 6 years on the Sean Hannity Show. It was a while ago and he was confused on why this was such a big deal.

Reread my post again. Whether she was overseas in the last 6 years is only relevant under a single law, and is also only relevant if it was only her identity that is jeopardized. There are some important points you missed that can be confirmed by reading up on the DOJ and CIA press releases and the original Novak article and by several follow-ups covered by the mainstream media. Broadcast and print media is held to a higher standard that internet rags, which is why I'm even willing ot accept Fox as a source, even though I disagree with their ideological bent. If I'm willing to accept Fox, the least you can do is accept the other mainstream sources.

Hmm. maybe I should go and check the National
Security Archive and see it for myself.
I am interested in what did clinton really do with China.

Hmm. maybe I should go and check the National
Security Archive and see it for myself.
I am interested in what did clinton really do with China.

Fair enough. If you can find information that doesn't come from Newsmax and the Free Republic (or something similar,) then I'm willing to check it out.

As for calling NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc...as far left as possible, now that's just silly and shows you are a victim of propaganda. You do realize that they are all owned by right-wing corporations don't you? While the reporters may have liberal leanings, their editors, publishers, owners and stock holders definitely do not, and theirs is the final word on what is printed or not.

Unless you honestly think that major corporations would be anti-corporate...

Do you think major corporations are anti-corporate?

Fair enough. If you can find information that doesn't come from Newsmax and the Free Republic (or something similar,) then I'm willing to check it out.

As for calling NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc...as far left as possible, now that's just silly. You do realize that they are all owned by right-wing corporations don't you? Unless you honestly think that major corporations would be anti-corporate...


You make a good point, but I doubt it is 'liberal' in half of the stuff it shows. It only covers BIG news and it tends to be away from business and instead Government (all in good usually) and Disaster. Now that makes sense, but the BBC is a little better I would say in terms of Fox and CNN.

then why does everybody focus on the left and when they
do something wrong, it doesnt get much coverage.
When someone on the right says something wrong,
it is like they are out to crucify them?
Take Howard dean and his comments
on Republicans, or Robert Bird. Can you imagine if
someone like Bush, or Cheney,
or anybody on the right was heard saying those
things about democrates? especially
after dean's racist comments at a convention he
was speaking at. What was it? Oh yeah,
"You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."
Yeah, he gets off scott free.
Now, if a republican had said that, well, he'd
be hanging from the gallows on the front page of every
newspaper and he would be the top story on every news channel.
Why is there such a double standard in the media if it is supposedly
owned by the right wing?

You make a good point, but I doubt it is 'liberal' in half of the stuff it shows. It only covers BIG news and it tends to be away from business and instead Government (all in good usually) and Disaster. Now that makes sense, but the BBC is a little better I would say in terms of Fox and CNN.

If Clinton were guilty of selling secrets to No. Korea and China, do you have ANY doubt that that would be BIG news? I seriously doubt organizations whose main goal is the bottom line would ignore such a gigantic story.

then why does everybody focus on the left ...maybe you...You focus on the Left...

But you should not assume everyone thinks like you.

If Clinton were guilty of selling secrets to No. Korea and China, do you have ANY doubt that that would be BIG news? I seriously doubt organizations whose main goal is the bottom line would ignore such a gigantic story.

Well...that was covered by my post. Something like Bush learning how to swim or Bush actually being stupider then he is already would be ignored. XD

then why does everybody focus on the left and when they
do something wrong, it doesnt get much coverage.
When someone on the right says something wrong,
it is like they are out to crucify them?
Take Howard dean and his comments
on Republicans, or Robert Bird. Can you imagine if
someone like Bush, or Cheney,
or anybody on the right was heard saying those
things about democrates? especially
after dean's racist comments at a convention he
was speaking at. What was it? Oh yeah,
"You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."
Yeah, he gets off scott free.
Now, if a republican had said that, well, he'd
be hanging from the gallows on the front page of every
newspaper and he would be the top story on every news channel.
Why is there such a double standard in the media if it is supposedly
owned by the right wing?

Oh, like offhand remarks by liberals comparing Guantanamo to Nazi germany didn't make the news...

Or a Democrat saying New Orleans should be abandoned didn't make the news.

Don't you remember Jennifer Flowers, and Paula Jones. How about Gary Hart and "Monkey Business."

Dukakis in the Tank.

Mondale talking about raising taxes.

Kerry and the Swift Boats

Gore and the made up "I invented the internet" quote (what he actually said was that he was involved in legislation that helped develop the Arapnet military system eventually become the internet...which is 100% true.)

Gore and the "lock box."

And that's just off the top of my head.

Howard dean:"You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."
Yeah, he gets off scott free.
Now, if a republican had said that, well, he'd
be hanging from the gallows on the front page of every
newspaper and he would be the top story on every news channel.
Why is there such a double standard in the media ...?Lets imagine that for a second:

GWBush:"You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."

I would say...Thats not racist at all...heck...Thats not Bush at all.

Lets imagine that for a second:

GWBush:"You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."

I would say...Thats not racist at all...heck...Thats not Bush at all.

Bush would be assassinated by tomorrow after he said that. I can assure you of that. ^-^

Oh, like offhand remarks by liberals comparing Guantanamo to Nazi germany didn't make the news...

Or a Democrat saying New Orleans should be abandoned didn't make the news.

Don't you remember Jennifer Flowers, and Paula Jones. How about Gary Hart and "Monkey Business."

Dukakis in the Tank.

Mondale talking about raising taxes.

Kerry and the Swift Boats

Gore and the made up "I invented the internet" quote (what he actually said was that he was involved in legislation that helped develop the Arapnet military system eventually become the internet...which is 100% true.)

Gore and the "lock box."

And that's just off the top of my head.

mind you, most of that was brought up on the conservative broadcast radio
and then we heard about it a few days later on the regular TV. The main reason why the Nazi comparison was made into such headlines is because of all the hubbub the conservatives did to get it out there in the first place.

I can assure you of that. ^-^People would realize that was not a true Bush statement...It was made up by the Newspaper....or print error...or something

The thing is, news does have a bias, and that bias is towards the bottom line and sensationalism. Stories about the party in power are always more sensational. Likewise, it's the party in power that determines policy, so it's nonsensical to point fingers at the Democrats about how things are going these days. The Republicans are in power in all three branches. They sought said power voluntarily. So, if things go poorly, they rightfully get the blame. It's nonsensical to blame the impotent for the status-quo.

Howard Dean got off scott free for his brash commentary? Gee, I guess that's why he rode his momentum all the way to the Democratic nomination...oh wait.

God, how many times was Dean's (hyaaaaaaaaaaaa!) yell played over and over on every news channels?

I also, ment to say
every single thing dean and
Robert KKK bird has said about
republicans.
why wasnt that foucused on at all?
I know the ones you said earlier Gymoor,
thats true, they were in the news.
I am just saying, that such comments
have no right to be said by both sides,
and usually if a republican says
something along those same lines, he will
be more critisized than a democrate,
regardless of whos in power.

mind you, most of that was brought up on the conservative broadcast radio
and then we heard about it a few days later on the regular TV. The main reason why the Nazi comparison was made into such headlines is because of all the hubbub the conservatives did to get it out there in the first place.

True, and sometimes the major media outlets do a horrible job at vetting those conservative sources. I mean, if they had picked up on the fact that one of the Swift Boat Veterans was awarded a medal for the same occurence that Kerry was before the story got big, the Swift Boat Veterans might have been consigned to the obscurity they deserved. Even now, was it very well publicized that the Navy itself verified Kerry's record and contradicted the Swifty's story?

I also, ment to say
every single thing dean and
Robert KKK bird has said about
republicans.
why wasnt that foucused on at all?
I know the ones you said earlier Gymoor,
thats true, they were in the news.
I am just saying, that such comments
have no right to be said by both sides,
and usually if a republican says
something along those same lines, he will
be more critisized than a democrate,
regardless of whos in power.

There are plenty of dumb things Republicans say that don't get publicized. Since you aren't looking for them (why would you actively seek to find information that casts people you agree with in a bad light,) you aren't aware of them.
As an example, it is clearly apparent that you didn't know that Novak's article also outed a CIA cover operation, but there it is, right in Novak's article. Novak even gives the name and address of said operation in his article. Surely, leaving Plame out of it, you know that's a big no-no. Has it been made into a big story? No. And yet it might be the thing the whole Justice Department case hangs on. Has anyone in the media made a big deal out of this? Nope. I urge you to dig up Novak's article to see for yourself.

Howard Dean got off scott free for his brash commentary? Gee, I guess that's why he rode his momentum all the way to the Democratic nomination...oh wait.

God, how many times was Dean's (hyaaaaaaaaaaaa!) yell played over and over on every news channels?

that has got to be the best sound bite ever!
loL! yyeeeeaahhhhhhhhhhh!!
granted that has been over done, but I cant help but
laugh when I hear it.
seriously though, why is the media constantly foucusing
on every bad thing that is happeneing in Iraq,
and we hardly ever hear of anything good.
some friends just came back from Iraq and they asked me
why the hell isnt anyone covering the positive stories out of iraq.

There are plenty of dumb things Republicans say that don't get publicized. Since you aren't looking for them (why would you actively seek to find information that casts people you agree with in a bad light,) you aren't aware of them.

Cheney saying "fu*k" yeah that was fun.

I have tried to dig up any insensitive
comments made by republicans
even on super lib sites,
and well, the turn out has been considerably
lower than the democrates record.
Granted Trent Lott is an exception
but even conservatives wanted to take
him down for his comments about Strom Thurmond.
However, I am looking and looking and really, cant find
as many as dean and bird have said in the past.
If anyone finds anything on Republicans to even the
field I would like to see it. really!

that has got to be the best sound bite ever!
loL! yyeeeeaahhhhhhhhhhh!!
granted that has been over done, but I cant help but
laugh when I hear it.
seriously though, why is the media constantly foucusing
on every bad thing that is happeneing in Iraq,
and we hardly ever hear of anything good.
some friends just came back from Iraq and they asked me
why the hell isnt anyone covering the positive stories out of iraq.

When does the news EVER focus on the good, no matter who is in power? Gory details sell, no matter what the political bent. How often do we hear about missing people being found, or great teachers, or local heroes. Fuzzy happy stories about regular everyday conservatives and liberals are rarely reported on, and even when they are, the story is like 1 minute long and it stuufed at the end of the 1/2 hour.
Not only that, but while schools are being built in Iraq and whatnot, Iraq is not a happy place. Yes, the news is not all bad, but there is a war going on, and not enough good things are being done. While it's bad to concentrate only on the grim, it's equally bad to candy-coat war. War sucks. People are getting blown up. Children strap themselves with bombs. Even a lot of the bad goes unreported.

Cheney saying "fu*k" yeah that was fun.

I have tried to dig up any insensitive
comments made by republicans
even on super lib sites,
and well, the turn out has been considerably
lower than the democrates record.
Granted Trent Lott is an exception
but even conservatives wanted to take
him down for his comments about Strom Thurmond.
However, I am looking and looking and really, cant find
as many as dean and bird have said in the past.
If anyone finds anything on Republicans to even the
field I would like to see it. really!

Oh come on. If you can't find ridiculous things that Frist, Santorum, DeLay, Gingrich and Norquist have said, you aren't trying. Besides, I thought your point was that the media quotes the dumb things Republicans say too much, and now you say you can't find enough, even by looking at liberal sites? Come on now...

ok, nothing found yet on Frist.
santorum, 2 quotes
no bad quotes from Delay yet,
nothing on Gingrich,
and nothing too critical of
Norquist.
So, once again not that much on Republicans.
do I have to write down all
of the quotes said by democrates
that were completely insensitive, be it racial
or downright childish namecalling?

People would realize that was not a true Bush statement...It was made up by the Newspaper....or print error...or something

No, if it was a video in a conference or something. Like at the inaugeration day or whatever. Text does not equal video in terms of truth usually.

Most name calling tactics have been used
by the left.
When a Republican is against gay marrage,
he is a homophobe,
when he is against illegal immigration
he is a racist xenophob,
when he is against abortion
he is against all of women rights.
Against stem cell research,
he is a religious fanatic.

ok, nothing found yet on Frist.
santorum, 2 quotes
no bad quotes from Delay yet,
nothing on Gingrich,
and nothing too critical of
Norquist.
So, once again not that much on Republicans.
do I have to write down all
of the quotes said by democrates
that were completely insensitive, be it racial
or downright childish namecalling?

Okay, how about Frist saying that Schiavo was aware and able to track a baloon with her eyes after he viewed an edited videotape? When it was later proven by autopsy that her visual cortex was gone and that she couldn't have possibly seen anything.

Did you happen to catch what Delay said to some Katrina kids at the astrodome?

Not to mention the myriad complaints Delay had about Kosovo...the exact same kind of complaints Delay attacks viciously now.

Keep digging. It'll probably be more illuminating if you find the quotes yourself.

Also, let me make sure you know that I'm aware that Democrats say a lot of dumb things too. Politicians: A. They suck, and they'll stretch the truth and pander to their audience, no matter what their party B. They're human too, and we all stick our feet in our mouths sometimes.

Most name calling tactics have been used
by the left.
When a Republican is against gay marrage,
he is a homophobe,
when he is against illegal immigration
he is a racist xenophob,
when he is against abortion
he is against all of women rights.
Against stem cell research,
he is a religious fanatic.

yada yada yada. And liberals are socialists, they're out to ruin family values, they're anti-american, they hate soldiers, they are moral relativists, they're effete snobbish elitists who are overeducated and they want to kill babies. By making criticisms (even if they're justified) they're helping the enemy. They hate Bush irrationally, and they only criticize because they are crybaby whiners. They want everyone to pay 100% taxes. They only complain about the election because they are sore losers.

It's all crap dude. All of it. Both sides. There aren't even 2 sides. Everyone is different. Every liberal is different, as is every conservative. People can be conservative on one isssue and liberal in another. Some people *gasp* have original ideas or ideas that don't fit a convenient label. Both liberals and conservatives can have good ideas, as can anyone else.

Again, it's all crap. We're fed it because it sells and because it creates votes.

Did you happen to catch what Delay said to some Katrina kids at the astrodome?

Also, let me make sure you know that I'm aware that Democrats say a lot of dumb things too. Politicians: A. They suck, and they'll stretch the truth and pander to their audience, no matter what their party B. They're human too, and we all stick our feet in our mouths sometimes.

No I did not hear what he said.
havent heard the news much recently,
too much school and work. dammit. ;)

But yeah, I do hate politicians myself, republicans and democrates.
In the end we all get screwed by them anyway! I myself am a conservative
and I dont like bush as much either. But I am just sick of hearing
all of these negative comments about him day in and day out. Cant everyone
just shut up and let him do his thing? I dont think it will help him much when all he hears is nothing more than name calling and complaining of everything he does. Instead of critisizing him, how about putting forward better ideas?Not once have I heard the democrates or anyone else offer anything more constructive to counter any of Bush's plans. In the end, I think we can both agree that people, on both sides, should just learn to bite their tounge, and shut up or offer a better idea than what is being put forward, be it demo or repub. What do you think Gymoor?

Feel safer yet America? We are reaping the rewards of Bush's War on Competence.
Hear, F*CKING HEAR!!!!!!

*clangs his cracked bell furiously*

But to get this thread back on track, it's clear that mistakes were made before and after Katrina. This is not a partisan issue. The Mayor sucked, the Governor sucked and the President sucked. No amount of suckiness by any individual excuses the suckiness of others. The reason why we play the blame game is because serious, life ending and property destroying mistakes were made, and unless responsibility is taken by all involved (including, but not limited to Bush,) we risk this all being swept under the rug in the name of political expediency. Everyone needs to be held accountable.

yada yada yada. And liberals are socialists, they're out to ruin family values, they're anti-american, they hate soldiers, they are moral relativists, they're effete snobbish elitists who are overeducated and they want to kill babies. By making criticisms (even if they're justified) they're helping the enemy. They hate Bush irrationally, and they only criticize because they are crybaby whiners. They want everyone to pay 100% taxes. They only complain about the election because they are sore losers.

It's all crap dude. All of it. Both sides. There aren't even 2 sides. Everyone is different. Every liberal is different, as is every conservative. People can be conservative on one isssue and liberal in another. Some people *gasp* have original ideas or ideas that don't fit a convenient label. Both liberals and conservatives can have good ideas, as can anyone else.

Again, it's all crap. We're fed it because it sells and because it creates votes.
I just cant figure out why cant people use ideas from both sides of the spectrum and use them together to make something better.
I am conservative in terms or pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty and pro military. But I do like the idea of more taxes on the richer. Also I dont like how some of these hardcore "righties" only want creationism to be taught and not scientifc ways. But I also dont like the idea of censoring religion to the point of almost shunning it completely as has been done by libs in the past.

But to get this thread back on track, it's clear that mistakes were made before and after Katrina. This is not a partisan issue. The Mayor sucked, the Governor sucked and the President sucked. No amount of suckiness by any individual excuses the suckiness of others. The reason why we play the blame game is because serious, life ending and property destroying mistakes were made, and unless responsibility is taken by all involved (including, but not limited to Bush,) we risk this all being swept under the rug in the name of political expediency. Everyone needs to be held accountable.

true, true. everyone screwed up royal.
Let us not just put the blaime on one side, tis all!

Dude, he did give China secrets on nuclear technology. He sold it to them! it was under the premise of, dont go making bombs out of it now. Why is it that now China is completely revamping its nuclear forces.
So do you know as much about Nixon and China as you think you do about Clinton and China?

No I did not hear what he said.
havent heard the news much recently,
too much school and work. dammit. ;)

But yeah, I do hate politicians myself, republicans and democrates.
In the end we all get screwed by them anyway! I myself am a conservative
and I dont like bush as much either. But I am just sick of hearing
all of these negative comments about him day in and day out. Cant everyone
just shut up and let him do his thing? I dont think it will help him much when all he hears is nothing more than name calling and complaining of everything he does. Instead of critisizing him, how about putting forward better ideas?Not once have I heard the democrates or anyone else offer anything more constructive to counter any of Bush's plans. In the end, I think we can both agree that people, on both sides, should just learn to bite their tounge, and shut up or offer a better idea than what is being put forward, be it demo or repub. What do you think Gymoor?

Few people have the patience to listen to better ideas. Better ideas are complex and nuanced. They take time. They take understanding of specifics that the average person has never been exposed to. Criticisms fit much better into sound-bites, and negative campaigns make for more and bigger headlines. They sell more product. Heck, when Kerry pointed to his website for people to see what his actual plans were, he was criticized for not just telling us...even though in the form the debates took, it would simply be impossible for him to explain his plans verbally. It would take hours, and involve a bunch of boring procedural and law "stuff."

So do you know as much about Nixon and China as you think you do about Clinton and China?
umm...
I think we wnet over this before, I will not comment.
However, all the answers may be found
in the National archives in DC.
Just gotta find time to look it all up. and thats
alotta work.
Plus I think we will be looking back on this
catastrophe and we may never
find the one person who is completely
responsible , beacuse it was everyones fault
in some way!

Wait a minute, I heard her boss say that she never was over seas in the past 6 years on the Sean Hannity Show. It was a while ago and he was confused on why this was such a big deal.
Good of you to show the integrity of where you get your "facts" from.
Hannity? The guy doesn't even know how to dress himself!

Taking into account this article who is suppose to be pointing out that the leadership of FEMA is incompeitent and can do no good... what has been FEMA's level of response for the past 5 years prior to Katrina ? from the shuttle columbia, to 911, to the Hurricanes in Florida ? From what I recall their efforts were commendable.. Why is it we fear the incompeitance only now ? when a disaster whose proporations were so emense no one has ever had the exieriance to deal with an event of such magnitude.

umm...
I think we wnet over this before, I will not comment.
However, all the answers may be found
in the National archives in DC.
Just gotta find time to look it all up. and thats
alotta work.
Plus I think we will be looking back on this
catastrophe and we may never
find the one person who is completely
responsible , beacuse it was everyones fault
in some way!
I'm not asking where you think your answers are, i'm asking if you really know anything about what you're saying. You go ahead and post and don't give me that crap about looking stuff up.
Other than that i agree that there is a huge burden of fault here. Not, however, "everyone"'s fault in some way.

Few people have the patience to listen to better ideas. Better ideas are complex and nuanced. They take time. They take understanding of specifics that the average person has never been exposed to. Criticisms fit much better into sound-bites, and negative campaigns make for more and bigger headlines. They sell more product. Heck, when Kerry pointed to his website for people to see what his actual plans were, he was criticized for not just telling us...even though in the form the debates took, it would simply be impossible for him to explain his plans verbally. It would take hours, and involve a bunch of boring procedural and law "stuff."
yeah, i can see that.
I dunno, do you think it they would be able
to shorten out the ideas behind the plan,
and not make it so gosh darn complicted?
thats one pet peeve I have with the democrates.
they have a tendency (not always!) to give long complicated
answers that dont seem to answer a basic question.
No offense.

I'm not asking where you think your answers are, i'm asking if you really know anything about what you're saying. You go ahead and post and don't give me that crap about looking stuff up.
Other than that i agree that there is a huge burden of fault here. Not, however, "everyone"'s fault in some way.
I've read articals, seen it on the news,
web sites, you name it.
But it has been a while since I have read or seen them.
so I cannot go back to a few years and remeber where exactly
I have seen it. But, once again, it is not like I work
inside the government and can look up every single thing.
Heck, I would like to go through all of the declassified
files and documents and see all of the dirty little secrets the government
has let us finally see, from both side. In politics, no one is an angel.

Yeah, some belongs to New Orleans' city government. It is corrupt beyond reason, from personal accounts I have read.

And of course we have FEMA, and Michael Brown, who knows more about horses than administrating relief efforts.

But I don't think Bush or Nagin deserve much individual blame. They have quite a bit of crap under them and they simply can't handle it all.

Yeah, some belongs to New Orleans' city government. It is corrupt beyond reason, from personal accounts I have read.

And of course we have FEMA, and Michael Brown, who knows more about horses than administrating relief efforts.

But I don't think Bush or Nagin deserve much individual blame. They have quite a bit of crap under them and they simply can't handle it all.

I was surprised when I saw footage of the areas underwater, less then a day after the storm, and saw a whole parking lot of school buses underwater.
I asked myself, why the hell didnt they evacuate with those buses? I understand that many of the people who stayed behind said they were unable to evacuate beacuse of certain issues, but how hard would it have been to find some one to drive those buses and pick everyone up? It has been said for years that this scenario will play out when a Cat. 5 hits N.O.
Nobody paid attention then either. I even remeber reading a National Geographic magazine from a few months ago that accuratly predicted what will happen whe the big one hits the Big Easy! Very scary stuff! Hell If I was living in an area under sea level and heard a Cat. 5 is coming, i would have been sprinting north as fast as humanly possible and take everyone with me.

I just cant figure out why cant people use ideas from both sides of the spectrum and use them together to make something better.
I am conservative in terms or pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty and pro military. But I do like the idea of more taxes on the richer. Also I dont like how some of these hardcore "righties" only want creationism to be taught and not scientifc ways. But I also dont like the idea of censoring religion to the point of almost shunning it completely as has been done by libs in the past.

Here, I can't state the real liberal intent towards the seperation of Church and State better than I did on this page of a thread I started. The liberal intent (as opposed to the intent of some extremist atheists who don't speak for the majority of us but who are constantly quoted by the right as if they do...which i hope you realize now is complete B.S.) is to protect us from ourselves by keeping Church and State two completely seperate blocks of power.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=440851&page=6&pp=15

I think my post is about halfway down the page.

I've read articals, seen it on the news,
web sites, you name it.
But it has been a while since I have read or seen them.
so I cannot go back to a few years and remeber where exactly
I have seen it. But, once again, it is not like I work
inside the government and can look up every single thing.
Heck, I would like to go through all of the declassified
files and documents and see all of the dirty little secrets the government
has let us finally see, from both side. In politics, no one is an angel.
I'm asking YOU to name it. That's the beauty of this medium ... you can
*LINK*
it, or you can
*POST*
it, therefore it leaves the realm of trust/gullibility of the reader/responder here on the forum and then you have something tangible and empirical to deal with.
That's why i asked/am asking you to back yourself up.
You kind of read like you heard scuttlebutt and you neither have the wherewithal nor the scrutiny to bother to know where these ideas come from, and pretty much belittle yourself in the process to not being much more than a right-wing mouthpiece with no true knowledge of the topic. That doesn't help. It's noise.
I'm quite aware of the lack of deific principles of politics ... maybe you should read a few of my other posts on other threads for an inkling.

EDIT: You're in commerce with Gymoor, it would appear.
I think Gymoor provides excellent examples of what i'm talking about. You could try following Gymoor's lead.

I was surprised when I saw footage of the areas underwater, less then a day after the storm, and saw a whole parking lot of school buses underwater.
I asked myself, why the hell didnt they evacuate with those buses? I understand that many of the people who stayed behind said they were unable to evacuate beacuse of certain issues, but how hard would it have been to find some one to drive those buses and pick everyone up? It has been said for years that this scenario will play out when a Cat. 5 hits N.O.
Nobody paid attention then either. I even remeber reading a National Geographic magazine from a few months ago that accuratly predicted what will happen whe the big one hits the Big Easy! Very scary stuff! Hell If I was living in an area under sea level and heard a Cat. 5 is coming, i would have been sprinting north as fast as humanly possible and take everyone with me.

Just to clarify things, the Mayor of NO is indeed a Democrat, but he is a conservative who changed parties because Democrats almost always get elected in NO. He was sharply critical of the Governor and did not endorse her when she ran. There's a lot of infighting between the two of them, and this contributed to the troubles.

Here, I can't state the real liberal intent towards the seperation of Church and State better than I did on this page of a thread I started. The liberal intent (as opposed to the intent of some extremist atheists who don't speak for the majority of us but who are constantly quoted by the right as if they do...which i hope you realize now is complete B.S.) is to protect us from ourselves by keeping Church and State two completely seperate blocks of power.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=440851&page=6&pp=15

I think my post is about halfway down the page.

I do completely understand where you are coming from,
and yes I did read your response.
I have heard either in the constitution or the declaration of
independance that there is a line where it says
something along the lines of a country without religion
or morals ceases to be a country at all.
I was wondering if that was true cause I have heard
both side and I havent had a chance to see it myself.
i do know that the over all idea behind the sepertation
between church and states, is so that the pope
in Rome doesnt control our politics and decisions as well.

Just to clarify things, the Mayor of NO is indeed a Democrat, but he is a conservative who changed parties because Democrats almost always get elected in NO. He was sharply critical of the Governor and did not endorse her when she ran. There's a lot of infighting between the two of them, and this contributed to the troubles.

i also dont think his meltdown on the radio
will help him much in the future.

I do completely understand where you are coming from,
and yes I did read your response.
I have heard either in the constitution or the declaration of
independance that there is a line where it says
something along the lines of a country without religion
or morals ceases to be a country at all.
I was wondering if that was true cause I have heard
both side and I havent had a chance to see it myself.
i do know that the over all idea behind the sepertation
between church and states, is so that the pope
in Rome doesnt control our politics and decisions as well.

I can assure you that that line is not in the Constitution, and the Constitution is the law of the land. Neither is it in the Declaration, but since the D.I. isn't our basis for law, but merely a declaration of our intention to tell King George to stuff it, the point is moot. In fact, Both Jefferson and Adams felt that keeping Religion out of Government made the practice of religion stronger and more pure (we all know how dirty politics is...that's what this thread is all about...why mess up religion with all that crap?)

Here's the constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/

The only problem I have is the left trying to eradicate ALL
signs of religion, be it displays, or holidays, or anything that has
any hint of religious tendencies. like the 10 commandments.
In the end, all it is showing us is the proper way to live by certain moral standards. If you dont believe in God, then dont pay attention
to the first two or three commandments. after all, they were
one of the first laws to written down.

also, if they want to stop all signs of religion
then say good bye to Christmas and turn it back to a
regular work day. No more Christmas vacations, just a nice long
school year without any breaks.
They make it sound like any thing religious that is shown
will ultimately lead to a theocracy.
Back in the old days, children said prayers in public schools,
under god was put into the pledge, people went to church on sundays, and said merry christmas and happy easter, or happy haunikkah.
Were we then a theocracy? No. So why are they trying
so hard to eradicate it from everything we have now?

The only problem I have is the left trying to eradicate ALL
signs of religion, be it displays, or holidays, or anything that has
any hint of religious tendencies. like the 10 commandments.
In the end, all it is showing us is the proper way to live by certain moral standards. If you dont believe in God, then dont pay attention
to the first two or three commandments. after all, they were
one of the first laws to written down.

That's not what the mainstream left is trying to do at all. Like I said, there are some fringe loudmouths who are trying to do that, and the right likes to point at them as the representatives of the left, because it's easier to argue against and gather votes against extreme points of view. What the left is trying to do is make sure that the governemnt and religion do not intersect at all...that the public's money or the government's influence is not spent in any way that endorses a single religion. Therefore a private citizen displaying the 10 Commandments is okay, and is in fact protected by the Constitution. The trouble is when a judge displays it in a government courthouse without any other legal or historical context around it. It gives the impression that that judge is endorsing said religion and might be biased towards it...a definite no-no for a judge. No reasonable person on the left will ever propose the dismantling of churches or the supression of a person's right to practice their religion in any way. What we do not want is the government spending our dime on it, nor do we want people of other religions to feel marginalized. We may disagree with religion in general, but we will fight to the death for you to practice it....just not on government property unless it's part of a larger and inclusive context.

That's not what the mainstream left is trying to do at all. Like I said, there are some fringe loudmouths who are trying to do that, and the right likes to point at them as the representatives of the left, because it's easier to argue against and gather votes against an extreme points of view. What the left is trying to do is make sure that the governemnt and religion do not intersect at all...that the public's money or the government's influence is not spent in any way that endorses a single religion. Therefore a private citizen displaying the 10 Commandments is okay, and is in fact protected by the Constitution. The trouble is when a judge displays it in a government courthouse without any other legal or historical context around it. It gives the impression that that judge is endorsing said religion and might be biased towards it...a definite no-no for a judge. No reasonable person on the left will ever propose the dismantling of churches or the supression of a person's right to practice their religion in any way. What we do not want is the government spending our dime on it, nor do we want people of other religions to feel marginalized. We may disagree with religion in general, but we will fight to the death for you to practice it....just not on government property unless it's part of a larger and inclusive context.
Well, the Ten commandments technically is a historical document no matter how you try to cut it.
I have recently been to Germany. I learned something very interesting there as well. As you know Germany is not a theocracy, but people have to pay a religious tax, regardless of their fate. I know that sounds crazy, but hear me out. the purpose? Germany in a over all Catholic nation, and that tax is not endorsing Catholisim, but it is to keep the churches from falling into disrepare.
What do you think of that? If that was to be even brought up here in the states, there would be a massive outcry of, oh we are turning into a theocrcy like Iran. But like my original statement earlier, we somehow lived with religion being somewhat of a part our lives before and no one complained about it, nor were we offended by it, or were we a theocracy. But now, the over all idea is that the Catholic religion is more offensive to other religions or vice versa and we must change everything so we dont offend the Muslims, or the Jewish. that is why I hate the ACLU.

also, if they want to stop all signs of religion
then say good bye to Christmas and turn it back to a
regular work day. No more Christmas vacations, just a nice long
school year without any breaks.
They make it sound like any thing religious that is shown
will ultimately lead to a theocracy.
Back in the old days, children said prayers in public schools,
under god was put into the pledge, people went to church on sundays, and said merry christmas and happy easter, or happy haunikkah.
Were we then a theocracy? No. So why are they trying
so hard to eradicate it from everything we have now?

Back in the old days we also had racial segregation, discrimination against jews, lesser rights for women, corporal punishment in schools and legal punishments for women who showed their ankles in public. Also, the Pledge of Allegiance originally didn't contain the words "under God." It was added later. The "old days" in the imaginations of some right-wingers never existed. We've made progress, and unfortunately some sacrifices had to be made. Rest assured though, that no one will ever take away your right to put a baby Jesus on your lawn or to practice religion on your own time in any way you see fit.

Well, the Ten commandments technically is a historical document no matter how you try to cut it.
I have recently been to Germany. I learned something very interesting there as well. As you know Germany is not a theocracy, but people have to pay a religious tax, regardless of their fate. I know that sounds crazy, but hear me out. the purpose? Germany in a over all Catholic nation, and that tax is not endorsing Catholisim, but it is to keep the churches from falling into disrepare.
What do you think of that?

I thought the right wing was against extra taxes? :D

Okay, this has been cool, but we've totally threadjacked this thread. Back to Katrina.

I thought the right wing was against extra taxes? :D

Okay, this has been cool, but we've totally threadjacked this thread. Back to Katrina.
yeah I know! lol!
But seriously though,it is interesting that they can do that
in Germany, and its all right.
They dont take much anyway.
My uncle doesnt care because he doesnt want to seethe churches
fall into disrepare.

I thought the right wing was against extra taxes? :D

Okay, this has been cool, but we've totally threadjacked this thread. Back to Katrina.
yeah. you are right.
Over all......
Katrina really screwed up everything.
and everyone has a part to blaimed for.

yeah. you are right.
Over all......
Katrina really screwed up everything.
and everyone has a part to blaimed for.

Not everyone. The Coast Guard did an exemplary job. Sean Penn, after his initial humorous mishap actually went out and saved 40 people. Al Gore spent his own money and personally went and rescued some people as well.

I want to stress that Bush is definitely to blame as well. It was his policies that gutted FEMA and stuck it behind another line of beaurocracy and it was his appointments that filled the highest levels of FEMA with people that had little or no emergency response experience. It was his war that lowered the number of available Nat'l Guardsmen avaiable, and it was his proposed budget cuts that lessened NO's preparedness.

I am not saying that the Governor or the Mayor are not to blame

Not everyone. The Coast Guard did an exemplary job. Sean Penn, after his initial humorous mishap actually went out and saved 40 people. Al Gore spent his own money and personally went and rescued some people as well.

I want to stress that Bush is definitely to blame as well. It was his policies that gutted FEMA and stuck it behind another line of beaurocracy and it was his appointments that filled the highest levels of FEMA with people that had little or no emergency response experience. It was his war that lowered the number of available Nat'l Guardsmen avaiable, and it was his proposed budget cuts that lessened NO's preparedness.

I am not saying that the Governor or the Mayor are not to blame

hell yeah the coast guard did a fantastic job so far. and yes Bush is to blaime as well. But it was said before that FEMA and army corp of engineers budgets were going down during Clinton's years as well, I think around 98-2000 or so. Over all though, Bush did ask the gov of Louisiana if he could send in federal troops right away, and she said not yet. so they waited.

hell yeah the coast guard did a fantastic job so far. and yes Bush is to blaime as well. But it was said before that FEMA and army corp of engineers budgets were going down during Clinton's years as well, I think around 98-2000 or so. Over all though, Bush did ask the gov of Louisiana if he could send in federal troops right away, and she said not yet. so they waited.

While Clinton might have reduced budgets a little, Bush gutted it. Clinton balanced the budget with his program-cutting. Bush had record deficits.

Also, Clinton's FEMA director was considered by all, nonpartisanly, to be an excellent organizer/leader. He's now been hired by the LA Governor to help with the Katrina recovery. Good move by her (finally.)

.. Why is it we fear the incompeitance only now ? when a disaster whose proporations were so emense no one has ever had the exieriance to deal with an event of such magnitude.I worry about the other incompetent repubs Bush has appointed elsewhere...We can only find out when its too late.

I have a feeling Bush has appointed your English teacher :D :D