Nagin responded to warnings and pleaded for help.
Posted By: Bush ignored warnings and pleas. Nice job. nm on 2008-08-31
In Reply to: Bush is not running for president...nice try. - sam
nm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
If Blanco and Nagin had done what the...
experts told them to do and evacuated sooner the "plight" would not have been near as great. Oh, but that doesn't matter does it? LOL. Sip, sip.
No warnings to the neocons
Nothing but attacks, nasty attacks from the neocons and they expect you to watch out for them? I think watching the republican party and their beloved Bush disintegrate before their eyes has made them lose a few screws. If the shoe were on the other foot, would they be so kind as to warn the liberals about a computer virus. Of course they wouldnt.
Try again. Nagin made the first evacuation order voluntary when everyone told him it should be mand
he waited a full 24 hours after that to make it mandatory. In his defense, nothing like Katrina had happened before, and he probably thought he had time. And people were not leaving like they should, because they had been through hurricanes before, right? That's what they thought. And by the time it finally sunk in and the evac order was made mandatory, they did not have time to get everyone out, and even THEN people refused to get out. the logistics had become impossible. You refuse to recognize any of that. The timeline said that every time Nagin asked for anything the President responded. Right on site FEMA did not respond as it should to some things, but that is not the fault of George Bush personally.
George Bush ignored nothing. He declared emergencies when asked, he mobilized FEMA, he tried to get state and local authorities to grant the federals more power to take over...you see by separation of power, he HAS to do that. He cannot MAKE the state and local authorities do any thing if they do not wish to. They have to abrigate power to the feds, and they were late in doing so.
But go ahead...blame one single man for a disaster. It is sad, sad that hate is so focused on one single man that it blinds a person to anything else.
Scare tactics or stern warnings.....sm
Just got to thinking about this after ExMQMT made the statements she did below about being scared. Now, I know there was an element of sarcasm in her post, and I can appreciate the dark humor of it.
However, I think people really should look at the big picture here and understand that, with all of the findings (and yes, they are documented) of Obama's associations and religious upbringing, he could very possibly be a threat to our nation in a lot of ways. When the Russians were "loaded for moose" back in the 1950s, people were warned about the danger, but a lot of them chose to call it scare tactics. Granted, Russia never blew us off the map, but knowing that they could and that they were a threat to our country made our citizens more aware that there was more to life than what was going on in their own secure back yard. Saying that Obama is a threat to us because of his associations and religious beliefs (Muslim or Wright-brand religion) is not a scare tactic to coerce people into voting for him. It is a stern warning that this man is a wolf in sheep's clothing and that we need to be aware of the implications of electing someone who is such a person.
warnings of false gods and religions in the bible...nm
I'm not cold. It's not the government's fault if people ignore warnings.
I have no idea what McCain is doing in the Gulf today. That shows he is well meaning but probably has not lived after a hurricane. Everything to be done is done by now for someone who will be there for the storm. The real work will really start in about 4 days. Unless he is just there to give moral support to the national guard and dmat teams.
I wish he had not changed the convention schedule.
I responded to your above in the
x
I responded to the challenge in the OP.
I have responded to this by adding comments to each item. Don't need to check my facts. I already researched my points the first time around. I put them out there the way I see it. Items 1 through 8 occurred prior to 1995 under a democratic majority Congress. Number 9 was a cooperative international initiative that played out in UN International Tribunal and did not involve direct participation by the US congress. A lengthy explanation by way of disclaimer appears in #10. Numbers 11 and 13 have no comment as I am certain the republicans would like to take all the credit for those. Bill Clinton went against his own party's best efforts to oppose numbers 11 and 13 and did employ line vetoes to them or otherwise obstruct these laws. He signed them into law. That's all I was trying to say, in response to the challenge from the original poster
1. Family and Medical Leave Act.
2. Established web-based information and communication systems in the White House, federal agencies, US Courts and military.
3. Brady Bill requiring background checks on handgun purchase.
4. Expansion of earned income credit.
5. Balanced the budget.
6. Cut taxes for low-income families.
7. Cut taxes for small business.
8. Restricted government spending.
9. In cooperation with NATO, Slobodan Milosevic convicted for crimes against humanity for ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavian Republic.
10. Communications Decency Act to regulate pornography on the Internet.
11. Welfare reform.
12. Increased minimum wage.
Defense of Marriage Act (right-wingers ought to love that one).
13. Maintained high approval ratings throughout his presidency, leaving office with record-breaking 73% approval ratings IN SPITE OF unsuccessful impeachment proceedings.
14. Booming economy.
15. Creation of $559 billion budget surplus.
So what exactly are you trying to say…that Bill Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with any legislative initiatives that transpired after the so-called Republican revolution in 1995? Looks like trying to hog the spotlight to me.
yea, I'm sure the poster that responded to me . . .
tattled on me, so that explains that :>(
I know how you feel. Responded to GP's
poll about why voting for McCain and had my response dissected because obviously GP didn't like one of my reasons for why I'm voting the way I am.
I responded to the OP post above. (sm)
I think the most immediate and urgent problem facing us is the economy.
All the "experts" have been wrong about this so far. As I said, Paulson can't even stay on the same page HE WROTE. The only people, so far, who are benefiting from the trillion dollar bailout are the richest of the rich. The government is buying banks (isn't that fascism?).
If we are truly headed for the next "Great Depression," then there is literally not one person who is alive who had the "experience" to handle the last depression that could be brought to help with the current one.
I truly hope your feeling that Obama would rule with an "iron fist in the velvet glove" is correct, and for now that's pretty much all I can hope for. Only time will tell, I guess. I just keep getting a very gloomy feeling about the future, and I fear that something very, VERY bad is going to happen very, VERY soon -- within months, not years. 
I was curious if anyone responded
My computer crashed and I've been offline for a couple days. (Talk about totally lost). There are so many great quotes of our founding fathers. Their dreams, hopes and everything they worked for to build a great country is being destroyed. It's just all very sad. They sacrificed so much and some lost everything and people don't seem to care.
Thank you for responding to my message. Don't ask where I found that quote though cos I lost everything in the crash. Although thinking about that now maybe it was a good thing. HA HA HA.
Maybe this will clarify why ND responded that way.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-12-10-corruptstates_N.htm
Yes I read their comments about USA Today. The OP did analysis had very similar results. Here are a few more who beg to differ:
http://www.drudge.com/news/115767/nd-most-corrupt-state
http://minnesotaindependent.com/20089/most-corrupt-new-york-times-vindicates-north-dakota-sort-of
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2008/12/is_illinois_the_most_corrupt_s.html
http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/louisiana-most-corrupt-state-in-the-us/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jan/18/20040118-114320-9103r/
http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1008-04.htm
She ignored that ridiculous statement and responded to the
*nice* reference where she was called an elitist pig.
She replied with Yup, elistist pig here..Yeehhaaww~~
Where DOES one find glasses that can twist and contort a statement out of recognition until it reflects what you want it to say? 
you responded to posts from a YEAR ago....
 old old news.........
I think you responded to the wrong thread.
I believe the Obama has just responded in the news....sm
and "me" is right.
Obama is for Obama. Period.
He won't suspend his campaign. He wants the debate to go on.
At least McCain has class and leadership in this area.
Obama is...well....just for Obama
The copout was saying because no one responded to your post about Wright...
that there must be nothing to it. THAT is a copout. I didn't say anything about any of the other stuff you posted here. As to being tortured for 7 years, electing to stay when you could have been released and not have to endure years more...simply because you felt other men deserved to be released before you? That is the strength of character and devotion to country the Presidency has not seen in YEARS and is SORELY needed. I would have thought YOU would have appreciated that.
I think you responded to the wrong person here. You're
My whole point was that the UK is not the country to talk about banning "extreme" ideas. They're loaded with extremists yammering on every street corner and advocating violent jihad.
If you go back and reread the post gt posted about Laura I responded to that. sm
And, if you were following what I was saying I was talking about the posts on the neocon board between Nan, AG and the Nameless Trolls.
Get the picture?
|
