 sj |
||
|
||
BS: KatrinaGate
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST Date: 07 Jun 06 - 09:04 PM I never have understood exactly what it was that GWB did wrong. This convoluted thread does not address it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 07 Jun 06 - 09:22 PM Yes, it has, GUEST... You just either haven't read this thread 'er you just simply don't like to accepet reality... Probably a combination of the two.... Google up National Repsonse Plan and read what the Bush administration itself put together... No, it wasn't Congress... It was the Bush adminstration that formulated the National Response Plan... Do you know what it says??? I guess not... Maybe before you go getting too righteously indignant maybe you need to reread this thread... After you have done this work if you still have questions then ask them in a more specfic manner that shows that you have a basic grasp of the situation... No offense, but yer post just shows you lack the facts or you would have brought forth a rebuttal that was based on some level of understanding things lik, FEMA, DHS, the National Response Plan, etc... But this does explain why you think this is a "convoluted thread"... You don't have a clue, do you??? So, yeah, it probably is convoluted to you... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST,Rufus Date: 07 Jun 06 - 09:40 PM Be careful Guest. If you don't agree with Bobert you will be declared stpuid and a Bushite. I still can't understand why there are no people from New Orleans complaining about Bush, only people from elsewhere that know it all. If Bush was the sole reason for the disaster, they would be here in droves. Did they all drown or something? Google up the local disaster plans. Here 'tis http://www.cityofno.com/portal.aspx?portal=46&tabid=26 except this one is new an improved. The original one dissapeared off their web site shortly after the hurricane for some strange reason. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:20 PM No one from New Ortleans complaining about Bush, Rufe... Care to expound of where you have come up with this assumption??? Oh, maybe you mean the wealthy white folks who are licking their chops at a chance to steal a city from the folks who used to inhabit it??? Yeah, Don't make much difference in how many m's you stick after the h it don't mean that you have stumbled onto some Holy Grail.... When you have addressed any of the basic positions that I put forth in my intial poats then you can tell me to Google up this or that... Heck, I'd even Google up "Mickey Mouse's Uncle" if you, or anyone would just please, please, please come up withj opne intellegent responst to the positions I took 450 posts ago.... Hey, this ain't rocket suregery here... You either understand the issues and are willing to debate them point by point or you ain't... 450 posts and all I get is, ahhhhhhhh, a big zip from those folks, Bushites, or not, who just think that if they put more m's after the h that those m's will scare me into throwin' up my arms and yellin' "Yeah, Bush is God. He did a fine job with Katrina..." Not.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST,Rufus Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:37 PM If they ain't here they can't answer. Is that so hard to understand? Now 'splain why there ain't nobody from ground zero joinin' you in your nervous breakdown? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 08 Jun 06 - 07:51 PM I ain't the one who's nervous... And, ahhhh, just curious there, Rufe... Have you now appointed yerself the spokesman for the Ground Zero folks as well as the spokesman for the folks who live in New Orleans??? Geeze... Next thing ya know you'll be telling us that God talks to you evert night an' He has appointed you his spokesman??? BTW, seein' as you have appointed yerself the honoray spokesman for the consciouness of all Ground Zero folks, exactly which floor were you on when the towers came down??? Jus curious... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST Date: 09 Jun 06 - 12:18 PM bobert, if Bullshit had the effect of gunpowder, you would have blown Mudcat to Hell long ago. I bet you are of the opinion that GWB should have ordered an Evironmental Impact Study prior to the 2 500# bombs being dropped on that house in Iraq Wednesday. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Amos Date: 09 Jun 06 - 12:43 PM Oh, no; God forbid such niceties should stand in the way of our Shock and Awe. Guest, the odor of BS here is coming from your own drawers. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST,Rufus Date: 09 Jun 06 - 12:51 PM Bobert is the self annointed boohoo for the folks at ground zero seein as there ain't any speakin' for themself. What was that you said about lightin up a stink bomb here on the mudcat? That's about your speed. Throwin things and running like hell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST Date: 09 Jun 06 - 01:37 PM No, Amos, that odor is your breath blowing back in your face. I am thinking that both you and bobert are major contributors to the BS. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 09 Jun 06 - 05:33 PM Hey, Rufe the Goof, you seem to be the one who has tried to use 9/11 to divert attention away from the complete failures of the Bush administration in it's response to Katrina... What you seem to miss, other than the point of this entire thread, is that after 9/11 it was Bush's responsibility to put in place systems to deal with the possibility of another disaster hitting the country... His initial idea of not the Departement of Homeland Security was created but here's the part that you don't seem to get... It was a department meaning that it fell in the organization chart in the executive branch... Do you know what that means, Rufe??? Well, I'm beginning to think that you don't... What it means is that the administartion of, the hiring for, the policies adopted, the systems developed all fall under the executive branch... In this case, that would be George Bush... Think of it like this... He is the CEO and if the product either doesn't sell or id found out to be junk then the directors find another CEO... (Bad example, BNobertm since these days the in thing is to have CEO's that loose money...) Well, CEO or not, the president is in charge of hiring the right folks and making decisions about policies, financing, etc... That is what Bush did... Problem is that FEMA ended up being demoted from a cabinet position and was gutted... Sure, DHS, in theory, was going to take up some slack... Porblem is that neither FEMA nor DHS had claerly defined responsibilities after DHS was organized... Why??? Well, maybe the Bush administration was too focused on Iraq??? Bottom, line, they weren't doing their "homework" and they still aren't... In 2003 FEMA warned the Bushites that "its netweork for registering victims faced a 'crisis of unimaginable porportions' without an infusion of cash, but the Bush administartion has not requested the additional money and Congress has not provided it." (Wsahington Post, 6/4/06, "Ready, Set, Hurrincan") And if another Katrina hit tomorrow the decisions regarding a federal response woud agin be a failure because there isn't one person in charge... We now have 5 PFO's, Princapl Federal Officers (and deputies) and a number of FCO's, Federal Coordinating Officers... Problem is that that even the White House has "reported that the PFO and FCO responsibilies still overlap". (ibid) See, this is why Katrine continues to haunt Bush and his admionsitartion... ***His*** own National Response Plan calls fot the feds to act when a disater is of such magnitude that it swamps eithe local or state government yet the Bush folks haven't done either the heavy lifting to get it orgainzed properly or funded it sufficiently... For a man who likes to boast that it's his job to protect the Amwerican people I'd say he is failing poorly at "his job"... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Amos Date: 09 Jun 06 - 09:14 PM And I can promise you the same scenario will raise its ugly head the next time the whole delta gets lambasted. The national emergency is so well handled that the bridge to Biloxi is STILL lying in smithereens and the shrimp fleet is still hanging from the trees like rusty welded Spanish moss on a bad night. But what the hell, the headlines have died down, so who cares, according to the Rove Policy book, what the ground truth is or how much national misery there is? So, how come we can lose a billion dollars on a wild-ass adventure and not even fix up our own? Seems to me one explanation is there isn't any "our own" involved as far as Bush is concerned. No-one rich enough to deserve Federal support. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 09 Jun 06 - 09:44 PM Yeah, but it goes beyond campaign donators to the simple reality that Bush wasn't ready to really protect anyone at all, irregardless of how much these folks had put into the Bush treasury... I mean, look at Washington, D.C.... On a good day it takes you an hour to get 30 miles into Virginia... This is with staggered work hours and HOV lanes... Now think of a disater hitting Wsahington, D.C. where everyone needed to to evacuated... It really doesn't matter why they needed to be evacuated 'cause it doesn't matter... Evaculating Washington, D.C. is impossible... Evacualting half the people is impossible... Evacuating 25% of the people is impossible... There are no roads out of Wsahington, D.C. to speak of that aren't allready crammed with traffic... These are the kinds of issues that are beyond the scope of Arlington County, Va. or Montgomery County, Md. or the Washington D.C. government... This is where the country really needs to get beyond the huff'n-puff and get down to some serious work of creating ways to protect populations... Somw might argue that folks livin' in population centers don't deserve this much attention but if we look at where the tax dollars come that run the country it is from urban areas so I dobn't believe that the nation should jus' throw up it's hands and say, "Shoot, it's too hard a job" like Bush and his folks have done... These are some very challenging times that beg for folks who can walk the walk... Bush and his folks aren't up to doing much more than riling up their redneck base and cutting taxes to solve any problem out there... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST,Rufus Date: 10 Jun 06 - 08:28 AM This hole Bobert thred is one of hiz stink bombs. Trying to use 9/11 and Katrina to discredit his hated enemy, GWB. What did GWB do to Bobert? He won when Bobert did ever thing he could think of to keep him from winnin, twicet. Now Bobert's got a double hard on for him. In the mean time Bobert has benefited from the improved economy that GWB has brought us, the economy that fell apart under Slick Willy's watch beginnin' in early 2000. While hees benefitten he's a cryin his eyes out like a 2 day old baby calf. Well ain't nobody and no thing perfect, Not Bobert, GWB, Slick Willy, The levees around a below sealevel city, gummint burocracys, nothin. (cept maybe Amos) However when a crybaby feels like cryin he can constantly find faults with one person that he hates and wants to blame everthin on to make hisself feel better. Have fun Bobert. Enjoy yourself cryin tha blues. You are one dem Mississippi blues man ain'tcha? I got those hup two three four occupation Baghdad blues An I hates old Georgie boy right down to his shoes Take it from there |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 10 Jun 06 - 09:23 AM Sorry, Rufe, but yer dead wrong... I have voted for Green Party candidates going back 2 decades now... The last Democtrat I voted for for president was Jimmy Carter... And make that: "An I hates Georgie's policies right down to his shoes..." As fir this thread being a "stink bomb"??? Well, sure it is... I don't deny that Bush's handlin' of Katrina has left the smell of dead fish... Hey, that's the entire point of this thread... As fir this great economy, the forclosure rate on homes is at an all time high??? Hmmmmmmm??? Could that mean that not everyone is seeing this economy as great or just folks deciding that they have grown tired trying to own a home and would prefer to run their hard earned bucks thru a shreader by payin' rent to Boss Hog??? But, hey, Rufe... I'm sure glad you is all comfy even though the middle class is getting squeezed... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Amos Date: 10 Jun 06 - 10:03 AM Rufus: What is your opinion of the national debt? How about the international trade imbalance? Oh, and the budget deficit? How's that strike you -- a good idea? Slick Willie, as you may recall, actually balanced the budget, and was readying up to reduce the debt. Perhaps you enjoy the notion of borrowing money in order to go to war. I seriously doubt whether Slick Georgie has contributed to any growth in the economy. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST,Rufus Date: 10 Jun 06 - 10:29 AM Did you vote Green to defeet Bush? Dem forclosures is due to greedy folks gettin arms to buy overpriced homes thinkin they could flip em and pocket some cash. Weeeel now that the arm has 'em by the 'nads and they caint sell them white elephants, they is tossin the keys back to the bank. Sounds like a lesson learned. Now those low interst rates has run up the prices o homes and the taxes on usens that stayed put. Ain't none of that good and Ah dont like the defisit or the balanse of trade neither. But who is it thets buyin all that furrin made stuff includin oil? And who is it that voted for the war and who approved the money???? You can cry an backpeddel all you want to but ain't nothin goin to change histry. IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION 107th CONGRESS 2d Session H. J. RES. 114 October 10, 2002 JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq; Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism; Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998; Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations'; Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens; Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994); Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'; Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'; Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary; Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'. SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to-- (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. (c) War Powers Resolution Requirements- (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338). (b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress. (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST Date: 10 Jun 06 - 11:15 AM Amos, Amos, Amos, Slick Willie did not balance the budget, the new Rpublican majority, put into place several years after WJC's elction, balanced the budget. Slick Willie as the Prez simply gets credit for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Amos Date: 10 Jun 06 - 11:41 AM RIght. So he does. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Amos Date: 10 Jun 06 - 11:54 AM WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The former emergency management chief who quit amid widespread criticism over his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina said he received an e-mail before his resignation stating President Bush was glad to see the Oval Office had dodged most of the criticism. Michael Brown, former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Friday that he received the e-mail five days before his resignation from a high-level White House official whom he declined to identify. The e-mail stated that Bush was relieved that Brown -- and not Bush or Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff -- was bearing the brunt of the flak over the government's handling of Katrina. (Watch how Brown fell from grace -- 4:00) The September 2005 e-mail reads: "I did hear of one reference to you, at the Cabinet meeting yesterday. I wasn't there, but I heard someone commented that the press was sure beating up on Mike Brown, to which the president replied, 'I'd rather they beat up on him than me or Chertoff.' " The sender adds, "Congratulations on doing a great job of diverting hostile fire away from the leader." CNN has been unable to verify the authenticity of the e-mail, but the White House designation "eop.gov" is part of the sender's e-mail address, indicating it came from the Executive Office of the President. A White House spokesperson said in an e-mail to CNN: "This is an old rumor that surfaced months ago and we're not commenting on it. This story has already been reported and I have heard nothing at all that would substantiate it." The e-mail was provided to CNN on the condition that the sender's name be redacted. Brown said only that the sender was a "good friend of the president," who has been with the president "a long time." Brown said did he, too, considers the sender a friend. While acknowledging that part of a political appointee's job is to "take the sword" for the president, Brown said he has grown weary of Chertoff making him a scapegoat for FEMA's failures in the wake of Katrina. "I'm not willing to take that sword for Michael Chertoff," Brown said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: DMcG Date: 10 Jun 06 - 12:03 PM CNN has been unable to verify the authenticity of the e-mail, but the White House designation "eop.gov" is part of the sender's e-mail address, indicating it came from the Executive Office of the President. It looks as if CNN has not the slightest idea how easy it is to fake an email address. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 10 Jun 06 - 08:14 PM Whetehr or not this e-mail actually exists is of no significance... It is clean that Brownie was set up to take the fall... Problem is that since then he ain't been the lap dog scapegoat that Bush would have preferred... Too bad for Bush that Brown wasn't the architect behind Iraqmire 'er Bush could have killed two birds with one stone... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Amos Date: 10 Jun 06 - 08:58 PM ..But...how do you KNOW Brownie wasn't the real policy wonk? LOL! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 10 Jun 06 - 09:31 PM Nah, Brownie ain't mo dummy, Amos... Scapegoat, yeah, but no dummy... Plus, if Brownie had even said the word "Iraq" 'round Bush, Bush would have pinned Iraqmire on him... No, Iraqmire seems to have that Bush signiture to it... You know, like everything else he has ever attempted to do... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST,Rufus Date: 11 Jun 06 - 09:18 PM Whar's then Nawlins folks that want to put all the blame on Bush? Bobert proudly stuck out his chest and said "I am gonna speak for them dummies down there cause they cant figure it out themselves" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST,Rufus Date: 11 Jun 06 - 09:24 PM Author: Bobert (---.dialsprint.net) Date: 06-05-03 20:10 Don't worry nuthin 'bout dem cats, Dog. Most of 'em ain't worth a good chase. They get their noses up in the air 'bout folks funnin'. Yeah you want to talks about the origins os Scotish folk music fir hours upon end, then that's the joint fir ya. When I first started going over there I'd mess with em' and they'd get all upset and jump up an' down but these days they they ignore me like I'm Casper, 'er something. But I still drop by and mess with 'em jus' fir fun. Now, don't gey me wrong. Some is purdy cool, ahhh,, like Amos, Little Hawk, Bee-Dubya, Kendall, Jerry Rassmussen, Nicole, CarolC and JtS, but most of collectively add up to a big ol, ahhhh, snore! Except the big jerks like Teribus, troll and DougR, who think that George Junior is God.... Enough, let me go on over there, light a stink bomb and skeee-adddle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 12 Jun 06 - 09:34 PM Gol danged. Rufe.... Now you've become a cyber-stalker... I', flattered... Sho nuff am... Geeze, I notices that someone broke into a bag of my trash... That weren't you was it, Rufer??? Hey, if you want my trash, come take the whole bag off with ya and don't just leave the stuff all over the front yard... That was real neaty of ya'.... An', hey, by now you oughtta know the way I is so when I wrote that stuff over at Tweedsblues, hey, I was jus'funnin'... Like who cares??? I say the same crap 'round here... Don't change nuthin'... Bush blew Katrina... Yeah, I know, had Katrina come 'long durin' Clinton's years it would have been the other wat 'round... I jus' call 'um as I sees 'um... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST,Rufus Date: 13 Jun 06 - 12:11 AM "Clinton's years it would have been the other wat 'round" Did ya see this in a dream or did ya see it in your goobered up glasses? I don think you was funnin at all, You jus a troll and you laugh at anybody that disagrees wif your rediculus position on things. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 13 Jun 06 - 09:40 AM No, Rufer, I laugh at trolls who would rather make rediculous statements rather than come up with any reasonable rebuttal to the charges I have made about Bush and his administartion's handling of Katrina... Here we are approaching 500 post in this thread and as of yet no one Bush apologist has done much more than present bumper sticker length rebuttals or attack me personally... Normal behavior for folks who are clueless, I might add... Now perhaps, Rufe the Goof, you'd like to just reread the first post on this thread which lays out my arguments and rebutt them point by point... I'd love for you or any other Bushite to do that... That would, at least, be a starting point... And also check out the date of the post... Hmmmmmmmmm??? See, the story was allready there that early for anyone willing to do the homework... Yeah, alot of what I put forth became common knowledge much later... But the story was in place very early... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST Date: 13 Jun 06 - 10:44 AM bobert, you just won't listen to opposing facts. You want to think you do it bigger, better, first. Runaway egos are very destructive as most times they cause one to ignore the real stuff. For example, "Rovegate". Go back and read what you said and what several others told you, "No conviction!!!!!!!!" Why not do that before you come up with some flimsy excuse. We expect that and realize you are not going to admit you were wrong. Again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 13 Jun 06 - 05:23 PM First of all, GUEST< other than your guys placing the balme on the Mayor and governor, what are these supposed "opposing facts"? Someone tried to bring up something about a tow company wanting to chrage $1000 a car but that ain't got nuthin' to do with nuthin'... No, GUEST, that ain't got nuthin' to do with *my* ego... You would love to shift it to me but it ain't about me... Never has been... I laid out an argument and if you are willing to wade thru hundreds of posts that either attack me or blame everything on Ray Nagan, you won't find any "opposing facts"... Heck, you won't even find any opposing arguments, you know, like rebuttals... May you, GUEST, would like to the the first Bushite to actually defend Bush's administration's handling of Katrina???... Nah, didn't think so so go on back to trying to make this about my ego or me... That's all you have when yer delt a very weak hand... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST,Rufus Date: 13 Jun 06 - 05:58 PM Hey guest: Bobert has said hunerds of times that anybody that dissagrees wif him is a Bushite. That's how he proves his cockeyed theory that everythin is Bushes fault. How does anybody get anythin thru that thick skull except with a RPG to the brain? You can't. Bobert says he's right has always been right and will always be right. Tha truth is he's just a troll by his own andmssion. "let me go on over there, light a stink bomb and skeee-adddle" Thay says weed does permanent damage to the brain and Bobert is tha proof. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Amos Date: 13 Jun 06 - 07:47 PM Hey, RUfus: I doubt you can find one place Bobert has said any such a thing. Bobert has a tendency to settle things based on data which he can point to. If you wanna argue with him, instead of going in like a puffer-fish, all hot air and pointy spnes, go in with some data and see what kind of response you get. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST,Rufus Date: 13 Jun 06 - 08:25 PM Let me conjure up a paralel to Bobert's lame brain argumint. If Bobert declared Fired chicken makes people fat I would not dissagree but ifn Bobert was to ingore and refuse to admit that anything else makes folks fat, that would make him wrong. Of course Bobert would declare that anybody claimin that anythin other than fired chicken is to blame is a fired chicken defender. He would esplain that none of the fired chicken defenders can prove he is wrong. He would point out that a large number of posts proves his point. Well I could esplain that if'n all the fired chicken was done away wif, Folks would still get fat but Bobert wouln't answer except wit a repition of what he already said. Truth is, this is another stink bomb that he has fun with. Now is you, Amos, going to come out public like and say Bush is or ain't the onliest cause of the problems wif Katrina? Or is you goin to take some twisty path sayin that nobody kin prove what Bobert said is wrong? An kin either one of youse nitwits say also what would have happened if FEMA wus allowed to stay an indpendint agincy? An why aint folks from Nawlins weighin in here with their 2 cents and agreein wif Bobert? I done axed that serval times an it gits ingored. Just a bunch of denials and pufferfish stuff stead of an answer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 13 Jun 06 - 09:35 PM First of all, the only Catter who I know who lived in New Orleans when Katrina hit is Pappa Gator... Not too sure where P-Gator is now but he did stop at my house fir dinner on the way down to work on his house... That was back a few months ago... Other than him, I don't think there's any Catters from New Orleans... As fir FEMA's position as an quasi-independent agency like it used to, I'm all for that... But that doesn't change the fact the, cabinet position ot not, FEMA was stripped of staff and funding by Bush at the very same time that Bush was boasting of having the American people protected??? And ther Republican controled Senate has called for FEMA to be renamed (who cares) but also given greater resources... Bush opposes moving FEMA out from under DHS... So what you, Rufe, have suggested (or I think you suggested it..) is something that Bush is against... But I agree and have stated in this thread that FEMA needs to reoraginized and ***funded*** like it was back in the Clinton years... I feel quite strongly about this since I do own one commercial property that is in a flood plane and pay flood insurance to FEMA... As do hundreds of thousands of other folks... That money comes out of my pocket and goes to supposedly protect my investment against flood damage... Maybe you aren't award of this little fact, Rufe??? As for the stink-bomb comment, you still haven't figured out that I will have fun with people when it's time to have fun but when it comes down to discussing policies, I can be dead serious... You might find it intersting that I was one of the orgainizers of a Main Street program in Leesburg, Va. when I owned a business there and was also the promotions comitee chairman that involved me havin' to deal with all kinds of folks in order to get things done... This hardly squares with yer generalization of me as some half crazed pot head... Might of fact, I come from a family of community activists and have been involved with volunteer organizations going back into the early 60's... Hardly matches yer generalization... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST,Woody Date: 13 Jun 06 - 09:45 PM Now can you give is a little history lesson on how FEMA got to be part of DHS? How did FEMA score before DHS gate? (ignored by Bobert) Bushites jsut want to say stuff like "life is good" and leave it at that( "life is good" is a former Bobert quote) "roll the clock back where as head of FEMA I could act without having been so-ordered by the Secretary of GHomaland Security who is aewaitin' his marching orders from the president" (another Bobert quote) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 13 Jun 06 - 10:07 PM So, what's yer point, Woody??? I don't think there is any argument on either side of the isle that FEMA used to do a better job when it had: 1.) authority, 2.) staffing and 3.) resources... The Republican conrtolled Seanate has said as much in recommending that FEMA (renamed or not) be given a larger role in the DHS... Larger role in bureaucracies = more money... You can't have a larger role if you are working witha bare-bones staff and few resources... As for the quotes, other than the usual typos, I'll stand behind them both... Apparently like is good for you, Woody, and that's just peachy... Makes me all warm and fuzzy knowin' that you are one of the 31% who is doing well under Bush... And yeah, I think it is obvious, especially in 20/20 hindsight that FEMA would have been in a better postion after Katrina if Michale Brown didn't have to wait for the order to act... Maybe, you are one of the few folks left on the planet that is so utterly in-love with Bush that thinks that he should make every danged decision, to corral all the powers and to be almighty in the running of every nut-'n-bolt of the government??? Hmmmmmmm??? The guy has taken more time away from the job than any president in history and, if I read you correctly, you want Bush to be the only guy who can get folks to act in the event of a catastrophy??? Is that yer position, Woody??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST Date: 13 Jun 06 - 10:15 PM bobert, I can see where you is a wonderful human bean, coming from a long line of family activists (60's) I wonder why we did not run into you you in Biloxi , New Orleans or a couple other places since 9-02? Well, maybe it was because you were home smokin' some cheap shit and telling lies about the situation and lies about how great you are. If you think you are foolin' everyone, well...........you are not. You are worth a couple chuckles now and then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST,Rufus Date: 13 Jun 06 - 10:19 PM Still tryin' ta backpedal on the stink bomb fun eh? I sorta take folks at their word and call em as I sees 'em. When you talked to Poppagator what was his idys on "Katrinagate"? Now who wanted FEMA un organised? Who wanted to mess with somethin that wasn't broke? Dontch think that had a part in Katrinagate? What do fust responder an secon responder meas? Still sportin' a pony tail? Is life good like you said? An one las thing, Who's responsible for evacuatin' folks and who decides an declares when they responsible ones is overwhlemed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 13 Jun 06 - 10:23 PM GUEST, You, sir (or mam), are a jerk... Why not step out from behind yer little cowardly ambush nest and tell us what you've done in yer life.. You won't becuase you ain't done jack... Have a nice little cowardly life... Coward, washrag, crybaby, creep... Bye |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST Date: 13 Jun 06 - 10:33 PM bobert, did I step on some toes? I never said I have done Jack - you are the one always trying to convince others how wonderful you are. I simply said I d can't remember meeting you in Biloxi, NO and a couple other places. Where were you, by the way? Oh yea, the name calling is classic, sorta' like the 3rd grade. Again, a couple more laughs from the great one. And how do you know that I "havn't done jack"? Man, those toes must really sting! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST,Rufus Date: 13 Jun 06 - 11:03 PM When one cain't give an answer with out incriminatin hisself he has to get all threatinin' like and callin people cowards. Is that how you gets things done in yore home town? I ain't never said I liked Bush. You autiomatically accuze everybody that dissagrees with you of bein a Bushite. It ain't so but it makes you feel holy or somethin as if it proves you is right. When ever Bush's approval ratin' goes down you celebrates an gloats over it. Whenever it goes up you say So What? Ifn we nabbed Bin Laudin tomorry you would say So What? Now don't hurt him or any thin. Give him a lawyer and don't execute him no matter what he done. Would you call him a activist? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Amos Date: 14 Jun 06 - 12:06 AM Bobert is correct in characterizing "Guest"'s posts as cowardly. It is typical fear-driven behaviour to make unkind remarks from behind a safe curtain of anonymity. "Guest" should be ashamed. Rufus: If you don't care for Bush, or for his policies, come out and say so. If you do, come out and say that. Be straight, be brave, and speak your own truth plainly. That's all Bobert does, except when certain pizen-mongers get under his skin. All this rhetorical flaming around doesn;t do either side much good, I guess. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST Date: 14 Jun 06 - 07:20 AM A "safe curtain of anonoymity"????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST Date: 14 Jun 06 - 07:39 AM Oops - "fear driven behavior"? Amos, you can do better than that. I am a secure individual who, while not intentionally causing it, can really get amused at a "bobert" who, when confronted with plain fact, can only resort to name calling. Rufus has him figured out. "Anonymity"? I have no idea what an Amos, a bobert or even a Rufus is and what matter is that? I will never meet these people, I do try to treat them with the respect deserved (key word "deserved") and see no reason to get one's Boxers in a wad while engaging in a forum such as this one. Not a reflection on 'Mudcat', it is just one of thousands, I am sure. And Amos, bobert apparently says a lot for effect. I can not tell if he is a Bullshitter, plays Devils Advocate (that is a cowardly way) or is simply ill informed. I mean no disrepect to him by those comments. Neither do I intend this to be an apology. He apparently does his best to bluff on occasion and to badger on others. I doubt very much that he would admit to an erroneous statement when directly confronted, rather, go with "coward, crybaby, creep", ad infitum. And, there is nothing to be ashamed of, why don't some here go with "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the Kitchen?" With that said, 'bobert, those toes must still be smarting, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 14 Jun 06 - 07:44 AM Ummmmmmmmm, would someone explain to me how if I had been in NO or Bolixa would change the arguments that I laid down in the first poat of this thread??? Or how me being there or not relieves Bush of the F he and his boys have gotten for his handling of the Katrina??? Seems a couple folks here continue to think that attackin' me will somehow make Bush's failures okay... Well, if that is so then why isn't Tim Russert callin' to have me on his show??? Duhhhhhh... Bobert (still waiting for one danged even semi-intellegent rebuttal to charges I made 490 some posts ago...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST,Rufus Date: 14 Jun 06 - 09:34 AM I am still waiting for a honest anser to things like who is responsible for evacuations etc. Ya jest keep skipin over em and keep repeatin "still waiting for one" an then your number gets higher so you think that makes you all high an mitey. Anser this if you kin. How many times has you been told that ya ain't gonna get any defense of yore hated enemy GWB?? All yore gonna get is people tryin to say that it warnt all hiz fault. Yore stink bomb didn't work jest like yore uranium stink bomb and your new Washinton Memorial troll ain't workin. Is you a musician or a stand up comic? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Amos Date: 14 Jun 06 - 09:52 AM A recent article indicates fraud and abuse of Katrina funds up to 1.2 billion dollars. More than enough to save NPR! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST,Rufus Date: 14 Jun 06 - 09:58 AM You iz right as rain Amos but who need NPR? I listens to Cspan. Id like to add that the money was stold by crooked people not FEMA and if FEMA was left alone an independint this might not have happened. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: GUEST Date: 14 Jun 06 - 10:02 AM Amos, probably true but there are other frauds and abuses going on to save us all! |
