Bush to Blame

White Shogun · Sep 19, 2005

I realize there are plenty of Bush haters here, but I'm not ready to blame him for steering Hurrican Katrina into New Orleans to steal all the black people's property, which we all know is sitting on undeveloped oil fields.

Tongue in cheek email about Bush's responsibility for Katrina and its victims:

I am really disappointed in President Bush.

First and foremost he failed to stop the hurricane Katrina before it hit the Gulf Coast. Even worse, he should have stopped it before it first hit Southern Florida. Since he failed to take this first action, one would have expected that he should have, as a second thought, moved the entire states of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana to central Texas before Katrina came ashore.

Next he failed to keep the levees in New Orleans from breaking. You would think that our Commander in Chief would have sent Rumsfeld or at least someone in authority to put his or her finger in the dike. Here again, President Bush should have known that the levees wouldn't hold.

Remember, he has the best intelligence organization in the world and they are never wrong.
If that wasn't bad enough, he failed to assemble the national Guard on a minutes notice. Aren't they, after all, the present day "Minutemen?"

I know that it took God 6 days to do His work but the leader of the free world should have been able to beat His time. (Actually it took 6 days after the hurricane to get things stabilized so maybe that's par for the course.)

Remember, he had experience when he responded to the tsunami victims. Didn't it take several weeks of continuing rescue operations to stabilize that area. With that training, he should have had everyone sitting in planes with their engines running at the end of the runways before the hurricane struck.

As a matter of fact he should keep them all at that level all the time because you can never tell when there might be an emergency.

Bush also showed his careless disregard for property damage by concentrating efforts in the flooded areas where people were trapped. By all rights he should have been primarily concerned about getting power back on to the casinos along the Gulf Coast. After all, what is more important, a few people's lives or preserving the government's income from gambling sources.

***
What blows my mind is how President Bush could have reasonably expected people to take any responsibility for themselves. After all, with only a few days notice how could you expect that anyone would take the time to fill up a few jugs of water and stash a few cans of food just because a category 5 hurricane was headed their way? Besides FEMA's suggestion of having 4 days of water and food is just a suggestion. It isn't mandatory.

Bush also failed by expecting local officials to take on any responsibility. After all, isn't it the present Federal Government's responsibility to provide everyone with everything that our ancestors use to do for themselves?

Based on all of the above it is clear that President Bush and his administration are the only possible ones to blame. This calls for a full investigation by all of those totally blameless so that they may reap as much political gain from this tragedy as is possible.

okra63 · Sep 26, 2005

President Bush is the President of the United States, not God. God caused Katrina to develop and blow ashore and destroy what it did. Here in Mississippi we took the brunt of it because the storm went east of New Orleans. Look at some pics of Gulfport, MS.

The fault lies with the mayor of New Orleans for not thinking to do everything to evacuate every person in that city. He acted very foolish as did the governor of Louisianna. If the local and state governments had stepped up and done their jobs then the mess created by Katrina could have been prevented.

I don't know why Bush is going back and forth between the White House and the Gulf Coast, if it is just to show he cares then this is one thing, but if it is to up his popularity then this is something I don't like.

THE FAULT LIES WITH THE LOCAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS IN NEW ORLEANS AND LOUISIANA, NOT PRESIDENT BUSH!!!!!!!

I am not ready to blame President Bush for Katrina either White Shogun.

Bart · Sep 26, 2005

okra63 said:
I am not ready to blame President Bush for Katrina either White Shogun.

I don't blame Bush for the disaster.But his behaviorwas disgusting,groveling before black leaders who called for his head on a platter. He didn't even have the guts to condemn the idiot mayor or the cowardly, treacherous, looting cops and blacks who created havoc throughout the city.

His father acted the same way after the riots in Los Angeles. Blacks openly beat whites with impunity, burned buildings, looted stores and terrorized innocent people. Any words of condemnation from Daddy Bush? Hell no! They're nothing more than North East liberals pretending to be Texas conservatives.Edited by: Bart

White Shogun · Sep 26, 2005

Just so you guys know, I think that the idea Bush could actually steer a hurricane is ludicrous. The text of the email was entirely tongue in cheek.

I do agree with this wholeheartedly:

But his behavior was disgusting, groveling before black leaders who called for his head on a platter. He didn't even have the guts to condemn the idiot mayor or the cowardly, treacherous, looting cops and blacks who created havoc throughout the city.

Bart · Sep 27, 2005

FEMA director Mike Brown dares to place blame on dysfunctional Louisiana government, naming Blanco and Nagin. He alsofaults the office of Homeland Security(Chertoff) for cutting funds.He specificallychastises awoman a Negro a Jew andthe media.Not a good career move. Politicians are falling over themselves trying to discredit him.He's dead meat.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/27/D8CSQ34G0.html

Former FEMA director Michael Brown blamed others for most government failures in responding to Hurricane Katrina on Tuesday, especially Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin. He aggressively defended his own role.

"My biggest mistake was not recognizing by Saturday that Louisiana was dysfunctional," two days before the storm hit, Brown said.

"I've overseen over 150 presidentially declared disasters. I know what I'm doing, and I think I do a pretty darn good job of it," he said.

Criticized by Shays for failing to get better equipment to make communication easier among emergency agencies, Brown blamed those above him.

"We put that money in our budget request and it was removed by the Department of Homeland Security" he said.

"I very strongly personally regret that I was unable to persuade Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin to sit down, get over their differences, and work together. I just couldn't pull that off."

Brown said the lack of an effective evacuation of New Orleans before the storm was "the tipping point for all the other things that went wrong."

A "mandatory" evacuation was ordered Sunday by Nagin, the mayor. However, buses were not provided and thousands of residents were stranded without transportation in low-lying areas.

Bart · Sep 27, 2005

Who is to blame?According to Christian-Zionist evangelist Billye Brim, God was displeased with the Israeli pullout from Gaza. God blesses those who bless the Jews and curses those who curse the Jews. We tampered with his chosenfew andare suffering the consequences.Never mind that without our money and support Israel couldn't survive a week.The displaced were moved to better homes near the same area at our expense so what's the big deal? You'd think they were hauled off in box cars to Auschwitz.

So, God's judgement and wrath manifested in the form of Katrina, causing massive destruction to the unfortunates affected. How manypeople were killed? How many of those were God fearing, tithing, praying Christians? What of the loss of homes, businesses and CHURCHES?What about the suffering and destruction of animals and pets?Apparently God could care less about anything or anybody but Jews.

Billye Brim:Katrina reformed and gained strength even as the Jews were being pulled from their homes. I believe if someone had said, "Stop this stupid, as well as unbiblical pullout," the storm would have died in oblivion.

Southern Knight · Sep 28, 2005

I'll open a huge can of worms here, since the issue of religion has
been touched upon in this thread: Anyone who still subscribes to
the notion of a "supreme being" -- of any type -- is a mental
infant. One cannot be religious and</span> completely rational, as religion is easily the most IRRATIONAL thing ever created by mankind.

Historically, there are only 2 reasons for the creation of any
religion: (1) To consolidate political power under a single leader and
to pacify the masses (e.g., Catholicism), or (2) to separate fools from
their dollars (e.g., Mormonism). That's it. Your "God"
either causes all catastrophes or is powerless to prevent them, and, in
any case, it's a foolish notion to profess a belief in a "spirit" that
somehow controls physical objects.

White_Savage · Sep 28, 2005

SK: It is as irrational to assert with certainity the non-existence of an unprovable like Divinity, as it is to assert any other dogma. Atheism IS a religious position, of a sort, in and of itself. Further more Atheism/Dialetical Materialism has proven to be a "religion" as opposed to Liberty as you can imagine, though of course I am aware that you yourself are FAR from being a Marxist of any kind.

Also humankind demonstrably NEEDS religion in some shape or form, even if it is hooey. It's like sports in that way...no final logically provable reason for it, but the need to have it is there.

If you're worried about bad ideologies swaying the masses the wrong way, (And believe me, I am, such things as universalism, pacifism, "all men are brothers" etc, are POISON to our people), then ironically enough, the place to change it is religion, shaping religous dogmas and others BS (as you would have it) that'll brainwash the masses into walking the straight and narrow, dammit!

Bronk · Sep 28, 2005

I believe in rationality and science and logic and I am a strong Christian, a Christian who was once a devotee of Randian Objectivism. And I can tell you that the gulags, the Cultural Revolution and the Final Solution were the products of rational men with rational aims.

I also think that it is silly to believe that animals and humans evolved with no higher power involved, THAT is truly irrational.

Colonel_Reb · Sep 28, 2005

Well said Bronk!

Wholesale belief in rationality has gotten humans nowhere.

White Shogun · Sep 28, 2005

Don't mind the Southern Knight, he's just upset with us because we play that sissy, gay man-love game, Fantasy Football.

Between that and his views on religion, I'm not sure he likes us very much.

White Shogun · Sep 28, 2005

Your "God" either causes all catastrophes or is powerless to prevent them, and, in any case, it's a foolish notion to profess a belief in a "spirit" that somehow controls physical objects.

Not in every case. Sometimes he doesn't want to do anything about them.

Even some forms of Christianity do not hold that God manipulates the weather or intervenes in our affairs on a daily basis.

Not all 'religions' require a belief in a diety: Scientific Pantheism and Theravada Buddhism to name a couple.

And some would say that atheism and various forms of 'philosophy', are just as religious in nature as any of the world's traditional religions. For example, ever see anyone at a NOW rally? Read any PETA literature lately?

Infantile beliefs and irrational fanatacism are not solely an attribute of religion.

Edited by: White Shogun

Bronk · Sep 28, 2005

I don't find White_Savage to be a bad guy. A diversity of opinions is a good thing here.

White Shogun · Sep 28, 2005

Bronk said:
I don't find White_Savage to be a bad guy. A diversity of opinions is a good thing here.

Did you read something specific here to make you think someone thought White Savage was a bad guy? I missed it, if so.

I believe Southern Knight's opinions about religion were directed towards ALL religions, the Christian variety included, not just the resident pagans.

Bronk · Sep 28, 2005

White Shogun said:
Did you read something specific here to make you think someone thought White Savage was a bad guy?

Nope, I just don't want to be misunderstood.

White Shogun · Sep 28, 2005

Ah, ok, Bronk.

Sorry for misunderstanding. I think White Savage a decent fellow, too.

Bronk · Sep 28, 2005

However, you, White Shogun, are a piss-pants fruit boy.

jaxvid · Sep 28, 2005

White_Savage said:
SK: It is as irrational to assert with certainity the non-existence of an unprovable like Divinity, as it is to assert any other dogma. Atheism IS a religious position, of a sort, in and of itself.

Also humankind demonstrably NEEDS religion in some shape or form, even if it is hooey.

How can it be "irrational" to assert the non-existance of an unprovable? That is precisely why rational thinking exists. To dismiss fantasies that are unprovable. By the very nature of being unprovable something is irrational.

I don't understand how ATHEISM can be considered a religion. You hear this all the time. But those things that typically make up a religion are not found in atheistic thinking. How can it be considered a religion?

What demonstrates that mankind needs religion? I can see no reason to believe that is true.

As for SK's comments on why there are religions, he is being very cynical. People use religion to answer their unanswerable questions which were at one time simple things like: Why does it rain? Why is there a change of seasons? and How do we get sick? Science has answered many of these questions so that religions now exists to answer questions like: Why are we here? Why do we suffer misfortune and pain? And what happens after we die?

Bronk · Sep 29, 2005

I think that those who assert that atheism is a religon do so because atheism = humanism and humanism places its "faith" in science and the power of man. To satisfy the fundamental question of our origin the atheists use the doctrine of Evolution which is still has many questions to work out. Humanists/atheists/materialistic naturalists also assert that everything which does exist is merely the product of matter plus time plus chance. No astronomer has ever seen a black hole. No biologist has ever observed evolution take place. No physicist observed the big bang. Yet all these things are believed in the scientific community.

Back when I was an atheist, my biggest struggle was Dostoevsky's point that if God did not exist then anything and everything was permissible. The Western atheist steals ideas from Christianity, because such things as love, morality, justice etc. are only possible in a God-created and God-controlled universe.

What is necessary for human logic to be useful and even possible? For reason or logic to be of any use to man, it has to be unchanging. What do unchanging laws of logic presuppose? They presuppose an ordered universe wherein man is a rational being. But with the atheist view everything is in flux, including man which makes the unchanging laws of logic an impossibility. The only unchanging law in such a system is that everything is changing.

When the atheist uses reason or logic in order to argue against God, he must steal from Christianity in order to do so. He has to use the Christian view of reality and the Christian view of man in order to use logic.

Can't rationality lead to nutty ideas? Communism is a nutty idea based upon a purely rational, "scientific" worldview that excluded God.

White_Savage · Sep 29, 2005

jaxvid said:
White_Savage said:

What demonstrates that mankind needs religion? I can see no reason to believe that is true.

Click to expand...

Tell you what, you tell me why mankind absolutely NEEDS sports, then I'll tell you my reasons why mankind needs religion.

Just as a tidbit though, take the question you posed-Where do we go when we die? I don't think most people could handle "Your mentality disapears and your body is wormfood." as an answer, even if it's 100$ true. The Romans noted that the Celts were extremely brave in battle, partly because of a strong belief in the afterlife. Most people are better off with a happy "lie" (If you want to call it that) that keeps them from worrying about death and lets them live productively.

Bronk · Sep 29, 2005

[/QUOTE]Most people are better off with a happy "lie" (If you want to call it that) that keeps them from worrying about death and lets them live productively.[/QUOTE]

Well, if it's just a "lie," then let them watch television and believe in what they see there.

White_Savage · Sep 29, 2005

Bronk said:
I believe in rationality and science and logic and I am a strong Christian, a Christian who was once a devotee of Randian Objectivism. And I can tell you that the gulags, the Cultural Revolution and the Final Solution were the products of rational men with rational aims.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. What exactly is rational about Marx's contentions? Right off the bat, they violate fundamental biological understandings of how mammal psychology operates. (Check Robert Ardrey's "The Territorial Imperitive" for more on this.) I could go on and on.

I'm not even going to touch the HoloHoax.

[/QUOTE] I also think that it is silly to believe that animals and humans evolved with no higher power involved, THAT is truly irrational. [/QUOTE]

The interesting thing is that there is more than enough physical evidence to prove to any rational person that men and animals evolved, but the same evidence makes any honest person scratch his head in wonder that something like this could have happened by random chance. Thus the Bible-thumper and the die-hard Atheist are both ignoring evidence or fibbing to a certain degree.

White_Savage · Sep 29, 2005

Most people are better off with a happy "lie" (If you want to call it that) that keeps them from worrying about death and lets them live productively.[/QUOTE]

Well, if it's just a "lie," then let them watch television and believe in what they see there. [/QUOTE]

No, don't you understand the key difference? The lies of modern television-Blacks and Jews and Homosexuals are better than you-Gubment is your friend-Buy our product and girls will want to have sex with you-ad nauseum, lead to MAL-ADAPTIVE behavior.

For a counter-example, "Don't have sex before marriage or God will Get You." is almost certainly a fib or at least an exaggeration, yet if most people believe it, they tend to adopt adaptive behavior patterns.

Bronk · Sep 29, 2005

[/QUOTE]No, don't you understand the key difference?

Yes I do, I was just being glib.

Marx marshalled a stack of statistical evidence to support his claims. He CLAIMED scientific methodology and drew supporters by the throng. BUT, how many reds actually read such a dreary and turgid thing as Das Kapital? Very few. Remember, many people converted to communism after watching the movie "Battleship Poetemkin." Rationalism fueled by irrationality.Edited by: Bronk

Bronk · Sep 29, 2005

Oh, by the way, Marx was a racist who saw blacks as backward and "prehistoric"

Bush to Blame

Hall of Famer

Guru

Hall of Famer

Hall of Famer

Hall of Famer

Hall of Famer

Guru

Mentor

Mentor

Hall of Famer

Hall of Famer

Hall of Famer

Mentor

Hall of Famer

Mentor

Hall of Famer

Mentor

Hall of Famer

Mentor

Mentor

Mentor

Mentor

Mentor

Mentor

Mentor