State of the Union Address

[Baxter]

I had never seen a State of the Union adress before this year's. I personally think President Bush did I fine job delivering his speech. Props to his speech writer...he did good too. I like how he started out with honoring Coretta King and also the sentimental portion in which he mentioned the fallen soldier and his family. My favorite part was toward the beginning when he talked about diference of opinion but still being able to debate in a civil manner. I think we needed to hear that whether we're civil in our debates or not.

As a resident of Louisiana, I noticed that President Bush spent little time talking about Hurrican Katrina. It deserved more time, being one of the highlights of his presidency.

 

[MSgt]

I had never seen a State of the Union adress before this year's. I personally think President Bush did I fine job delivering his speech. Props to his speech writer...he did good too. I like how he started out with honoring Coretta King and also the sentimental portion in which he mentioned the fallen soldier and his family. My favorite part was toward the beginning when he talked about diference of opinion but still being able to debate in a civil manner. I think we needed to hear that whether we're civil in our debates or not.

As a resident of Louisiana, I noticed that President Bush spent little time talking about Hurrican Katrina. It deserved more time, being one of the highlights of his presidency.

Take notes "champs" and "middleground." This is how you critique without the partisan slavery you accuse me of. I guess youth has it's advantages. Well said Baxter.

You are right. Katrina was a highlight in his Presidency and mistakes were made. I just don't know what else he could have said. Katrina exposed our political and beaurocratic weaknesses. Perhaps he could have stated where we have grown from that weakness, but he focused elsewhere.

 

[Baxter]

FEMA tests from months before indicated that the organization couldn't handle such a storm. They knew and did nothing.

I just don't understand why people blame it all in Bush. Last time I checked, he didn't control the weather.

What really got me mad was people saying he didn't care about black people. Technically, only 54% of New Orleans was black. That doesn't mean the rest was white, however. New Orleans was a city compiled of almost every ethnic background in the world.

 

[MSgt]

FEMA tests from months before indicated that the organization couldn't handle such a storm. They knew and did nothing.

I just don't understand why people blame it all in Bush. Last time I checked, he didn't control the weather.

What really got me mad was people saying he didn't care about black people. Technically, only 54% of New Orleans was black. That doesn't mean the rest was white, however. New Orleans was a city compiled of almost every ethnic background in the world.

A very definition of our media world focusing on anything that will sell papers and the general American sucking up every word to suit their own partisan needs.

 

[Middleground]

Take notes "champs" and "middleground." This is how you critique without the partisan slavery you accuse me of. I guess youth has it's advantages. Well said Baxter.

You are right. Katrina was a highlight in his Presidency and mistakes were made. I just don't know what else he could have said. Katrina exposed our political and beaurocratic weaknesses. Perhaps he could have stated where we have grown from that weakness, but he focused elsewhere.

I like how you posed the thought "I just don't know what else he could have said" then go onto answering that very thought:

Perhaps he could have stated where we have grown from that weakness, but he focused elsewhere

Yup, I'm with you on that.

 

[Middleground]

I fail to see what you are bitching about. I need no refresher, but I appreciate your simplistic behavior. It reminds me of who I am dealing with. There are plenty individuals who are slaves to their political masters on this site. You are barking in the wrong direction. You are the consistent basher. The fact that it took one day for the backlash of making such a profound public statement proves what it meant. He made the statement publicly yet diplomacy must still resume. Only a fool would believe that our oil ties to the Middle East would end immediately and only a fool would believe that any President would not have to deal with our current slavery to the Sauds. Hence, the statement that "we need to get our oil interests out of the Middle East." Perhaps you believe that because the President resumed diplomacy for our present needs that the rest of the government and our country has turned its back on ethanol or hydroelectrics? I believe you are making yourself to look like a fool.





Zero? He made the public statement. What were you expecting...ethanol tomorrow....Einstein? We are nowhere near zero. Zero is what we were at with every President before this one. Now, even the Middle East knows that our government is sick of setting aside America's morals and values for our oil from these Lords of Terror.





Hardly. If it were still the case, the Tali Ban would still be in charge in Afghanistan. Al-Queda would still be a threat. Saddam would still be in charge of Iraq. Marines (beside Germans) wouldn't be in Ethiopia and Chad training militants to fight Radical Islam. Marines wouldn't be spying on Radical camps in Bosnia. Indonesia would still be afraid of antagonizing their Radical element. And if it still were the case, the CIA and the military would still be screaming to deaf ears about this failing civilization we face that continues to produce terrorists. Careful with those drum rolls - you are looking foolish again.




Were you surprised? Did you expect such a public statement to be made with no backlash? I wasn't. It was significant. The only fool here is the one that is blinded by hatred and has the need to bash any word that comes from his mouth. If you were a student of the Middle East, terrorism, Radical Islam, and our foreign policy, you would appreciate the significance. Instead you are simply one more American that hangs off of newspaper articles and political verbiage and is completely naive to what is going on out there. Do yourself a favor, study for yourself instead of waiting for it to be fed to you, because what is fed to you is hardly the full story. Again...the fool here is you. Please continue, it's entertaining.




No change from oil to ethanol? Surely a few days is plenty of time for such a quick and easy change.:roll: For someone that likes to throw the word "fool" around, you certainly are proving a case for yourself. You must be one of those that disagree with this "War on Terror" because some terrorists are still alive. Immediate favorable results are for fools without vision. You wear the coat well.



Well, it appears that the personal problem here belongs to "Middleground." Did I embarrass you in the past so much that you feel the need to attempt to embarrass me here? There is no embarrassment. The statement was made. The Sauds didn't like the reality of the truth. The President retracted for the sake of diplomacy and for current oil needs. Perhaps you think he should not have said it? Perhaps you think we should just continue the status quo you bitch about so often? Perhaps you think he should not have practiced diplomacy and watched the oil prices rise and then you could bitch some more about that?

The only Partisan victim here is you. The truth is that is doesn't matter what Bush does, you will complain. Hardly "middleground." Bush has made mistakes. The problem with people like you is that these legit screw ups aren't good enough to complain about. You must find more and it all merely goes back to what you think about Iraq, nothing more - and you type of "blindness?"

GySgt, I'm not going to rebut your answers point-by-point because I think it's fruitless. I do appreciate the time your took to answer, though.

Just let me re-iterate that your previous comments lead me to believe something otherwise in your next day post. You made it a strong point that you were especially happy with what he said about Saudi oil, then nonchalantly proclaim that you know he was not really serious. I was just calling you on it. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding, or perhaps not. I'll just leave it at I read what I read.

 

[jfuh]

FEMA tests from months before indicated that the organization couldn't handle such a storm. They knew and did nothing.

Only after the reorganization and short-sightedness of the administration upon development of homeland security.

I just don't understand why people blame it all in Bush. Last time I checked, he didn't control the weather.

No, he does not control weather. However he does control who is appointed and in charge of FEMA, yet he sent of all idiots, Michael Brown. A hurricane with plenty of months ahead of time to prepare and yet did nothing. Did the White house who is responsible for national security and well being of everyone do anything to make sure we were prepared in so much as asking FEMA or Homeland Security if they were fully prepared? That question is yet to be answered as the White house is still refusing to release documents related to any communiques with FEMA and Homeland Security.

What really got me mad was people saying he didn't care about black people. Technically, only 54% of New Orleans was black. That doesn't mean the rest was white, however. New Orleans was a city compiled of almost every ethnic background in the world.

As you said, 54% of NO is black with the remainder a mixture of various other ethnicities. Fact is that NO is not predominetly white. YEs it's dispicable that people are even bringing up such a suggestion because it really was the incompetance of FEMA to do anything that attributed to this disaster. However as with any issue in the States the question must be asked, would it have been any different if it were Boston or some other predominetely white neighborhood? To disacknowledge this question though is arrogance or ignorance that races are treated equally in the US.

 

[MSgt]

GySgt, I'm not going to rebut your answers point-by-point because I think it's fruitless. I do appreciate the time your took to answer, though.

Just let me re-iterate that your previous comments lead me to believe something otherwise in your next day post. You made it a strong point that you were especially happy with what he said about Saudi oil, then nonchalantly proclaim that you know he was not really serious. I was just calling you on it. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding, or perhaps not. I'll just leave it at I read what I read.

No...you were fantasizing about what your read. What I said was that what he said was significant. Not once did I say or "proclaim" that "he wasn't serious." This would be an invention. You called me on something you invented in your head as "champs" foolishly salivated all over it. I claimed that his statement was significant and then I showed no surprise about the backlash and next day event. (I have enough common sense to recognize these things.) What this President said was serious and it had diplomatic bruising all over it, hence, the next day statement to ease the panicked Sauds. (Further proof that all of today's issues will never come from a President's mouth on public TV.) This is why, him saying it was bigger than ignorant people think. The fact still remains, once it was publicly said, there is no turning back. The President's diplomatic tap dancing has nothing to do with the government and private industry that are the real movers on this.

You act as if since he did say it, all oil exports from the Middle East should stop now, because if it doesn't, he's just full of ****.:roll:

It's funny how you tried to make me look like a fool but instead made yourself one and dragged "Champs" along for the ride.

 

[Middleground]

No...you were fantasizing about what your read. What I said was that what he said was significant. Not once did I say or "proclaim" that "he wasn't serious." This would be an invention. You called me on something you invented in your head as "champs" foolishly salivated all over it. I claimed that his statement was significant and then I showed no surprise about the backlash and next day event. (I have enough common sense to recognize these things.) What this President said was serious and it had diplomatic bruising all over it, hence, the next day statement to ease the panicked Sauds. (Further proof that all of today's issues will never come from a President's mouth on public TV.) This is why, him saying it was bigger than ignorant people think. The fact still remains, once it was publicly said, there is no turning back. The President's diplomatic tap dancing has nothing to do with the government and private industry that are the real movers on this.

You act as if since he did say it, all oil exports from the Middle East should stop now, because if it doesn't, he's just full of ****.:roll:

It's funny how you tried to make me look like a fool but instead made yourself one and dragged "Champs" along for the ride.

Must be so lonely to be so damn smart and psychic.

I deciphered your writing and came to a conclusion. You wrote a zillion times how significant it was that a Prez had the balls to mention it!! What else am I supposed to think? LOL

Your spinning does not convince me. The way I see it, you're a Bush apologist... even after he made a fool of you.

 

[MSgt]

Must be so lonely to be so damn smart and psychic.

I deciphered your writing and came to a conclusion. You wrote a zillion times how significant it was that a Prez had the balls to mention it!! What else am I supposed to think? LOL

Your spinning does not convince me. The way I see it, you're a Bush apologist... even after he made a fool of you.

Once again..you are cluless to what you read. I never said he had the "balls" to say anything. I merely said what he was significant. That's twice you have lied in an attempt to recover your obtuseness and misunderstandings. So far, you are doing a whole lot of accusing, yet you seem to have a need to embelish and lie as you do it. Do you have such personal problems that you would have to act with such pathetic behavior about a statement about a speech? And ussually, the person that calls another person a "Bush apologists" (one who has written commentaries on the mistakes made by this Administration) is just a simple basher who lacks the intellect to converse. Once again, you do not live up to the name "Middleground."

I haven't spun anything. But it is amazing how you continue to add what wasn't there while accusing someone else of "spinning."

I don't know what you are talking about as far as this "fool" notion. Seems to me, the one that writes commentaries and can understand and interpret the bigger issues of this world is less of a fool than a person who merely criticizes and whines constantly about an American Administration. Seems to me the fool here is the one who lacks any understanding of real world politics and diplomacy and is unable to see what is actually going on. If you ever let go of this blind hate for a President and the Middle Eastern study you ignorantly don't agree with, maybe you can rise above such childish reactions as you have displayed thus far. It is doubtful this day will come though. What will probably continue to happen is that you will rely on people like me to interpret reality and feed it to you for you to criticize or believe because you lack any vision to listen to a simple speech and compare it to the real world.

The President makes a very bold statement on international TV about our needs to get away from the Middle East (something that has never happened before) and you act surprised that the House of Saud became upset and you act surprised that the President eased the situation through diplomacy because of current and continued needs. You amusingly call someone who can easily see this happening a "psychic?" How sad for you.

Keep embarrassing yourself. It's entertaining.

 

[ludahai]

A hurricane with plenty of months ahead of time to prepare and yet did nothing.

How do you figure he had MONTHS to prepare for the hurricane. FEMA had AT BEST 48 hours to prepare. They were STILL able to preposition an impressive amount of supplies just outside the disaster zone.

Local authorities were remiss in not having an adequate evacuation plan in place.

 

[Paul]

FEMA tests from months before indicated that the organization couldn't handle such a storm. They knew and did nothing.

I just don't understand why people blame it all in Bush. Last time I checked, he didn't control the weather.

What really got me mad was people saying he didn't care about black people. Technically, only 54% of New Orleans was black. That doesn't mean the rest was white, however. New Orleans was a city compiled of almost every ethnic background in the world.

Actually Fewer than half of the victims were black

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200512\NAT20051214b.html

 

[jfuh]

How do you figure he had MONTHS to prepare for the hurricane. FEMA had AT BEST 48 hours to prepare. They were STILL able to preposition an impressive amount of supplies just outside the disaster zone.

Local authorities were remiss in not having an adequate evacuation plan in place.

Being it is you, let me clarify. Not only did they have months, in fact they had years. NO is situated on the gulf of Mexico, Hurricanes are not uncommon to say the least. Yet nearly 70% of NO is below sea level. Major infrastructure to suppor the mere existance of NO has been failing for the last several decades, and it had been well known by the army corp of engineering and all others in engineering circles that the levees and support systems would not be able to withstand even a level 2 hurricane much less a level 4.

Now when tropical storms form near the equator in the carribean, it still takes several weeks before it would reach anywhere close to NO, not to mention several track changes. Especially during "Hurricane Season". Yet not one single administration official, and this is inclusive of both federal and local officials did anything to help the situation.

However, with relation to why I feel the adminstration greatly and significantly erred? Because FEMA knew damn well that they could not face such a natural disaster. Brown did nothing. Source.

Even though FEMA placed supplies, they were far from capable of getting those supplies to where they were needed. Not to mention completely uncoordinated in thier efforts.

 

[jfuh]

Actually Fewer than half of the victims were black

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200512\NAT20051214b.html

CNS news is hardly a credible source. CNS is very subjective on thier reports, just the way FOX news is, if not more.

 

[KCConservative]

CNS news is hardly a credible source. CNS is very subjective on thier reports, just the way FOX news is, if not more.

And CNS cited their source as the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. How many other sources would you like that supports the claim?

 

[jfuh]

And CNS cited their source as the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. How many other sources would you like that supports the claim?

Read what I wrote. CNS is not a very credible news source.
I'm not debating the figures, I'm suggesting that he not use that as a source. CNS is too infamous for being subjective and interpretting in it's own ideology of reports.
Is there something you oppose to my suggestion of using more credible and non-polar news sources?

 

[KCConservative]

Read what I wrote. CNS is not a very credible news source.
I'm not debating the figures, I'm suggesting that he not use that as a source. CNS is too infamous for being subjective and interpretting in it's own ideology of reports.
Is there something you oppose to my suggestion of using more credible and non-polar news sources?

Why defame the source if your intention was not to refute the numbers?

 

[jfuh]

Why defame the source if your intention was not to refute the numbers?

Do not assume what you do not know.
It's a bad source, that's it, a good debate should avoid the usage of bad sources, that simple. Notice I did not refute those numbers?
For that matter, the point being of those numbers?

 

[KCConservative]

Do not assume what you do not know.
It's a bad source, that's it, a good debate should avoid the usage of bad sources, that simple. Notice I did not refute those numbers?
For that matter, the point being of those numbers?

So you would agree, then, that in the days following the hurricane, the media continued to report false data in an attempt to skew public opinion, cast unfair blame on President Bush and ignite a racial controversy.

 

[jfuh]

So you would agree, then, that in the days following the hurricane, the media continued to report false data in an attempt to skew public opinion, cast unfair blame on President Bush and ignite a racial controversy.

I agree with all the statistics provided by the health department.

I also agree with the rediculous nonsense the media presented in the days immediately proceeding the hurricane. However I do not agree that unfair blame was being cast on the president. The president along with all other officials share equal blame. However since the president is at the top of the food chain, just as a captain is fully responsible for all the actions of his crew aboard a ship, the president then is responsible. As Truman put it nicely during his days in office on the plackard on his desk, "the buck stops here".

 

[debate_junkie]

Only after the reorganization and short-sightedness of the administration upon development of homeland security.


No, he does not control weather. However he does control who is appointed and in charge of FEMA, yet he sent of all idiots, Michael Brown. A hurricane with plenty of months ahead of time to prepare and yet did nothing. Did the White house who is responsible for national security and well being of everyone do anything to make sure we were prepared in so much as asking FEMA or Homeland Security if they were fully prepared? That question is yet to be answered as the White house is still refusing to release documents related to any communiques with FEMA and Homeland Security.

As you said, 54% of NO is black with the remainder a mixture of various other ethnicities. Fact is that NO is not predominetly white. YEs it's dispicable that people are even bringing up such a suggestion because it really was the incompetance of FEMA to do anything that attributed to this disaster. However as with any issue in the States the question must be asked, would it have been any different if it were Boston or some other predominetely white neighborhood? To disacknowledge this question though is arrogance or ignorance that races are treated equally in the US.

Nagan and Blanco had the SAME amount of time to prepare for Katrina that the President and FEMA had. They could have and SHOULD have done more for the residents of their city/state in the days prior to Katrina. Katrina was forecast to make landfall in NO on Thursday... yet the mandatory evacuation wasn't handed down until Sunday. Is that complimentary planning? (and why is this being revisited? It isn't like most don't already know where the facts lie)

 

[jfuh]

Nagan and Blanco had the SAME amount of time to prepare for Katrina that the President and FEMA had. They could have and SHOULD have done more for the residents of their city/state in the days prior to Katrina. Katrina was forecast to make landfall in NO on Thursday... yet the mandatory evacuation wasn't handed down until Sunday. Is that complimentary planning? (and why is this being revisited? It isn't like most don't already know where the facts lie)

Like I said, they're all to blame and share the responsibility. There is no doubt whatsoever that the local leaders should've done far more than they did.
It is undeniable however, that the federal level did nothing but swap emails back and forth about a laundry list of purchased items, ect. Not something that is to be expected of national emergency response.
Also as I've stated, I'm waiting to see the white house exchange during Katrina.

 

[Baxter]

Actually Fewer than half of the victims were black

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200512\NAT20051214b.html

I was stating that the city itself was just over half black. As I said, almost every race of people in the world has a few of its own in New Orleans.

 

[ludahai]

Being it is you, let me clarify. Not only did they have months, in fact they had years. NO is situated on the gulf of Mexico, Hurricanes are not uncommon to say the least. Yet nearly 70% of NO is below sea level. Major infrastructure to suppor the mere existance of NO has been failing for the last several decades, and it had been well known by the army corp of engineering and all others in engineering circles that the levees and support systems would not be able to withstand even a level 2 hurricane much less a level 4.

Actually, such powerful storms are NOT so common along the Gulf Coast. They are far more common further south as well as on the southeast ATLANTIC coast.

Now when tropical storms form near the equator in the carribean, it still takes several weeks before it would reach anywhere close to NO, not to mention several track changes. Especially during "Hurricane Season". Yet not one single administration official, and this is inclusive of both federal and local officials did anything to help the situation.

Actually, the Caribbean is not that close to the equator (the equator runs through Ecuador and northern Brazil) Also, New Orleans is no where NEAR the Caribbean and Katrina was never in the Caribbean. It formed just off the southeast coast of Florida, quickly strengthened to a category one storm less than two days before it was classified as a tropical storm. After passing through the Florida Peninsula, the original forecast track had the storm running north along the west coast of Florida where it was expected to his the Florida Panhandle near Pensacola. It was only about 24 hours later that it was clear that the course would be further west and it strengthened with frightening speed. It was about TWO DAYS before landfall that New Orleans was within the 'cone of uncertainty' of the storm forecast. To say that they had months or even weeks of warning to prepare for Katrina and evacuate the city is pure fantasy.

Even though FEMA placed supplies, they were far from capable of getting those supplies to where they were needed. Not to mention completely uncoordinated in thier efforts.

They were unable to get the supplies in because the local infrastructure was destroyed or severely damaged!

 

[ludahai]

However since the president is at the top of the food chain, just as a captain is fully responsible for all the actions of his crew aboard a ship, the president then is responsible. As Truman put it nicely during his days in office on the plackard on his desk, "the buck stops here".

Are you familar with federalism? Local authorities were responsible for preparing for the immediate evacuation and first response. Those preparations should be prepared INDEPENDENT of federal officials.