ebackhus

FEMA emergency funds were spent on vacations, fine wine, sex changes, and many other things not really necessary for survival.

Clicky.

40sondacurb

From what I understand this was done by scammers and not the actual victims though.

drbillchristian

My opinion is that the Bush administration delibaratley sabotaged the Katrina relief effort so as to provide economic conservatives with yet another recent example of why government-funded anything never does what it is supposed to.

The cash hand-outs were a beautiful master-stroke. Handing debit cards to folks that just walked off the set of the Jerry Springer show.

But I bet George didn't think of it. Cheney maybe.

Zazula

I don't know if it's easy or straightforward to blame some persons or entities for what happened regarding the Katrina relief effort, but one thing I know for sure: The images that reached the whole world as a result of the actions and inactions that followed Katrina (and imagine about the images that were never recorded), were so powerfully saddening... I dare compare them to the 911 scenes and, believe me, they had an even more heartbreaking impact on the very depths of the considerate human beings.

bry623

All of the horrible things that happened in the aftermoath of Katrina were greatly exaggerated. The MSM wanted all to believe that there was.

I completely agree with Dr.Bill's take on governtment funded projects never do what they are supposed to do.

However, if FEMA or a Bushie would have put controls in place to ensure that the funds were going to the right people, W would have been taken to the cleaners over it in the news. It would have made it harder for poor people to get their releif. This in turn would have been seen as rascist and he would have been painted more in that light.

And think of it this way. I file a claim on my insurance and get a FEMA card. I use my FEMA card to rebuild. When my insurance check comes, then I spend it on something stupid without any reports of it in the press.

I may come off as insensitive, but if you live below sea level on a coastal area, move inland.

yustr

Zazula

I've read comments on how the Katrina aftermath is changing the New Orleans population composition, with less low-income African Americans being able to return. It was presented as if there's an effort underway to "purge" the area. Is this true or not?

bry623

With the media it is hard to say.

drbillchristian

The Mayor said it was going to stay dark, brown and bitter.

Er, I never said that. However that is the notion that Republicans seek to prove. They spray-paint it on stained bed-sheets and then wave them around in public, trying to get themsleves elected.

I don't pay attention to the text of the spray-paint, as the message conveyed by the feces is more relevant. These folks s*** the bed, and wave the evidence around like it was badge of honor or a certificate of achievement.

Don't vote for people that are proud of the fact that they befoul their own bed.

Like denying the holocaust, the idea that Government is incapable of doing anything well is an idea can only find traction with the most severely retarded and mentally challenged of the citizenry.

ebackhus

It depends on who tells you that. Now we can't ignore the numbers on how income and race are related in N.O. If you believe what you're being fed by the wonderful media outlets then I can see why you'd be inclined to believe that. If you also think about how hard some people have worked just to live what lives they had there, only to be violently uprooted and shipped off, then it's easy to see that going back will NOT be possible for everyone.

drbillchristian

They built the entire metropolis in a swamp, and expect the rest of the country to pay for it when it gets flooded.

Another example of what happens when the Republicans "de-regulate". Most responsible governments prohibit building in areas that are prone to disaster like this, or at least require those that are foolish enough to do so to carry flood insurance.

Now that the smaller-government Republicans have participated in creating this (and other) disasters, they deny any governmental responsiblity for it, and sabotage whatever governmental programs that were designed to help deal with it.

The WTC towers is another example of deregulated construction methods, and is the primary reason why Osama bin Laden targeted it for destruction.

Finally, the lack of airline and airport security is yet another example of Republican deregulation. Republicans are all about the CHEAP, and it's cheaper to have lax security and airlines than it is to provide adequate security.

So I find it very interesting that Republicans are using these last two events to dissolve Contitutional freedoms & protections. We don't need protection from "terrorists", we need protection from Republicans.

bry623

Actualy you did. Own up to it.

This is just another example of your relentless proofless attacks in this forum.

New Orleans and the whole of Louisiana hasbeen controlled by democrats for a long time. They are the ones that spent federal dollars unwisely.

The republicans have created no disasters that I know of. No one wants to read your posts when they are inciteful, baseless and factless.

drbillchristian

What I actually DID say is:

What is implied in the statement above is that the delibarate failure to effectively utilize the FEMA relief resources was a pretext to "PROVE" that "government-funded anything never does what it is supposed to". But I guess the structure of the sentence and it's implicit meanings were a little too complex for the average Republican to handle.

Now me, I recieved a Public Education (which means funded by the government) in a Northern (meaning superior) school system, so I can handle complex ideas like these with no problem. I apologise for writing beyond the average fascist's ability to comprehend.



Hay, you ever notice how the only people who think that only PROVABLE assertions should be believed are CRIMINALS ? I never met a criminal that didn't consider himself to be an expert on exactly what is and isn't "proof".

Most non-criminals (read non-Republicans) operate on a different level. They have the ability analyze data and think for themselves. They also have the ability to evaluate another person's analysis, while keeping open the possibility for error. Nevertheless, there are a lot of sound and positive decisions that can be made in the absense of definative proof. But these require a certain level of intellectual capability that your average stoop-shouldered Republican Zealot lacks, which is why they need Rush Limbaugh to keep their idealogy "refreshed".

40sondacurb

It happens all the time in LA. They buy the houses in the old neighborhoods and build over them, the difference is that process is natural and of free will, the N.O. thing is more artificial so it just doesn't seem right for them to act so shady about it.

bry623

The only thing that you have proven is your inability to carry on a debate without

• Attacking Republicans
  Insulting those backing it
  Purposefully Inciting those you disagree with
  And providing tangible proof tp backup the extremist stance that we see

I understood your statement. I agreed with it. I thought it had enough meaning to apply to any governement funded thing. I guess I was wrong.

An unprovable assetion holds no weight in a court of law.

I don't always agree with Rush, or Hannity, or Ann Coulter. But they do make sense. After decades of the MSM having a monopoly on the airwaves, conservative pundits serve to balance things out. The liberals counter balance this by any ways they can, usually another attack. :

drbillchristian

Look I thought about this comment for about a day, and I still like it. The only people that show up to a discussion preoccupied with "proof" are scientists, lawyers and criminals. This is political discourse, and there's an entire host of things that are legitimate conversational fodder. There's beliefs, suppositions, opinions, hopes, dreams and out-right lies (such as those the Republicans tell each and every day).

For you to (repeatedly now) attempt to limit the discourse to only that which can be "proven" is quite interesting, as it illuminates exactly where your perspectives are centered. I make regular posts alleging that the Republican Party has routinely commited what in many cases can be described as "Crimes", and here you are, an avowed Republican, interjecting yourself into the debate (cause you could just ignore it you know, but you don't) and running around describing the absence of any "proof".

Frankly (and I don't care what the censors might think of this one) I think this preoccupation with "proof" is indicative of a guilty conscience, which is perfectly understandable.

As a Republican, you have probably been raised (or have self-developed) with a fairly strong sense of what is right & wrong and good & bad. And for as much as you maight want to remain passionatly in favor of the Party that you regard as being best able to promote those values, the Bush administration's execution of political policy for the last 6 years must be putting quite a strain on your conscience.

With all these dead Americans coming home in body bags, it must be becoming more and more difficult for you to feel comfortable remaining a blind advocate for the Republican Party.

And that's the way it should be. So rather than getting all worked up over whatever pretext of "insult" or whatever other secondary issue the smaller and weaker part of you would like to create in order to distract attention, I think it would be better for both yourself and everyone else if you simply considered the possiblity that there may be more here going on than even you suspect.

I meant what I said in another post. Look yourself in the eye in the mirror in the safety of your own bathroom and repeat the words of your "enemy". "Allah Akbar", and see what happens. Do you have the strength to withstand the "consequences" of that act ? Do you have the strength to overcome the fear of commiting that act ?

What happens when you do say these words, the words of your "enemy" and absolutely nothing at all happens ?

What happens when your entire universe turns upside down ?

Finally

What makes you think I am here to "debate" ? I'm not here to discuss the truth, I'm here to give it. Whether or not others recognize the truth and believe in it is what's "debatable", and frankly I'm not real interested in people that need to do that.

Some truths are "self-evident". Yet some people need (for some reason) to "debate" these self-evident truths. Whether it be to a lack of maturity, a dishonest character or some form of neurosis, I'm really not interested in engaging in a discussion with anyone that can be classified thus.

EDIT***

Appendum:

"Self-Evident" Truths: The most obvious: Torture of prisoners is wrong. Authorized torture of prisoners is evil. Administrations that torture enemies will torture anyone that can be classified as enemies. Republicans are predisposed to classify anyone that disagrees with them as "enemies". The Republican Party holds the seeds of fascism, and their continued existance is a threat to Constitutionally protected American Liberty. Something must be done to prevent this from happening. The exercise of speech is the first response, and violant resistance and revolution is the second.

bry623

But, there is no truth in what you post. Only hate.

drbillchristian

I believe it says something about the Character of a person that can read this:

and see only this:

And for the second time:

And finally (again):

yustr

We're way off topic and we're starting to get overly personal.