Liberal Smiles At Disaster Time

ProudDem said:
Okay.



Why does it matter to you so much whether he admits fault or not? Or are you just attacking my take on this? The gist of his statements are that he is accepting fault.

Right. I agree. But he didn't give it priority. When I mentioned him going to New Orleans after his accepting fault "if" the gov't messed up, it was to show people he cared more than it had been perceived.

It's the correct thing to do when you're upset that others have perceived your actions as not caring and indicative of racism.

Yes, but you see, what he's recommending is above and beyond what the fed gov't does in these situations.

What do you mean by "if it had not been on tv"? Are you talking about the hurricane itself or the aftermath?

bush and the govt did what they and were always going to do what they....none of those things or the timeing of them had anything to do nor were they caused by any outside influences such as the media

your statements that if not for the "outcry from the left" bush and his cronnies would not have gone to the city, nor gone on tv, nor sent aid are simply insane....
 
ProudDem said:
I never said her asking for the independent commission was not political. I just don't see it as her trying to bring down the president.

So your problem all along has been my use of the term "bring down" bring down means "to politically injure an opponents reputation in the minds of the American public". It's a political attack.

Would you say the dems attempted to injure George Bush reputation with criticism regarding the federal response to Katrina. I wouldn't have to spoonfeed you like this if you stop trying to obscure communication by quibbling over terms. You tell me the verb to use and we'll use it. And if you say "neutrally determining reactions to Katrina and making sound recommendations going forward" is their purpose I'll nail you on that too.
 
manu1959 said:
your statements that if not for the "outcry from the left" bush and his cronnies would not have gone to the city, nor gone on tv, nor sent aid are simply insane....

Based on this statement, manu, I don't believe you have read all my posts on this or that you understand what I have said (and I guess it's possible I did not explain myself clearly).

Bush would have gone there anyway. The complaints are that he did not go sooner. That is not MY complaint. That is the general consensus.

I think he would have gone on TV, but I do not believe he would have accepted responsibility had not there been so much criticism about FEMA.

He would have sent aid, but he is going above and beyond what the fed gov't normally does in response to a natural disaster.

"simply insane" LOL
 
ProudDem said:
Based on this statement, manu, I don't believe you have read all my posts on this or that you understand what I have said (and I guess it's possible I did not explain myself clearly).

Bush would have gone there anyway. The complaints are that he did not go sooner. That is not MY complaint. That is the general consensus.

I think he would have gone on TV, but I do not believe he would have accepted responsibility had not there been so much criticism about FEMA.

He would have sent aid, but he is going above and beyond what the fed gov't normally does in response to a natural disaster.

"simply insane" LOL

Is it fair to say your questioning the president's motives?
 
rtwngAvngr said:
So your problem all along has been my use of the term "bring down" bring down means "to politically injure an opponents reputation in the minds of the American public". It's a political attack.

Would you say the dems attempted to injure George Bush reputation with criticism regarding the federal response to Katrina. I wouldn't have to spoonfeed you like this if you stop trying to obscure communication by quibbling over terms. You tell me the verb to use and we'll use it. And if you say "neutrally determining reactions to Katrina and making sound recommendations going forward" is their purpose I'll nail you on that too.

Okay, Avenger, I see where you're coming from. I saw "bring down" as a more severe attack on Bush, like impeachment. So you see any political attack as "bringing down." Okay.

Yes, I would say that the dems wanted to injure Bush's reputation.

Wanna spoonfeed me some more? ;)
 
ProudDem said:
Okay, Avenger, I see where you're coming from. I saw "bring down" as a more severe attack on Bush, like impeachment. So you see any political attack as "bringing down." Okay.

Yes, I would say that the dems wanted to injure Bush's reputation.

Wanna spoonfeed me some more? ;)

Kind of!
:baby4:

This is how I like mine! :boobies:

Got milk?
 
rtwngAvngr said:
Kind of!
:baby4:

This is how I like mine! :boobies:

Got milk?

LOL I almost used that one in the post where I told you I was a woman. Soooo is your "got milk" indicative of your flirting with me.
;)
 
ProudDem said:
LOL I almost used that one in the post where I told you I was a woman. Soooo is your "got milk" indicative of your flirting with me.
;)

It's more a concrete example of it. I'd say. Welcome to the board. At least you can carry on a conversation, which is better than most insane libs who venture here.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
It's more a concrete example of it. I'd say. Welcome to the board. At least you can carry on a conversation, which is better than most insane libs who venture here.

Thank you! I knew you'd grow to like me, Avenger. I do appreciate the compliment. I also appreciated how much you challenged me.
 
ProudDem said:
Based on this statement, manu, I don't believe you have read all my posts on this or that you understand what I have said (and I guess it's possible I did not explain myself clearly).

Bush would have gone there anyway. The complaints are that he did not go sooner. That is not MY complaint. That is the general consensus.

I think he would have gone on TV, but I do not believe he would have accepted responsibility had not there been so much criticism about FEMA.

He would have sent aid, but he is going above and beyond what the fed gov't normally does in response to a natural disaster.

"simply insane" LOL

i read all your posts

how much sooner should he have gone there?

again he did not accept responsibility go read the words he spoke....

he is not going above what the feds normally do....go back and look at how much the feds gave alaska or galvestone (however your spell it) when natural diaster wippped that out...or SF in 06....
 
rtwngAvngr said:
That was my option 3 for you:


So your assertion is that there is no political motivation behind Clinton's asking for this independant commission? Yet you see the Republican squashing the commission as political?

That 800 pound gorilla could shit in your mouth and you'd just ask for another snickers.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: That has really got to be a lot of shit. :poop:
 

Forum List

Back
Top