Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
calfoxwc

Obamao's Katrina

Recommended Posts

"Well to a guy who thinks government is the answer to all prayers huh?"

 

You did it again.

 

" For a guy who believes government never does anything right, "

 

What, that?

 

 

You don't take governing very seriously either. You think you could put Sarah Palin in and it wouldn't matter.

 

Or Obama? Or Harriet Meiers? Or Elena Kagan? Or Jesse Ventura? Or John Edwards?

 

So I'm not surprised you can't see the difference between the two approaches.

 

 

No you wouldn't be. Shep would be a better president than Bush as I recall.

 

.

But it keeps you from having to think about these things for more than a split-second.

 

As long as it takes you to read D or R after the name I suppose.

 

"It's all the same."

 

There, you're done for the day. That was easy.

 

No more or less than imagining the president knows shit from shinola about the situation.

 

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh xxxx me. Are you kidding?

 

Would have been easier to type, "I know you are but what am I?"

 

Let's stop forever.

 

 

Why not?

If that's the best you can come up with......

 

 

(no wonder you're so easily impressed)

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, man. You seem to be a mostly decent guy, if a bit grizzled. I bet we'd enjoy a few drinks together. I just can't find any purpose to these discussions. If you can't tell the difference between two very unlike things, it makes it really hard to have a discussion about anything where even the tiniest bit of subtlety is necessary.

 

I keep hoping this will get to another level. I guess I have to accept that this is the only level.

 

If I'm ever up by your little island I'll be sure to drop by the bar and buy you one. Or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly, man. You seem to be a mostly decent guy, if a bit grizzled. I bet we'd enjoy a few drinks together. I just can't find any purpose to these discussions. If you can't tell the difference between two very unlike things, it makes it really hard to have a discussion about anything where even the tiniest bit of subtlety is necessary.

 

I keep hoping this will get to another level. I guess I have to accept that this is the only level.

 

If I'm ever up by your little island I'll be sure to drop by the bar and buy you one. Or two.

 

 

Oh I understand how this stuff goes.

There's not a doubt in my mind that we'd get along fine.

 

I know a guy from Mass on another list. It used to be a discussion group for a certain type of recording gear but as that equipment became obsolete, devolved into politics.

The lefties there eventually ran off everyone from the center and right off.

My friend is one of the worst. I rarely post there these days but have been a mamber for many years.

Even before the purge.

;)

 

I mean Bob Herbert is the closest thing to the center that makes it to the list.

Usually it's Olberman Maddow and worse.

 

Anyway he came through ohio and we met up. I took him to La Dolce Vita in Little Italy, had a great time and never even mentioned politics.

 

But as to being grizzled I'm being 100% honest when I say you seem a lot crankier than I do here.

And I'd say more predictable.

(then again we have no impartial judge her so...)

 

I'll get more into the "qualification" bit later but I'll sum it up by saying that no one man is capable of running every aspect of a high school football team alone. Not one. Let alone a country. So...

 

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course not. But nobody thinks that either. Did you imagine someone thinks this? It's not the point.

 

I can't think of a single other person I know on the right - and I know a lot of them - who would ever try to the make cases that you make. I guess that makes you unique, but I'm not sure it's unique in a good way. I mean, you can't tell the difference between Obama and Edwards, or Obama and Palin, or Miers and Kagan? One can only come to the conclusion that you have no clue how our government actually works, and have substituted in your Cliff Note version, which you use only to dismiss legitimate concerns as illegitimate griping. Because that's easy.

 

Which is why we should move on. What we discuss isn't at all relevant to what's actually happening in Washington, or in reality. And in a weird way, talking on T and Cal's bullshit is actually more relevant than what you and I tend to discuss. At least there are millions of equally clueless/paranoid/ignorant people who read the same nonsense Cal and T read and think it's true. And I can tell them how it's not true, and that we're not banning the media from covering the oil spill, and that the health care bill does not have death panels in it, and the government isn't going to be inserting microchips into your body. But it's not as if they're sentient enough to know what's true and what isn't anyway. They're so lost it's almost comical, except that they also vote, so it's not.

 

So those conversations are next to pointless as well.

 

You? I think I'd rather just drink with you. I'll listen to you do your Gordon Lightfoot thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, Heck, you have now completely changed the subject of a thread you didn't like AGAIN.

 

You really seem to be afraid of discussing issues.

 

"Miers and Kagan"

 

Go back and read the subject of this thread.

 

Then, grow some integrity and courage, and actually START YOUR OWN THREAD.

 

Unless you're too much a coward to let people know what you think up front about things.

 

Too much fun to sit back, Mzbeetlejuice style, and play verbal "hitman" on subjects you don't like?

 

I'll start a Miers and Kagan thread if you are afraid to.

 

Miers was a TERRIBLE choice because she "didn't have experience" (hint: she was not an activist -

 

she was an originalist).

 

Kagan is a "WONDERFUL" choice because he lack of experience is "refreshing" and will bring "diversity"

 

to the Court. (hint: Kagan is an activist liberal who is a long time old friend of Obama, she has never been a judge,

never argued a case before the Court, nor appeals court, no paper trail..... but she was overruled 8-0 on her

booting recruiters off the Harvard campus because of the military's (and BILL CLINTON's compromise "don't ask, don't tell" rule)

 

meanwhile, the POINT OF THE THREAD, Heck, is that the vilification of Bush over Katrina, pales in comparision to what

SHOULD be happening with Obamao and his chavez-morphing regime.

 

Weather can't be avoided. Allowing off shore drilling without a plan in case things go wrong is not.

 

It was said before, that it was ALWAYS BUSH's FAULT because "the buck stops with him".

 

Sad to see the hypocrisy by you libs/progressives/seemingly corrupt somebeeches ....

 

the buck stops with BP...and probably, still with Bush.

 

The American public is tired of the lies, they see through the empty suit, Obamao wears the "King's new clothes",

 

and his presidential is butt ugly.

 

So there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course not. But nobody thinks that either. Did you imagine someone thinks this? It's not the point.

 

I can't think of a single other person I know on the right - and I know a lot of them - who would ever try to the make cases that you make. I guess that makes you unique, but I'm not sure it's unique in a good way. I mean, you can't tell the difference between Obama and Edwards, or Obama and Palin, or Miers and Kagan? One can only come to the conclusion that you have no clue how our government actually works, and have substituted in your Cliff Note version, which you use only to dismiss legitimate concerns as illegitimate griping. Because that's easy.

 

Which is why we should move on. What we discuss isn't at all relevant to what's actually happening in Washington, or in reality. And in a weird way, talking on T and Cal's bullshit is actually more relevant than what you and I tend to discuss. At least there are millions of equally clueless/paranoid/ignorant people who read the same nonsense Cal and T read and think it's true. And I can tell them how it's not true, and that we're not banning the media from covering the oil spill, and that the health care bill does not have death panels in it, and the government isn't going to be inserting microchips into your body. But it's not as if they're sentient enough to know what's true and what isn't anyway. They're so lost it's almost comical, except that they also vote, so it's not.

 

So those conversations are next to pointless as well.

 

Well I'll go down the path most traveled and tell ya that I don't believe for a second that if Bush had appointed an idealogical soulmate with the same experience as Kagan, well, you know.

 

Qualifications aren't what either of us want. We want someone who sells our preferences.

And Edwards and Obama are remarkably equally qualified, meaning almost none.

Palin (I assume) would have a set of advisors to do the heavy lifting just as Bush and Obama have.

SHe'd give speeches to blast the opponents and play to the base.

Just like Obama does. And Reagan did. Just like Shep or I would.

W never seemed to me to be a man of stature. Oh well.

Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld did.

 

You? I think I'd rather just drink with you. I'll listen to you do your Gordon Lightfoot thing.

 

I cover a Stan Rogers (speaking of Canadien baritones) tune on the upcoming CD; it's on the audio part of my website.

Two mixes for comparison.

 

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I want qualifications. Where this debate gets ridiculous to me is what you're suggesting those qualifications are. For instance, people suggest that holding an office is the only qualification necessary, which is how you get to make the case that Sarah Palin is more qualified than Obama because she's held an executive position.

 

By that criteria (which is just spin) you could make the case that every mayor or governor in America is qualified to be president. But no one thinks that.

 

Sarah Palin isn't qualified - or disqualified - for/from being president because she's been a governor. She's disqualified because she's obviously not fluent in any policy area whatsoever, and obviously not bright enough to learn the ins and outs of policy issues, and not articulate enough to speak about these issues clearly, or wise enough to select the best people to surround herself with.

 

That's why she's not qualified.

 

Similarly, Harriet Miers wasn't qualified to sit on the highest court in the land because she's not considered to be exceptionally bright either, just regular bright. Her legal career is impressive, but far from exceptional, and she doesn't possess the intellectual weight to do the job they nominated her for. She's a successful but mostly mediocre attorney from Texas who happened to be close to the president. And everyone seemed to realize this but the president.

 

Elena Kagan lacks judicial experience, but no one seems to suggest that she's not up to the job intellectually, and her career is reflection of how much people admire her intellect and legal expertise. It's how you get to be dean of Harvard Law and Solicitor General.

 

Harriet Miers was the president of a law firm in Dallas. Again, it's a nice job. It's impressive. But it's not the type of person you'd make a Supreme Court Justice.

 

John Roberts is. Samuel Alito is. Sonia Sotomayor is. Elena Kagan is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Obama's Katrina

Posted 05/03/2010 06:31 PM ET

 

Media Bias: As the Gulf Coast faced ecological disaster, the president yukked it up with White House correspondents. His Saturday radio address didn't even mention the oil spill. President Bush, call your office.

 

Rarely has media sycophancy been on such sharp display as in the largely indifferent response to President Obama's own indifference to the oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The coverage has been far different from that given to President Bush's handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

 

The White House announced Saturday morning that Obama would head to the Gulf Coast on Sunday, just a day after saying he would not go. During a brief visit Sunday to Louisiana, nearly two weeks after disaster beckoned, Obama said: "I'm not going to rest ... or be satisfied until the leak is stopped at the source (and) the oil on the Gulf is contained." It was about time.

 

Eleven oil rig workers are missing and presumed dead in the blast. A mention of them and their grieving families would have been appropriate during Saturday's presidential radio address. Instead, the president droned on about the need for a campaign finance overhaul as the Gulf faced an Exxon Valdez-size calamity on steroids. America's future energy security also hangs in the balance.

 

As the St. Petersburg Times editorialized about the damage that could soon hit Florida's shores: "President Obama met U2's Bono in the Oval Office on Friday when he should have been headed to the Gulf Coast." The fragile marshes and shorelines of the Mississippi Delta could wait. Bono was in the house.

 

At this writing the undersea gusher resulting from the April 20 explosion on BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig still flows unabated, threatening an ecological and economic impact equivalent to a Category 5 hurricane.

 

Government scientists soon discovered the leak was five times larger than they had believed. The oil slick over the water's surface appeared to triple in size over just a two-day period. The oil rig is at the end of one branch of the Gulf Stream, and authorities fear a nightmare scenario in which the oil is carried into the Atlantic.

 

Other than mobilize the resources of the federal government, there's little the president personally could have done. But words are important, Obama has said, and pictures are worth thousands of words. We remember President Reagan's stirring words and the images of a nation comforted after the Challenger disaster. We will not remember the jokes at Saturday's correspondents dinner.

 

We also remember the harsh and largely unwarranted criticism of President Bush after Hurricane Katrina, although the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans, both governed by Democrats, dropped the ball as first and primary responders.

 

During his presidential campaign, Obama vowed that the federal government would never again let the residents of the Gulf Coast down, a pointed rehash of criticism that the Bush administration had been slow to respond to Katrina. On this vow, the jury is still out.

 

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says it could be 90 days before a relief well is completed to address the Gulf spill. Nearly two weeks after the oil rig exploded, Obama appears at the site of a disaster not yet under control. Heckuva job, Mr. President.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I want qualifications. Where this debate gets ridiculous to me is what you're suggesting those qualifications are. For instance, people suggest that holding an office is the only qualification necessary, which is how you get to make the case that Sarah Palin is more qualified than Obama because she's held an executive position.

 

Well since I never said she was more qualified I guess that's moot.

 

Though I daresay that a man with the extensive military background and years in the US senate as McCain has to make him a great deal more "qualified" than a community organizer who's done nothing but campaign in his whole short political life.

 

So shall we say qualifications are (heh) situational when ideology comes into play?

The name Bork ring a bell?

 

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, lots and lots (and lots) of people made that point about Palin during the campaign.

 

And yes, I'd agree that McCain had more experience in government than Obama. That's simply a statement of fact. I don't, however, think he'd make a better president. I don't think he's more "qualified." That's the whole point. There are lots of things that go into a person's qualifications for office.

 

And to say Obama has done nothing but campaign during his political life simply isn't true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White House in P.R. 'panic' over spill

 

Wednesday, May 5th, 2010

 

By: Glenn Thrush and Mike Allen, Politico

Gibbs is feeling the pressure for the administrations mistakes

 

The ferocious oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico is threatening President Barack Obama's reputation for competence, just as surely as it endangers the Gulf ecosystem.

 

So White House aides are escalating their efforts to reassure Congress and the public in the face of a slow-motion catastrophe, even though it's not clear they can bring it under control anytime soon.

 

"There is no good answer to this," one senior administration official said. "There is no readily apparent solution besides one that could take three months. … If it doesn't show the impotence of the government, it shows the limits of the government."

Hope and change was Obama's headline message in 2008, but those atop his campaign have always said that it was Obama's cool competence — exemplified by his level-headed handling of the financial meltdown during the campaign's waning days — that sealed the deal with independents and skeptical Democrats.

 

The promise of rational, responsive and efficient government is Obama's brand, his justification for bigger and bolder federal interventions and, ultimately, his rationale for a second term.

 

So there was a "little bit of panic," according to one administration official, when White House aides sensed the oil spill narrative getting away from them last week. The White House was particularly alarmed by the rash of stories comparing the Obama administration's initial response with President George W. Bush's sluggish response in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

BP Oil Spill: Obama's Katrina

Monday May 3, 2010obamaoil-scottolson.jpg

 

The British Petroleum oil spill is leaking more than 200,000 gallons of oil a day (the equivalent of 5,000 barrels) into the Gulf, and experts predict it will hit the coast within hours.

 

Executives at BP have been unable to determine the exact cause of the explosion, which killed 11 workers on the oil rig the fuel company leases from Transocean Ltd. Although wild speculation has traced the cause to everything from neglect to poorly-made concrete seals, authorities said they will take into account all possibilities and have not ruled out criminal activity.

 

 

 

Ironically, President Barack Obama is now taking some heat for the government's slow response to the catastrophe. It took the president nine days to even address the tragedy and 12 days to allocate federal resources. The irony, of course, is that Obama was one of President George W. Bush's harshest critics during the 2008 presidential campaign, and frequently pounded the administration for the federal government's slow response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In

at Harvard in October 2008, Obama said the response by Bush and FEMA revealed a "passive indifference" toward black people "that is common in our culture ..."

 

If this had just been a one-time, offhand remark, Obama's recent inaction to the BP oil spill wouldn't be so bewildering. But Obama made the Katrina debacle a cornerstone of his presidential campaign, implying over and over that he would have done things differently, and pledging that the change he was bringing would ensure it would never happen again.

 

Now, a year and a half later, the Obama administration has its own Katrina on its hands. The White House, of course, is claiming that the two disasters have nothing in common, when in fact they have everything in common. Just like it did with Katrina, the oil spill's devastation is only now beginning to come into focus thirteen days after the initial destruction. Just like Katrina, the oil spill continues to wreak havoc the longer the cleanup goes unaddressed.

 

The White House has been defending itself by saying that Katrina was a natural disaster, and therefore the federal government had the principal role in relief efforts (according to The Washington Times, however, "Later assessments by some organizations found that the primary responsibility for the disaster response lay with New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco, not federal officials"). The oil spill, on the other hand, was a man-made disaster, and therefore -- according to the White House -- the company responsible for the destruction is also responsible for its cleanup. In one case, nature laid waste to people, in the other, people laid waste to nature.

 

The problem with this logic, however, is that a large oil company like BP isn't equipped to deal with an ecological disaster of this magnitude. If it is discovered that the spill was the result of a criminal act, the lag in response by the federal government will forever taint the Obama presidency. The administration has been defending its inaction recently by saying that the cleanup is BP's problem and that the company will foot the bill for its cost. Should investigators determine that foul play was the cause, however, the discussion will undoubtedly change and so will the debate over the Obama administration's level of blame.

 

Many people mistakenly believe Bush simply didn't care about the people of New Orleans. The reality, however, is that he was simply waiting to see whether state and local officials would be able to handle the rescue and recovery efforts. His mistake was following protocol. Had he dispatched a federal response immediately, untold lives might have been saved. The lesson here was that, regardless of who bears the responsibility, it is the federal government's job to keep the nation and its resources safe from disaster.

 

Obama is finding out it's not enough to recognize the mistakes of the past and condemn them. One must learn from them as well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, turnabout IS fair play,

.

... Obamao has proven that he cares little about white people, black people, any people

 

living along the s. coast of the United States.

 

After all, what does it matter to him, the self-appointed "citizen president of the entire world" ???

 

If it walks like a Chavez, it talks like a Chavez, and it takes power and complains about everything, even

 

now, and blames everybody else for his failures like a Chavez......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, lots and lots (and lots) of people made that point about Palin during the campaign.

 

My take was (and is) that while you guys whined about her being one heartbeat away blah blah blah I laughed at Nancy fu*king Pelosi two heartbeats away. :o But still each would have the internal framework of advisors and handlers in place.

 

There are lots of things that go into a person's qualifications for office.

 

LOL no shit.

And they're a lot like faith in a deity.

Or a head ocach.

Or a movie star.

 

WSS

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no, they're not at all like that.

 

And you may disagree with her, but Nancy Pelosi is one of the most effective speakers of the House we've had recently, and she's been doing it in an incredibly difficult political environment. She's been in Congress for over 20 years, and rose all the way to become the first female Speaker of the House in US history. And she's not an idiot. She's an extremely effective legislator. So I don't see the comparison there either. At all. I never see your comparisons. They're so bizarre.

 

This is why we should stop. I say one thing, and you simply say the reverse - or what you think is the reverse - even though it never makes a lick of sense.

 

And then from there it's on to some version of "Nobody gets it but me! They're all idiots and their motives are suspect and so are yours, and all of the people you know are full of shit too." But what about the actual policies? What about the actual point? "There is none, just the ulterior motives!" And if you try to get beyond that it's some grizzled remark and an LOL that isn't funny.

 

Weeeeee. This is fun.

 

And the fact that president get to have advisors misses the obvious point that presidents pick their advisors, and their cabinet secretaries, and their the people to head the agencies. And who did Sarah Palin pick to be her top advisor when she was Governor of Alaska? Her husband Todd, a college dropout, with no experience in government whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, no, they're not at all like that.

 

And you may disagree with her, but Nancy Pelosi is one of the most effective speakers of the House

 

 

ROFLMAO!

 

You really are a lunatic or a very disturbed perosn, someone needs to hurry and get a straightjacket for heck. :lol:

 

twit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm amazed that Heck is locked in liberal talkie points.

 

THAT's ALL HE HAS? After all the smarting off to various people,

 

after all the "bs" claims that are never backed up?

 

after all the "ha ha's" then silence?

 

Sorry, but heck is just a liberal cult tool, and a boring one at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, getting back to my point that Heck once again tries to diffuse and divert from...

***********************

 

Oil spill Obama’s Katrina?

Monday, May 3rd, 2010

By Stu Tarlowe, American Thinker

 

Obama’s Administration has shown a clear lack of leadership

 

Ooh! So the New York Times, Bill Maher and others on the Left are calling the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico "Obama’s Katrina". But, in its way, this supposed criticism of Obama by some of his staunchest boosters still manages to perpetuate the Left’s propaganda point that Hurricane Katrina represented a colossal failure on the part of the Bush administration.

 

And the cynic in me can’t help but notice that, in the mainstream media’s reporting of the explosion of the oil drilling platform, and subsequent oil spill, any notion of a terrorist angle has come and gone with nary a ripple. We heard a brief mention of SWAT teams being sent to similar oil rigs, and then that aspect of the story seemingly slipped under the waves, never to re-surface.

 

I also couldn’t help but notice that coverage of the car bomb in Times Square managed to compare and contrast the car-bomb-making technique only to that of Timothy McVeigh, as if he were the only car-bomber anyone in the media could think of.

 

‘Sorry, but when I think of car bombers, Timothy McVeigh follows a number of others (e.g. Al-Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents), all of them tied to radical Islam [although readers of Laurie Mylroie's theories may note that she makes a case for McVeigh associate Terry Nichols's Islamic connections]. But it’s not hard to understand why we’re encouraged to associate car bombs more with domestic terrorists than with Al-Qaeda

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And your point?

WSS

 

Why haven't you asked that of the few hundred articles that have been pasted on this board without commentary for the last 4-5 years? Suddenly posting an article without commentary is upsetting to you?

 

Come on. All you're doing is nitpicking.

 

I haven't seen a real, adult argument from your side on this board in months. Not that I'm surprised, but perhaps you should pick it up a notch. It's not like it's going to come from the guy calling Elena Kagan an ugly un-American bitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

google... oil spill" + "North Korea"

 

Some interesting speculations on the oil spill

 

Suspicions that the Gulf of Mexico oil spill was a deliberate act gained strength with news that North Korea may have played a role in it. Reports that North Korea torpedoed the Deepwater Horizon oil rig by many outlets include reports of a government-ordered a news blackout concerning details. If the oil disaster was caused by an intentional act, the dispatch of SWAT teams to the Gulf by the Obama regime makes sense.

 

Axis of Evil - North Korea

 

Although the Obama regime has made incredible concessions and overtures to the communist regime in North Korea, the nation is still part of the original Axis of Evil defined by President Bush in 2002.

 

North Korea has equipped itself to produce nuclear weapons, and has recently been involved in acts of aggression against its neighbor to the south. Most recently, North Korea was in the news for sinking a South Korea Navy vessel.

more here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hahaha. I was wondering when you were going to post that, T. I heard that a week ago and was stunned you hadn't posted about it yet.

 

 

LOL! Nothing like a good ole conspiracy.

 

 

UNC graduates got to hear a commencement address from John Grisham this past weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, this is anything but Obama's Katrina.

 

Right or wrong. Like it or not.

 

 

I heard a survey on the news today - forget who conducted the research and I really don't care - that said half or more of those surveyed feel Obama is going a good job RE: the oil spill and more blame BP for the current situation.

 

Not sure if a similar survey was conducted about Katrina but would be interested in knowing if these numbers mirrow those Bush got.

 

If so, the only difference would be the symbolism and spin between the two events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I have with Katrina is New Orleans is a welfare city and many of the folks who lived there are those everyday types that are always holding a handout to receive something free. The buses were there for them to leave and they stayed, even after all warnings then you had the gangbabgers running around like it was a New York City blackout looting in a free for all.

 

I dont blame politicians for the havoc caused from natural occurances. We just have to many lazy people wanting to be kept from the cradle to the grave.

 

image814715g.jpg C'mon where is your dignity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the end of the day, this is anything but Obama's Katrina.

 

Right or wrong. Like it or not.

 

 

I heard a survey on the news today - forget who conducted the research and I really don't care - that said half or more of those surveyed feel Obama is going a good job RE: the oil spill and more blame BP for the current situation.

 

Not sure if a similar survey was conducted about Katrina but would be interested in knowing if these numbers mirrow those Bush got.

 

If so, the only difference would be the symbolism and spin between the two events.

 

Are you kidding? You sound like Steve.

 

You think that's as good as the government could have responded to Katrina? You watched those two weeks unfold and thought, "Yeah, that's the kind of relief effort I expected."

 

Are you serious?

 

Come on, John. Beyond all the spin and political posturing, there is such a thing as reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×