Who do you really want to run as the Republican candidate?
I am a liberal, and I support Obama, so I think I would prefer Bachmann or Palin, or both.
What about you?
The republican I would like to see run is Teddy Roosevelt...
but he's dead.
Republicans want to run Ronald Reagan, but he has the same problem as Teddy Roosevelt.
All the republican candidates above ground suck - and on that we can all agree.
I wouldn't mind having zombie Teddy Roosevelt. Or zombie Eisenhower, for that matter.
Huntsman/Bachmann. Not sure its a winner, but I do not see much better at this time
The Palin/Bachmann team-up would guarantee free entertainment for the next year or more - God I really hope the GOP is that stupid to run this pair of Mensa members against Obama.
We have a similar problem in Australia, a weak useless opposition who are aginnit.
Fortunately for America you have a decent President. I have no idea how Obama achieved so much with a hate ridden war mongering opposition and so many lunatics in Congress.
I was wondering how it looked from the outside. You nailed it!!
Is this the sycophant thread? It looks like you're all here agreeing with each other and patting each other on the back. Can I join in? I think it goes something like this.
Yep, them Republicans is so stoopid. I mean Republican womenfolk trying to be like their men. Why, they don't even wear pantsuits like our much more acceptable Democratic women politicians. Where do they shop anyway?
Now Sheila-Jackson Lee, she's a gooden. Barbara Boxer, Janet Napolitano, Whoopi Goldberg, Kathy Griffen, Rosie O'Donnell are all real-smart like. I mean, c'mon....who doesn't know that fire can't burn steel? I bet that dumb Palin thinks you MAKE steel out of molten metal or something. Ha, she's so stupid.
And Repubs don't think women have the intelligence or the right to make decisions on their own lives....
"Those little women-folk need us to decide for them. They can't be trusted you know. Nor are they equal citizens"
You're referring to abortion, I assume.
Let's just skip all of the posturing and get to the meat of it. Women who are pregnant can look at their situation in two ways. One, that they and the actions of their partner are responsible for creating a baby. That's what they have 100% of the time women become pregnant. So, she can have her conscience lead her to have the baby and care for it. OR...Two, before baby is born, she doesn't consider it a life and can do with it what she wants.
No point in arguing this now as we both probably will continue to see it the same way we did before you brought it up. (Which wasn't the original point)
Yes, because, apparently you feel you have the market on conscience...which I notice doesn't apply to those already born, but in the way of a certain group of rogues.
It is the point exactly. Anti-abortion is my litmus test in voting. And all the fore-mentioned Repubs are anti-abortion, so they don't rate as qulaified in my eyes.
We are discussing Repub candidates, aren't we?
None of them are qualified to rep women, imo. And we are half of America.
I don't know, I wasn't really inferring that those who consider having an abortion as not having a conscience. I said that for a woman to feel she has total autonomy over her body would mean (imo) that she doesn't consider the baby to qualify as an independent life and therefore could do what she wants (whatever her conscience dictates).
I don't really agree with this line of thinking, but it has been decided in the Supreme Court of the U.S. so the point is moot unless there is a challenge to overturn it. However do consider that inside the womb, babies are housed and fed independently and separated from the mother's bloodstream so that the mother's body doesn't attack it as it would a foreign substance. that's kind of why I feel (just my thoughts) that there is really another person/soul/child to consider.
As to how they aren't qualified to represent women, that's interesting. It seems that a one topic approach might really limit your choices or otherwise be accepting of a host of nutty ideas as long as there is no objection to abortion.
On a related note, I don't understand how so many of the people who represent the pro-choice movement seem to be so intolerant of choice in many other adults lives. Such as the constant encroachment of government into every other aspect of liberty that people are allowed to enjoy. i.e. what car to drive and not drive, what foods to eat or not eat, etc.
Purpose of this thread: tell everyone why you hate the things republicans represent - white people, America , Christianity, Western Civilization, earn your way thru life rather than be given a free ride.
We'll see how many chime in here with their hate ... and/or demand for FREE gov't goodies.
Without knowing it SL, you just really really threw out your true feelings on racism and how you really view the worth of the Republican party. Wow. Did you clean your sheet today?
All he said was that the GOP is
1) against people who aren't white,
2) against countries that aren't America,
3) against religions that aren't christian,
4) against cultures that aren't 'Western Civilization'. God only knows for sure who he's trying to exclude - I am guessing he wants to exclude any Arabic, Oriental, Indian (from India, but he probably resents Native Americans also).If he also means to exclude Hispanics, I am not sure that their culture isn't 'Western'.
The GOP isn't against anything you just spit up there doug, and you know it.
BTW, Doug, don't you have a paper route in the wee morning hours? Shouldn't you be getting to bed?
Check out S Leretseh's profile - I think where he stands is pretty clear as evidenced by his own words. And it is utterly amazing to me that most liberals have no problem admitting the obvious racism that exists in this country and everywhere else in the world while conservatives will argue vehemently that they are "not racist" then go on to tell you exactly why they are racists...lol
It’s easy to say “racism”. If I stated anything that can be in any way construed as racist, SOMEONE would have cut and pasted it here. Don’t ya think? I am here only to rewrite American history between 1865 & 1964 as it relates to integration. White people have been guilt tripped into a wrong that does not exit. This mindset is what I’m fighting here. Naturally, I do NOT think white Christian males (the dominant male group in America during this period) prior to 1964 wronged the black man because he did not submit to race nullification. I won’t be made to apologize for that. This has nothing to do with superiority. There was no existing template on how to create the integration sought by the black race during this time. No distinct people from another (racially, linguistically or religiously) had ever made such an integration demand in human history. African Americans were suppose to be a separate and self reliant people. From 1865 to 1964, the failing of African American in America’s urban centers were (and still are) consistent and ubiquitous. These failings need to be explained. Further, I think it’s proven to be VERY dangerous to plant the thought in the head of the black race that they were historic victims in America because white males failed to integrate - good lord! Google black on white crime! BTW, there is not ONE instance that I could find pre 1964 where blacks were the majority in any economic environment and THEY demanded more diversity (e.g. Pullman porters).
Blacks prior to 1964 were a FREE people, free to build their own towns, cities, industries, or colonize a place in America - and create their own political environment(s).
Finally, integration in America is here to stay. I'm not so dense I can't see that. It is a new political arrangement; an experiment in human nature It has not passed the test of time. The evidence accumulated over the last 45 years is not promising. In fact I do believe this thing will collapse ... and most people alive today will see it happen.
This is one of the most racist things I have ever read. You don't apologize for slavery because...what, the black people couldn't handle it? Are you serious? They were a free people? Not allowed to vote and institutionally lynched with no recourse? Before 1964, they were free? What about when they were in chains? Were they free then? As always, you have brought the conversation down to your purest thoughts...pure racism. Very pathetic.
"You don't apologize for slavery...what, the black people couldn't handle it?"
Never stated, implied or inferred that.
"Not allowed to vote and institutionally lynched"
They were in fact allowed to vote (they voted republican all they way to 1960). They were NOT institutionally lynched. Ridiculous hyperbole.
"What about when they were in chains?"
What chains? Blacks were a free people after 1865.
I don't spew hate tex. I view no one, or people, as better than another; I don't think Christianity is the root of all evil (quite the contrary); I believe in hard work - no free ride; I believe no person or people should get double standards, preferences and set-asides. The republican party generally speaking meets those same conditions. Everything I believe in, tex, I'm sure you stand diametrically opposed to (i.e. you spew hate; people should receive a free ride; people should receive double standards, pref & set-asides).
As for your "sheet" comment', that's a Pavolv's Dog word, designed to guilt trip. Doesn't work on me little one.
Listen, I've read your hubs where you quite openly profess the superiority of the white anglo-saxon male against the inferiority of the perfidious black man.
From what I've read of your posts, you and I aren't going to agree on much of anything....except this. This fella definitely has some issues and is probably best ignored. While I agree with his principals of self-reliance, I think there is some issue lying underneath the surface.
“I think there is some issue lying underneath the surface.”
I’m no cryptologist but I think,elenox, you’re referring to me. I’m jus the humble waiter. I’m not the cook. Don’t blame me for telling you the hamburger isn't really hamburger, the steak isn't really steak or the menu is a bunch of deceit and lies.
And Ralph ignore? Sure thing Ralph. Sort of like expecting a blowfish not to EXPAND
SL, I do appreciate the ability you have to instantly know what the other person intends. How did you aquire this amazing skill. No disrespect to you Texas but it appears that SL knows more about your thoughts and beliefs thaen you do. Ain't that just amazing to behold in action. A real life, fer sure, mystic. I wonder if he has started his non-profit church yet?
Doug, becareful with those "western civilization" remarks, some on the right will forget that there are Americans living east of the Mississippi.
Yo0're the one who's filled with hatred, with your theory of the white master race or whatever you call it.
It seems that liberals represent white people, America, Christianity, and Western Civilization as well.
In case you haven't noticed Obama is half white, and confesses to be a Christian, and he is the Preisdent of The United States of AMERICA.
Yep. Every non-white person in America is looking for a free ride...
" If I stated anything that can be in any way construed as racist, SOMEONE would have cut and pasted it here. "
Unfortunately that would involve copy and pasting whole threads as the whole tone is racist, long screeds about how wonderful white Christians are and how tight blacks are. No acknowledgement that many/most black Americans were also Christian and also spoke English, no acknowledgement that an impoverished people are not in a position to gift large amounts of money or land.
Then there is your denial of lynching, oh there is no crime reports therefore it couldn't have happened.
I could go on but I doubt that you would hear me.
"Then there is your denial of lynching"
I don't deny the obvious. The overwhelming majority of blacks lynched , they had committed a heinous crime against a white person(usually a white female). Lynching, well, those were the times in they lived.
Holden, just as white people (and other races) are learning today the full extent of blacks owning slaves (a MUCH greater percent of free blacks owned slaves than free whites 10% to 3% respectively), people will also learn that many of those hanging black males that Tuskegee reports (apprx 3200) as lynched, were in fact lynched by blacks. If a black male raped or murdered a fellow black, do you think black males marched him down to the local white sheriff? Of course not. They lynched him.
SO to you no more than one third of lynching victims accused of rape is an overwhelming majority! And note, accused does note mean guilty.
"Since lynchings were often carried out on the pretext of protecting white women, e.g., from rape by black men, in 1930, white women formed the Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching to repudiate the claim that this was the true purpose of lynching. Further doubt was cast on this claim in 1965, when Viola Liuzzo, a white mother of five who had been raised in the South, was murdered by Ku Klux Klan members after she participated in the civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery"
Holden, I am very aware that your bulb doesn't burn very bright. You made my point, sir. Can't you see that? Blacks raping white women was a very clearly documented problem, however, it was not epidemic. Most of the lynchings reported by Tuskegee - IMO - were lynchings done by blacks on black - rape or murder.
So, you are reduced to personal insults now!
I'm encouraging to get a different bulb. I know of a few modern day Frankensteins if yor interested.
I don't engage in debate with racist bigots, especially when they are so devoid of ideas that they think insults are an acceptable form of exchange.
You seriously can't be shocked at anything this guy does right? This is the definition of neo nazi.He represents the true disgusting path that people can take when they rely on their hatred to feed them.
Do you have any citations on your claim that many blacks were lynched by other blacks? One study of 2805 documented lynchings between 1882 and 1930 in ten southern states found that 94% of the black victims were lynched by white mobs, so while black-on-black lynchings clearly happened, they were hardly the common occurrence you claim - averaging about 3 per year during the period in question, versus about one per week at the hands of white mobs in the same period.
I'd also like to remind you that being accused of a crime does not mean that one is guilty of it! Additionally the Tuskegee Institute's statistics reveal that nearly 1/4 of lynching victims were lynched for such "crimes" as "insult to white persons," "disputing with a white man," "attempting to register to vote," and "asking a white woman in marriage."
And just to expose another lie, Leretseh states in one of his hubs that no black man ever founded an educational institute.
Booker T. Washington was a former slave and the founder of the Tuskegee Institute.
Martin University in Indianapolis was founded by Boniface Harden who looked suspiciously like another accomplished black man, Frederick Douglas.
"Leretseh states in one of his hubs that no black man ever founded an educational institute."
never said that.
Also holden, sorry to inform you but... WRONG again about Booker T. He did NOT "create" the Tuskegee In.
Well I hope you weren't so foolish as to contend that no institution of higher learning was founded by blacks. Wilberforce University is a hall mark of black progress in America being established, owned and operated by The African Methodist Episcopal Church.
By the way The AME Church was established by freed black business men in Philadelphia at the close of America's first quarter century. It has an interesting history that complicates all the attitudes toward black history.
Willberforce: I believe it is more correct to say launching of Willberforce was a collaborative effort between white and black (1850s). It was rescued/saved financially in 1865 by altruistic minded wealthy white people, Dr. Charles Avery , Mary E. Monroe, and with even the US Congress (every member being white) voted to contribute a very princely sum (at that time) of $25k. Then it was saved again financially by members of the Ohio republican party (all white) in the late 1880s. The university was also a recipient of Rockefeller’s General Education fund. By the 1920, all of America's black universities (that I’m aware of) had completely excised white people from instructor positions as well as administrative positions. They wanted the money contributed by white people. They did not want white people involved in running their universities i.e. like white universities at this time …they never sought diversity.
Kerry, I’ve done an extensive amount of research on black history. Do you have ANY idea how many “documented” claims I’ve come across between 1865 and 1964, claiming to purport black victimization by white people and I hv found blatant distortions, or “facts“ that defy reason? Countless. ONE excellent example is the Rosewood massacre. This event has been completely sabotaged by whites and blacks, almost in a perverse competition to create the most profound example of suffering for the blacks in Rosewood. It is true the small black town was burned by white people. I’ve wrote a hub and explained in detail …THE REST OF STORY. Oh, and who was the enabler for the resurrecting of the rosewood incident? A white male by the name of Gary Moore. He was a freelance reporter in 1982 and needed to SELL a story. He needed drama! Did he put words in the mouth of one person he found that was living in Rosewood at the time (a 8-year-old black boy at the time). I believe he did. Point is, white people don’t question “facts” any longer regarding black history , and particularly where the event in question is creating black victimization. I wrote a hub on this phenomenon (People who make up racism stories). In fact, I now believe white people WANT to hear the most outrageous examples of black victimization by whites (no other race will do). They truly and dearly want to immerse themselves in it. They crave it. I call it Pavlov Dogs syndrome.
I know blacks raped and murdered in the black communities in America. Common sense tells me that “most” were lynched by blacks. If you have a SOURCE for the “One study of 2805 documented lynchings between 1882 and 1930”, let’s see it Kerry. I can tell you, from experience, it likely won’t hold up to scrutiny. Here’s a good link:
Note the comment “inventory is necessarily incomplete. Records are scant. Newspaper reports are scattered.”. And because records are “incomplete“ , “scant” and “scattered” people - who demand victimization status for blacks - hv taken advantage. Oh, also NOTE the pic at the top of the pg showing two lynched black males kerry. There’s a story behind that 1935 event. Three black males were accused at the scene of raping a young white girl. She POINTED THEM OUT. No need to hv a trial back then. Her pointing her finger was ENOUGH. However, there’s more. The THIRD black male, was led to the tree, rope tied around his neck…then, ya know what happened? The white girl charged forward and emphatically insisted that he had nothing to do with the rape. The white males let him go. white males were after salutary justice, and there’s no salutary justice in hanging an innocent man.
lynching for "insult to white persons," "disputing with a white man," "attempting to register to vote," and "asking a white woman in marriage." Demagoguery NONSENSE kerryg.
"Common sense tells me that “most” were lynched by blacks."
Personal prejudice, you mean. You have yet to present a single piece of evidence to back up your claim, while there is plenty to the contrary.
"If you have a SOURCE for the “One study of 2805 documented lynchings between 1882 and 1930”, let’s see it Kerry."
A Festival of Violence: An Analysis of Southern Lynchings, 1882-1930
http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/ca … 64135.html
"She POINTED THEM OUT. No need to hv a trial back then. Her pointing her finger was ENOUGH."
No, it's not and it never will be, not in any civilized society. Victims and witnesses can make mistakes. They can also lie. Without a fair trial by jury, any "execution" is actually a murder, even if the suspect is guilty as sin.
In the case of Shipp and Smith, there is reason to think they were guilty of murder, though not of rape. Still doesn't justify their lynching. Do you recognize this?
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
It's the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, in effect since December 15, 1791. For someone who claims to value "Western Civilization" so much, you're awfully quick to reject its principles when it's convenient!
"lynching for "insult to white persons," "disputing with a white man," "attempting to register to vote," and "asking a white woman in marriage." Demagoguery NONSENSE kerryg."
Straight from the Tuskegee Institute's records. You can take it up with them.
“ Personal prejudice, you mean.”
No, personal experiences.
Here are some examples that hv made me so cynical:
1. "White men tortured a man named Sam Carter... " Then, "They cut off his ears and fingers for souvenirs."
Rosewood riot 1923. Source for “that” fact ? Academian Maxine Jones (black). It’s a lie kerryg.
2. "Two Negro women were attacked and raped between Rosewood and Sumner. The sexual lust of the brutal white mobbists satisfied, the women were strangled."
Rosewood. Source for that “fact”, black newspaper. Another lie.
3. I’ve got a whole hub concerning hoaxes if you’re interested in more examples (people who make up racism stories). People lie and distort all the time kerryg. REALLY
Again, finely tuned common sense tells me blacks did lots of lynchings. Here’s a lynching of a white male.
Where are all the black lynched victims? Now think kerryg. You’re at the Tuskegee institute and you’ve got an unknown black (or white) reported lynched. What’s the harm attaching a name to it? Any name. Who’s going to know, or care? And, hey, how about putting a reason? None of this is against the law. Why NOT? Here are a few good reasons to attach to the new name: "insult to white persons," "disputing with a white man," "attempting to register to vote," and "asking a white woman in marriage." This is how I think many names got applied to the Tuskegee lynching list. If you can prove otherwise someday…let me know.
Hate to break it to you, but the majority of whites lynched were lynched in Western, Midwestern, and Northern states by fellow whites, usually for crimes such as cattle rustling or murder. Obviously, I consider this wrong for the same reasons I consider lynching Smith and Shipp to be wrong, but once again you're showing your prejudice by implying that blacks were doing a lot of lynchings of whites, blacks, or anyone else without any evidence to back up your claim.
As for your supposed hoaxes, the only "evidence" you've presented here that they were hoaxes is that they were reported by black people. Am I supposed to conclude from this that you don't believe black people are qualified to report crimes against people of their own race?
This is how I think many names got applied to the Tuskegee lynching list. If you can prove otherwise someday…let me know.
I was under the impression the source of Tuskegee's stats was common knowledge. Just where was your "extensive amount of research on black history" conducted? Aryan Nation pamphlets?
The Tuskegee Institute got its lynching data primarily from newspaper reports. This is one of the reasons why they are considered to be rather conservative estimates of the number of lynchings that actually took place. Roughly 25% of victims are listed as killed for "miscellaneous" (including those listed above) or "unknown" reasons. As you can see by browsing the autopsis.org link you posted above, they also listed unidentified victims correctly as "unidentified." I realize that your opinion of the intelligence and intellectual honesty of black people appears to be somewhere down below the average chimpanzee, but the Tuskegee Institute is a respected institution and assuming - still with no evidence to back you up - that they are incapable of correctly recording and compiling statistical data is rich even from you.
A front page article in the Detroit Free Press today says Romney is the one to beat.
WASHINGTON -- The political blogs and the pundits' pronouncements make it sound as though anyone else has a better shot than Mitt Romney does to become the Republican nominee for president next year.
Don't believe it: Mitt's the man to beat in the 2012 GOP race.
If he wins, health care reform may be all but off the table as a campaign strategy to be used against President Barack Obama. And yes, his Mormon faith may prove a hurdle to winning the support of more evangelical voters, particularly those in the South.
But his name recognition is much better than
http://www.freep.com/article/20110530/N … t-GOP-race
Romney is likely to raise more money than any other Republican in the primaries. Money is not enough. Romney still supports the health insurance system he signed in Massachusetts. That is a precarious position to defend. As of this moment Tim Pawlenty appears to be a serious candidate. Sarah Palin will also be formidable because she has been building grass roots support for months and don't underestimate her. It may comfort you to think she is dumb but liberals tend to label Republicans dumb even while they are getting stomped in the polls - opinion and electoral.
Eisenhower wasn't as smart as Stevenson. Reagan wasn't as smart as Carter or Mondale. Bush wasn't as smart as Gore or Kerry. In each of these instances the stupid Republican won.
Where is Barry's MENSA certificate? I am still not convinced of his intellectual superiority.
Ha! From birth certificate to MENSA certificate. Some quite good presidents wouldn't have made the cut for MENSA. Other qualities, like character and courage, are more important. Nixon was plenty smart but lacked character.
Just figured there might as well be another certificate out there some where to belly ache about. I wonder if Michelle knows how many times he has had his Subway card stamped?
But none of the GOP presidents you listed were stupid. (W wasn't stupid, but did seem to like pretending to be.)
I have to wonder whether Palin is cultivating an image of simplicity (like W did) or is really below-average in intelligence. I mean, she does play up the down-home folksy thing for all it's worth, but how can you be a VP candidate and not be able to explain why you're qualified to do foreign diplomacy better than she did? Not be able to list a few news magazines you read? Not realize that North Korea is not our ally, even after being asked, "You mean South Korea, right?"
Was that part of the "just regular folks" act, or ...?
And how can a woman who is absolutely terrified by Katie Couric be expected to go toe to toe with Medvedev?
As we know (from reading SP emails), Katie's ratings were in the tank before the Palin interview. Sarah actually did Katie's career a big favor.
And then look what happened to Katie when Palin stopped being accessible for those "gotcha" interviews?
Yep. She had to up and resign. Poor thing.
THAT is how important and powerful Sarah Palin is. .
P.S. It's a wonder "Dancing With the Stars" didn't go dark after Bristol's season, too....
Katie who? Did she used to be somebody?
Then why are teabaggers so afraid of her? Are they ALL a bunch of pussies, or is it just SP?
That's it! SP turned her legitimate (and very, very accommodating) interview with Katie into a cat fight.
Claws out, scratching and hissing.
Very presidential reaction.
Who? Is she on the radio? In the newspapers? On the internet? Is she relevant? Was she ever really relevant? Isn't that why her rating plummeted? Hardly sounds like an intimidating behemoth of liberal malarkey television news.
Don't forget the ultimate "Aw shucks, you mean me, ma'am?" President who has also been accused of being dumb - Ronald Reagan. To use a Bushism that actually has an interesting meaning. It helps to be misunderestimated.
" health care reform may be all but off the table as a campaign strategy to be used against President Barack Obama. And yes, his Mormon faith may prove a hurdle to winning the support of more evangelical voters, particularly those in the South."
This is very true. It makes him unelectable IMO. Two groups wont vote, T-party types and the religous right.
There is another problem. He couldn't beat McCain!!!! How bad is that????
In some villages away from modern civilization, women are often declared as raped when got pregnant with unknown man. That's how their families hide from shame.
I think at this point Hillary would be the best candidate that the GOP could enlist.
Now THAT is the best idea I've heard in a loooonnnnngggg time.
She is a Bilderberger after all....
But then... what about Bill?
Does she leave him and return to her early GOP roots?
Fascinating to theorize.
Thanks for the idea, RB.
Two words: Barack Obana
Find someone with a similarly spelled name, put him/her on the ballot, and see what happens
How about Jindal? We already have his BC?
Bobby Jindal, GOP governor of Louisiana, releases birth certificate like President Obama
BY ALIYAH SHAHID
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Bobby Jindal is borrowing a move from the presidential playbook -- and releasing his birth certificate.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-05 … dent-obama
He's darker than Obama.
He looks like a terrorist.
Where's his towel?
Hate to say it, but that is exactly how "some" people will view Mr. Jindal.
As for Romney, the Romneycare issue is moot.
America will not elect a Mormon.
Note: These are NOT my personal views. I do not espouse or endorse them. They are simply observations about the NON non-racist, non-religionist climate in our oh-so enlightened country.
I tend to agree with your observations. The first time Jindal ran for Govenor, the news paper ran an article the week prior to election that it would be "HISTORIC". Either Louisina would elect it's first Woman Govenor or its first "NON WHITE" Govenor. That's all it took to run him down. Unfortunately it took Blanco's complete colapse during the aftermath of Katrina to make people realize the mistake they had made.
I love Bobby Jindal. He has been a very effective force in and on behalf of Louisiana. He is diminutive in stature but he is a sharp guy. During Barry's oil spill he was a very forceful advocate for the Gulf shore tourism and fishing industries.
Barry's oil spill?
Don't you mean BP's oil spill?
Barry's oil spill. If Bush owns Katrina Barry certainly owns the oil spill. It took far more time for Barry to do so very little about the oil spill than it took Bush to do so much more about Katrina.
Barry let things grind on for nearly a month before doing anything and everything he did was a half measure. With in three days the Coast Guard was rescuing people and providing aid. All the "good job Brownie" nut jobs forget the amazing job done by the Navy and Coast Guard both under Bush's control.
Oh, I see the parallel now.
The main difference between the two disasters was that the oil spill was caused by a publicly owned company over which the US, and the POTUS do not have jurisdiction.
It was NOT a natural disaster (although there is a good argument that the Katrina disaster was man-made as well due to levy breaks rather than hurricane).
Perhaps the main reason Obama's response was so slow was that unlike Bush, he did not have a crackerjack leader at the helm of FEMA. It's not easy to replace such a fashion god as Brownie!
It will be interesting to see how history endnotes the oil spill. I honestly don't hear the majority of folks making the comparison you're making. I'm not disputing it. Just wondering how widespread the "Barry's oil spill" claim is.
How about a time line
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/t … og-348977/
So why were resources that could have help protect the Louisiana coast and its billion dollar fishing industry not fully and rapidly deployed? Why was tons of absorbent boom left gathering dust in a warehouse? Why were skimmer ships not rushed to the Gulf to contain the mess?
How about another time line?
Obama's response to the oil spill was to stop oil drilling in the Gulf. The result was oil continuing to spread, drilling rigs(different than pumping rigs but Barry the genius may not know that) moved off to drill else where or sold their services to Brazil, China or Venezuela and drill elsewhere in the Gulf.
Always a smart idea to beat a dead horse. Biloxi, Mississippi was nearly destroyed by the actual strike by Katrina. The real disaster in N.O. was the inability of local and state government to deal with a natural disaster predicted for N.O. for decades. The job of FEMA is not first response but N.O's mayor was hiding in a luxury suite and the governor was paralyzed by silliness.
I don't know the answers to your questions, UCV.
Perhaps a look back at the Exxon Valdez spill and who cleaned up that collossal mess would be a good benchmark (or a poor benchmark) for determining appropriate response by local, state, federal agencies and the private company who caused the environmental disaster...
I do notice no one else seems to be jumping on this bandwagon.
Might be cuz the horse is dead.
Let's talk about something else now.
Nice day for the DJ, eh? NOT!
Here's a novel idea.
Since the GOP seems to be the party leading the Israel rock charge, why don't they run a Jew?
Because they love Israel, but not really Jews? (Plus, where are they going to find one: there's only one Jewish Republican in Congress, and he's not that bright) The euphemism they use these days is "coastal liberal elite" or something to that effect.
The biggest Israel-adorers are not Jewish; they're evangelical Christians. I think it's amusing that Romney and Huntsman are being discussed; the elephant in the room is that conservatives will never vote in a non-Christian.
I'll have you know that the Republicans have run MANY Jews.. and blacks, for that matter....
they have run them mostly out of country clubs and private golf courses
But never out of Hollywood or major league sports. Thank goodness. Or we'd not have any entertainment
"they have run them mostly out of country clubs and private golf courses"
About as intellectually pathetic as one can get.
NO! I will never have a dimensionally challenged entity serve as an elected official, besides Krusty does not have a BC! LOL
You can bet that the GOP won't treat a failed Jewish VP candidate as badly as Democrats treated Lieberman - shoddy.
Shoddy is as shoddy does.
Lieberman's no Democrat.
Not any more. Democrats ran him out of the party despite decades of faithful abortion support.
Unlike Republicans, we are cool with not being exactly down the party line 100%, however Joe only agreed 10% of the time...so, yeah...he had to go.
It's the other way around...Lieberman treated the Dems shoddy--he's a RID: Repub in Disguise.
Got a high-level position with the Dems to push the Repub agenda.
Lieberman's ranking by liberal groups shows he is indeed a liberal - just like you.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/S … -2007.html
And consistently so.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/S … -2005.html
No--I am not a Zionist.
Nor am I for criminalizing speech on college campuses.
Nor am I for his and the "magic bullet" guy's internet policies.
Not for the unpatriot act, money to build some Iron Dome, or his unvarnished one-sided attitude towards our foreign policy.
Liberal my a$$. He's a RID.
Agree 100%. It's very American to drive your family around in a tour bus painted with patriotic symbols and slogans.
That's how I like to go sightseeing -- make sure everyone sees us coming.
What do you want to guess. That bus probably gets 5, maybe 6 miles to the gallon?
Gotta support those impoverished oil companies!!
I wonder if she made it out of Jersey City alive?
by T_Augustus7 years ago
If Barack Obama was the Republican candidate, would you have voted for him?Very curious what an HONEST answer would be from both Republicans and Democrats alike...the operative word is "honest".
by pisean2823117 years ago
sarah palin recently said in India Today conclave held in India ,that she would wait to see who would want ticket before deciding for 2012 ...so whom do you think would be candidate for 2012 from republicans?
by Paul Richard Kuehn5 years ago
Would Jeb Bush be a good Republican candidate to run in the election of 2016? Why or why not?
by Texasbeta6 years ago
Aside from Huntsman and Paul (which is something I find myself stating quite often lately), every Republican candidate calls for waterboarding, denying it is torture. If it was torture by the people who created it,...
by mio cid6 years ago
who is most likely to end up being the republican candidate in case of a brokered convention?
by tylermj236 years ago
Who is the republican candidate that is really conservative from Pennsylvania?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.