Re: moore.....hehehehehewahcrysobSeptember 15 2005, 12:35:58 UTC
Except Moore used to be useful, before he started spewing hate at the Bush administration, which is pretty much all he does. Hell, I'm a liberal and I don't like Moore.
I don't know about how the local government responded to Katrina, but from the sounds of it, i.e. the mayor of New Orleans, it's the state's fault for sucking, and the feds fault for not simply overriding the state requirement to ask for aide. Personally, and I like state's rights to a degree (but I'm a Federalist at heart), but in this kind of situation the federal government should be able to just come in and do stuff, no mucking about, this isn't about politics, it's about people's lives. However, FEMA doesn't seem to have what it takes. If what Moore says in the letter is true then Bush has definatly appointed the wrong people, which wouldn't suprise me in the least. As to preperations for Katrina, if the state wouldn't do anything, which seems like the case, New Orleans was probably screwed, as they are one of the poorest cities in the nation, which sucks ass.
In defense of Clinton, the US has been a laughing stock since before him, and if you're going to join the crowds who scream him down because of his sexual indescrecions, give it up, because here's a simple fact: Europe just doesn't care. Asia doesn't care. South America doesn't care. Canada, Australia and Mexico either don't care or can't afford too. The Middle East pretty much doens't like us, and we ignore Africa for as long as possible and don't care what they think. You can trace the rest of the world looking down on us all the way back to Washington to some degree or another. The big mistake Bush made was pissing off a lot of other nations. We lost the support of both Germany and France, which is really, really hard to do. Despite what the French think of us, France loves us, always has, always should. Germany has been nothing but chums. The people of Britain and Ireland think we're a mess led by an idiot, and that's bad, because sice World War I, they've loved us unconditionally.
And in defense of almost every president before Bush 2, almost every president has been a better politician and diplomat than Bush 2, not the least of whom is Clinton. Bush tries to be a hard ass cowboy, who kicks ass and takes names, except he does none of these things and looks like an ass. Furthermore, while this worked for Teddy Roosevelt, and the hardass thing worked for Truman and the asshole things worked for Nixon, Bush isn't getting it right. The rest of the world doesn't want to deal with a cowboy, they want to deal with a diplomat.
As to it not mattering who's in office, you give the seperation of powers too much credit. I wish it were true, but the simple fact is that the president is in charge of the departments, and the departments are the ones who enforce the laws, so if they don't want to, the laws don't really get enforced. Furthermore, of late, there's been a tendency in Congress to let the departments suggest most of the bills, regardless of who introduces it, you can bet there's probably a department behind it, which means that the president is likey behind it. The executive branch has grown in power over he years, far beyond the original limitations imagined by the Framers. I think that's a bad bad thing, you can think what you want, but the simple fact is that it's happened. Bush has more power than intended, and with a majority Republican government, the RNC gets to put through their agendas with little to no opposition, which has the potential to be very, very bad for the nation.
And if you don't beleive me about the departments and Congress, during the Nixon administration Congress passed a record few bills, and when asked why they had done so little in the period, somebody said "Because the president hasn't given us much to do."
I don't know about how the local government responded to Katrina, but from the sounds of it, i.e. the mayor of New Orleans, it's the state's fault for sucking, and the feds fault for not simply overriding the state requirement to ask for aide. Personally, and I like state's rights to a degree (but I'm a Federalist at heart), but in this kind of situation the federal government should be able to just come in and do stuff, no mucking about, this isn't about politics, it's about people's lives.
However, FEMA doesn't seem to have what it takes. If what Moore says in the letter is true then Bush has definatly appointed the wrong people, which wouldn't suprise me in the least.
As to preperations for Katrina, if the state wouldn't do anything, which seems like the case, New Orleans was probably screwed, as they are one of the poorest cities in the nation, which sucks ass.
In defense of Clinton, the US has been a laughing stock since before him, and if you're going to join the crowds who scream him down because of his sexual indescrecions, give it up, because here's a simple fact: Europe just doesn't care. Asia doesn't care. South America doesn't care. Canada, Australia and Mexico either don't care or can't afford too. The Middle East pretty much doens't like us, and we ignore Africa for as long as possible and don't care what they think.
You can trace the rest of the world looking down on us all the way back to Washington to some degree or another. The big mistake Bush made was pissing off a lot of other nations. We lost the support of both Germany and France, which is really, really hard to do. Despite what the French think of us, France loves us, always has, always should. Germany has been nothing but chums. The people of Britain and Ireland think we're a mess led by an idiot, and that's bad, because sice World War I, they've loved us unconditionally.
And in defense of almost every president before Bush 2, almost every president has been a better politician and diplomat than Bush 2, not the least of whom is Clinton. Bush tries to be a hard ass cowboy, who kicks ass and takes names, except he does none of these things and looks like an ass. Furthermore, while this worked for Teddy Roosevelt, and the hardass thing worked for Truman and the asshole things worked for Nixon, Bush isn't getting it right. The rest of the world doesn't want to deal with a cowboy, they want to deal with a diplomat.
As to it not mattering who's in office, you give the seperation of powers too much credit. I wish it were true, but the simple fact is that the president is in charge of the departments, and the departments are the ones who enforce the laws, so if they don't want to, the laws don't really get enforced. Furthermore, of late, there's been a tendency in Congress to let the departments suggest most of the bills, regardless of who introduces it, you can bet there's probably a department behind it, which means that the president is likey behind it. The executive branch has grown in power over he years, far beyond the original limitations imagined by the Framers. I think that's a bad bad thing, you can think what you want, but the simple fact is that it's happened. Bush has more power than intended, and with a majority Republican government, the RNC gets to put through their agendas with little to no opposition, which has the potential to be very, very bad for the nation.
And if you don't beleive me about the departments and Congress, during the Nixon administration Congress passed a record few bills, and when asked why they had done so little in the period, somebody said "Because the president hasn't given us much to do."
Reply
Leave a comment