Category: News and Views
This is a major irritation to me. I don't understand how a blind person can be a republican. Republicans, like our dear President, Dubya, are always trying to cut programs that help low incone and disabled americans. The only reason I could see a blind person who would support the GOP is if they were broght up in a family that had money. This whole MORAL arguement is total crap. Bush starts a war that our men are dying for, and why? So that his puppeteers buddy ,Vice Presicent DICK (APTLY NAMED) Chaney can make millions and millions on reconstruction. I'd rather have someone as presidentwho has the american people in his mind and not be in the back pocket of big corperate conglomerates such as Haliburton and Enron. So IMHO, anyone who is blind and supports the republican party are foolish and they need to check their priorities.
Richard
Richard I completely agree with you Bush is a serial liar and nothing more than embarrassment..anyone disabled or otherwise, who believes in that gobshite, is obviously easily taken in..It is so refrehsing for me as a Scot, to hear from an american, with an original point of view.
His point isn't origional, it's what most of the liberals in this country will say. Did you ever think people who are blind may be republican, I don't know for something like values, you know strong familys, not using abortion because a baby was some kind of mistake since you didn't use birth control, belief in god, etc etc. For you to say that any blind republican is automatically stupid makes me ashamed to be blind, since that means I share something in common with you, and you do a poor job of representing blind people, by thinking your way is the only way.
You go, Blindguy! I could say any blind democrat's an idiot, too, but that would be stereotyping, and I'm friends with some people who happened to vote democrat. Maybe I don't agree with everything Bush has done while he's been in office, but he's more moral than the alternative, too! Serial liar? Look at all the contradictions dear ol' john Kerry made during his campaign! Unless you're perfect, you really can't cast stones, because all of us are going to do things that you don't like. Ain't none of us perfect, except God! As far as that goes, ever wonder why democrats like this are so brash in their words, but if we pick on something that's dear to their hearts, they're the first to cry hate speech? What's up with that? Why is what's not ok for us to do suddenly ok for them?
Can you prove that wild statement about your god hmm I very much doubt it. Bush went to Iraq on a lie that of a connection between Huseein and Bin Laden it is well known that the 2 cannot stand each other and Bin Laden had nothing but contempt for Sddam Hussein, due to his barbaric oppression of Muslims.I am not a supporter of Kerry either but Bush is already lining up Iran for an american onslaught just how much fighting and terrorist attacks are you prepared to tolerate hmm it seems you are completely unable to see the truth when it comes to bush, the man has an IQ of 95 which is borderline retarded any country which elects a retard for its leader deserves to suffer derision..the man is warmongering imbecile and the best thing that can happen is an assassination...
Here Here Goblin
Richard
Here Here Goblin
Richard
How shall we do it the old shooting technique is so passe ..I have this fantasy of injecting the eejit withn Ebola and the Bubonic plague just for the crack,then locking him in a sound proof fly infested room..just for starters.
Goblin if you noticed, and actually read my post I never defended Bush. I also never said weather god existed, mearly that god is the reason some people vote republican. For you to automatically assume I'm a Bush loving bible thumping gun toting member of the Michigan Militia because you don't either have the intelect, or are to lazy to adctually read my post, and not go off just because the word god is in there proves what a moron you are.
Aren't we a might paranoid I was referring to Krageil's post not yours,so calm down mate, I've got nothing against you..
Bush? Moral? Those two words are mutually exclusive.
Indeed!..
There you go, just because I eluded to God in my post! Wow! Your ignorence has really proven itself one more time, and proved exactly what I've always thought about the extreme liberal left...Same as I think about the extreme right! Ya'll are cracked up and narrowminded! There's a happy medium somewhere, and I say if we can find that, we're doing better!
That was a very level-headed, balanced statement! I am also a Christian, not a perfect one, but a Christian who tries to live by the bible, which clearly states that we should reach out to what some would consider the minorities and misfits in society. Our church is full of them! Yes, my Biblical view does dictate to an extent the way I vote, but I'd vote for a decent democrat over an indecent republican any day. Although I am registered republican, I don't vote soly because of that.
This is a comment to the original post. I'm neither an american nor a Bush sympathiser, but to assume that blind voters have no concerns when voting other than the way blind rights will be represented by the administration is, I think, exceptionally narrow-minded. If you expect everyone to choose their politacal afiliation based entirely on disability rights, then I can only hope you'll be disappointed. Furthermore, I hope that by the next election you will decide to be more discriminating when casting your vote. Just my two cents, Erin.
Brice thank you for posting.Reading that one could surmise that the christian far right, are nothing more than latter day nazis,I did read that 80% of americans who support bush and his modern day Vietnam,{Iraq} atttend church,the precentage just proves the efficacy of brainwashing.
I don't like the Republican domestic policies especialy ones based on ethics! However, obviously enough Americans do otherwise these people wouldn't be in power! I hear people moaning about Bush all the time, but that's all they do, and people who just moan about these things aren't of any importance because guess what ... that's all they do!
At last he has said something worth listening to however as I have already stated, 80% of americans who support bush, also attend church, there must be a correlation between brainwashing and stupidty, after all did an excellent job of convincing your man, that he's living in a western and leading the posse against the bad guys.
goblin,
maybe we are not brain washed by the church, maybe you are possessed by demons? hah!
Anyways, a couple of comments.
I am one of the ones who you guys have chosen to bad mouth and bash. I do vote a straight republican ticket. I always will. This doesn't mean I agree on every issue, but most I do. I will never vote for a party who wants to hand out to the poor left and right instead of getting them off their butts and getting them a job, or a party who kills innocent babies everyday because of their messed up idiology.
And yes, I do fit you guys "stereotype of a "republican christian. I am from a "well off" family and a devout christian.
and you want to argue the Iraq war with me? Maybe you should fought the CIA for no WMD's. Hate to tell you this, but the president didn't fly over Iraq in Airforce 1 and say, "that looks like WMD's down there." Even the U.N. believed their to be WMD's, they were just to lazy do anything about it. And, you can justify the war with WMD's any day of the week. I guess you "democrats/moderates" support leaving a man in power who fed his own people through meat grinders, who used nerve gas on them, and who oppressed them to lead a life of poverty while he lived lavishly off of the country's goldmind in oil. Get a life people. Become educated and then try me again.
just so you know, Louisiana has a democrat governer, and New orleans has a democrat mayor.
Mississippi has a republican governer, and who is having the most problems????
Dawson
First of, not that I am disagreeing with you per say, I think the New Orelans and Louisiana should have had plans in place and the evacuation especially was handled terribly, but it's still not fair to associated the political affiliation of the governers in question with the magnitude of the disaster, it comes from the fact that New Orelans is under water and still would be under ocean level even if a republican had been in charge, and that's where the problems stem from, not to mention that the currently republican president cut the flood defense budget of the city to almost zero and put the money into his personal heroic "Free the Iraqis" mission and sent a good deal of the stat's national guards troops over there leaving insufficient infrastructure and man power at the state's disposal when disaster struck so I must say your post is not very well thought out there.
bgdawg0385, man, you really don't sound all that terribly bgdawg0385, just a few points,: In your last line you seem to indicate that it's a crime that the president lives lavishly while people are starving in a rich country,. Now the U.S. has one of the highest income per capita in the world and its president does extremely well, still its quality of life is only #29 on the world's quality of life index and people are starving to death right here, how is that different exactly from Iraq, over 90% of the country's wealth is conheld by less than 10% of the population, oddly enough that doesn't seem that extremely different from the Iraq situation.
Secondly it's not true that the UN was not doing anything about the WMD program, this is something you would know if you had educated yourself a bit better. They were keeping a close eye on the procedings and, in fact, hadn't found any WMD's, of course Americans know better and refused to share their sources of information and decided invasion would prove them right, which it didn't, and still Bush was voted back into presidency, which I find quite sad. The U.S. has no interest in e.g. toppling Robert Mugabi that just demolished houses for 700000 of his people and has made himself virtually untouchable in Zimbabwe, why? Because they have no oil or other corporate interest must be the answer. Bush even support the Pakistani leader who came to power through a military coo, so much for the democracy spreading. Musharaf has been accused of torture etc himself and he has no stoncher ally than president Bush it seems so, again, that morale argument seems to be rather weak. And we don't even have to start going into America's part in the Central America political unrest in the 1980s Panama etc, I leave it up to you to study those things before you start climbing back on the moral high horse.
I have some stonchly republican friends who absolutely refused to vote for Bush. That being said I agree Kerry was not a vihable alternative, I never liked him one bit so for that particular presidential ellection there really wasn't a great candidate to choose from it must be admitted. Oh, and one more thing, if Iraq in fact had WMD's do you have any idea where they would have come from? Can you tell me who was Iraq's strongest ally in the 1980s, I'll give you 10 points if you get that one right.
I am a Christian and I try to follow Christian moales and principles. Of course, like everyone else I often fall short but I do make an effort and I come from a lower middle class family and have worked myself into a pretty good job situation in the U.S. and I don't agree with handing out free money to people who could be going out there and earning money, not just because of the fact that tax money could be used bbetter but also because those people would be a lot happier and feel a lot more successful if the programs set up would help them become independent and get a job rather than keep them at home. And blind rights are certainly only a small part of what I look at before casting a vote. I'm pretty much in the middle and I'd vote for the political party whose ideals most closely match mine at any one time but Bush is a guy I would never vote for. Invading a country and then awarding all the contract to a company run by the vice president, doesn't that sound just that little bit strange to you, not even a tiny little bit?
cheers
-B
enough the same people who benefited from the Iraq war.
actually wildebrew, yes the u.n. was "keeping an eye on Iraq." For your info, I watch the news about 24 hours a day.
They had "him-hawed" around for 10 years. They would send inspectors, Saddam would allow them for a while, and then he would kick them out. So, you are telling me that the U.N. is a successful body? When you threaten force in a resolution passed by the Security Council, but don't back it up by actually doing something, you become stell and useless.
Next, money has never been a problem in the Louisiana situation. It was just a slow response that is raising the questions. Why do you not get your facts right. Never once has it been said that the government wasn't responding because of lack of money. Congress was called into an emergency session to pass 10.5 billion dollars of emergency aid. He has asked them to pass 51.2 billion more today. They are giving every adult refugee debit cards with 200 dollars on each for personal care items just for immediant use! Don't tell me they are doing nothing. If you want to blame somebody, blame the head of FEMA. The president is the overseer. He delegates people (like the head of FEMA) to respond. He can't do everything himself.
And I must say, I agree with the poster who notes the governor is a democrat. Explain to me why she didn't activate all of Louisiana's national guard before the storm hit. Ever thought it might would have helped? And I hate to break it to you, but in America, the state government is the first line to handle emergencies. That is what the national guard is for. You better look in to the state handling for you gripe about how bad it was and how the poor black people were treated. I don't care if the people were black, hispanic, white, or freaking orange, the government would have responded the same way. Get your facts straight before you blame the President.
One more note, if you do recall, the storm hit on Monday, the flood didn't happen until Tuesday. The president came home early Wednesday morning and immediantly began an emergency cabinet metting. Therefore, don't say it was four days after the storm when help arrived. If i do recall correctly, the first major line of army aid arrived on Thursday afternoon. This was approximately only 48 hours after the flood. The government is not miracle workers just like they are not prejudice against the black people who always like to bring up racism, I guess it gives them a feeling of superiority.
Hmm, I must point out that I brought up only 2 of your points.
And if you read my post carefully my complaint wasn't about the response and lack of funding for the aftermath but the fact that the federal government has known about the high likelyhood of this event for 3 years and yet they allocated all the flood defense budget away from New Orelans into the Iraq war, this could have been used to build better systems, to sustain the wet lands surrounding the city that act as a buffer szone, get better pumps etc, but the money was diverted into Iraq war efforts.
The UN was being successful .. Iraq didn'thave WMDs and the UN's prupose was to ensure Iraq didn't have WMDs that, to me is a clear indicator of success.
You want to blame this administration for something they had nothing to do with. Tell me why they should have made the levies bigger and better. Tell me why the city should even be rebuilt. I actually don't believe the levies should have had billions of dollars spent on them to be rebuilt.
Hate to offend anyone, but since the city of New Orleans is sinking at the rate of an inch a year, by the year 2090, which, isn't that far away actually, the city will have to be surrounded by huge levies. I hate it took so many people dying, but maybe it is time to pick up the people of New Orleans and relocate before they spend our tax dollars on such a rebuilding effert.
I do still go back to the fact the state government has as much of an obligation to protect the city of New Orleans. Why should the people of Califronia, Alabama, Tennessee, etc. have to pay for the levies to be fixed? Maybe you are just upset with the President for so many people giving their lives and dying in Iraq. If the war had have been "easier", and they still had not found WMD's, bet you guys wouldn't have griped as much. The sucky thing with this generation is they are scared of war, afraid of paying a price, and afraid of defending their country. God help you guys!
Oh, of course it would still be underwater, the difference I am talking about is in leadership. The governor sat on weather to federalize the national guard troops for a day, just a hole lot of CYA going on. If I had to pic between the 2 I am actually starting to think the mayor isn't half bad, but neither one of them is bright enough to be a wal-mart greeter
Well, I think leadership on city and state levels really was insufficient and rather shockingly bad considering the likelyhood of the scenario that actually transpired. Nevertheless, I bring back up the point that the federal government listed this as one of the two most likely disaster scenarios in the U.S. in 2001 and yet diverted all of the money that could have been spent of saving the city or oming up with an evacuation plan on the war in Iraq and Bush hired Michael Brown as head of Fema who's previous job, if I am not mistaken was president of the Arabian horse owner association, a great preparation for emergency managemnt no doubt and I am sure he certainly wasn't a friend of the president's in any way *coughs* and the president himself leads the investigation into what went wrong, guess who won't be blamed for anything in that investigations final report, it's almost equivalent to having Saddam conduct the case against himself, not as serious of course but just from how believable the perspective of the report will turn out to be.
And bg, ok, just tkake 5 minutes to explain to me how invading Iraq has made the world a better and safer place and why we should be spending hundreds of billions of tax dollars on this war exactly, do not give me the "fight against terrorism" speech becuause there are no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq and never were, WMDs were not found there and the whole "Saddam was a bad guy killing his own people" speech does not work for me either because that's not what you claim in your post where you refer to m standing up for your safety etc, Americans couldn't care less sadly how many people are killed in Iraq or Zimbabwe etc by their own government (and this aplies I think for most of the rest of the world as well).
Since the invation there is a cevil war situation going on and the country has become the perfect training ground for terrorist organizations and terrorist attacks are up 30% last year. So, yeah, just step up and explain to me how exactly this is a good thing and how it beneffits American generations to come.
I will be very curious to see your explanation.
Cheers
-B
Actually, the Iraqi government paid the families of Palestinion suicide bombers so it obviously supported terror. Now as for the Iraq thing, well if America was more aggressive and showed as mufch disreguard for human rights towards terrorists and there supporters and they do, then Iraq woould be a safer place because a lot of people there would have been shot by now. I think that the centre should be sealed off, the people should be left without anything, power, food water etc. Then when they're all dying because they've no escape because everytime they get near the fences they're shot, they'll stop the terrorism. Also, no terrorists would get in or out so the Americans would be safer. If we suspect they are getting too powerful inside there we've got plenty of nuclear weapons and enough to wipe all the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere out so no need for us to worry.
i agree ww. i would go as far i am for not letting anyone from other countries into the states for my saftey. And as for your comment wildebrew that americans don't care about other countries killing people, speak for yourself. I care, maybe you don't. Maybe I don't care about the poor citizens getting welfare as much as you don't care for the war in Iraq.