[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Timeline of what the Bush Administration was doing while people were dying.
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 4 of 5 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4  5 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
HARDCOREKNICKSFAN
Posts: 26191
Alba Posts: 28
Joined: 6/24/2002
Member: #263
USA
9/14/2005  12:13 PM
Posted by Bippity10:

HardcoreKnicksfan: Thanks for the response and I respect your opinion. I think you and I are generally on the same page with a few minor differences.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that 400 years of racism cannot be erased. I also believe that black people need to have a common cause and understand their history or they will be lost. But I am of the opinion(and I'm sure everyone is as well) that MLK died expressing the opinion that all individuals should be judged by their individuality. By their actions. By their own merit and not by whether they follow in lock step. I agree with you that Kanye expressed what a lot of people feel. But a fundraiser is not the moment for that opinion. Go on the show and use your celebrity to raise money, you do noone any good expressing political opinions at that point. As a matter of fact he turned away people that wanted to give. If he wants to go on a talk show, or cut an album, go on a message board or travel the country expressing his opinions I have no problem with that. But during a fund raiser? Irresponsible. Number 2: I can't stand listening to these guys cry about the plight of the poor. I don't know Kanye so I won't point him out. But it sickens me to hear some of these "non sell-outs" crying about the rich not giving enough money. Meanwhile they themselves have 8 cars in the driveway, thousands of dollars worth of jewelry around their necks and spend more money on a single party than most people make in a year. I am not willing to give these guys a pass just because they are black and at once possibly lived below the poverty line. Some of these guys have become the exact people that they criticize. And yet they turn around and call others "sell-outs" when they don't agree with them. It's a classic way to intimidate people into beleiving in your hollow words. They are no different than billion dollar Kerry complaining about the plight of the poor. The words are hollow.

I did not mean to oversimplify the plight of the poor and the state of our educational system. I come from a neighborhood that at this point in my life, I'm not sure how I survived. I learned from textbooks written in 1940(missing chapters). I struggled to get information from teachers that didn't want to be there. I walked down hallways inbetween classes with a pipe in my jacket, just in case. I had a close friend shot dead on school grounds. You are not talking to the uninitiated. I do understand that it is the governments job to fix the inequities. I do believe it's the moral duty of the rich to help the poor(by their own choice). you can complain about the government failed the poor, and in this situation I think you would be right. But that still doesn't absolve people from their own personal responsibility.

I agree with you on Bush. Don't misunderstand me. I can't stand the guy. I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I am not a Liberal or Conservative. I try to be objective and give everyone a fair shot, but up until now I haven't heard one thing that Bush has done to make this country better. I'm just not seeing it. That being said, finding a fall guy is ridiculous. Gov't has been operating like this for decades. We always find a fall guy because it makes us feel better. Something goes wrong we blame Bush. If he were run out of office, all the celebrities would feel they did their jobs and go back to counting their money. All the poor would celebrate and feel as if something had been fixed. The other party would tell us how they would be different from the evil Bush. We would buy their rhetoric and vote for them because "anyone but Bush" or "anyone but a republican". And after Bush faded from our minds and time passed, we would find that nothing had changed. Then we would search for a new fall guy and the cycle would continue.

Group think is a very dangerous thing. It keeps you from thinking and evaluating because you are afraid to go against the flock. You fear the "sell out label". I say we need more black republicans. We need more black conservatives. We need more black people arguing that this is not a racist situation. We need more people standing up unafraid to express their own opinion formulated in their own minds instead of spitting back what the rest of us think. We can disagree with their opinion but we need to celebrate their diversity. When I went to college I ran into a lot of black kids that came from rich areas that didn't have a lot of experience hanging out with black people. They listened to different music. They "acted white". They used to get tortured for being sell-outs(this was the early 90's so keep time in context), but I never understood that. Who were we to tell them how to act and what to like? Who are we to limit their behavior? Who are we to tell them what opinion they should have? MLK died so these kids could act however they wanted, like whatever they wanted, and hold whatever opinion they wanted, without being limited by ANYONE. Noone needs to talk or act like me or my friends. 400 years of slavery teaches me that we have earned the right to be whoever we want to be.

Diversity of thought is the only thing that will lead to true diversity in America.

Other than that I thought your responses were very fair.

Thanks for the response in kind, Bippity. I respect your view as well, although I don't agree 100%, but that's OK. We both agree that there's a problem, but just slightly differ regarding the solution.

It's not about "fearing" the "sell-out" label, it's the idea that we should have "group think" or not. I define "group Think" as a community being in agreement on a particular issue. The unity we've had in years past is severely fractured. It's that (selfish, IMO) kind of mentality that keeps Black people down. Other peoples group together and plan for their communities. Those whom are accurately labeled "sellouts" don't think of the Black community at large, just themselves. That's the kind of conservatism we don't need. IMO there's too many Black folks on the bottom of the totem pole for any of us (who are in tune with the Black experience) to be talking about things like that. MLK and Malcolm both represented unity, not the elitist, "later for the rest of the community" thinking shared by most conservatives. We damn sure don't need any more of those, IMO. That's not the kind of thinking that Malcolm or MLK stood for.

Again, I'm glad to discuss this with you, Bippity. It's refreshing to discuss this without having to check silly talk or tirades. Nice to have an intelligent exchange with you, and would like to hear your response.


Another season, and more adversity to persevere through. We will get the job done, even BETTER than last year. GO KNICKS!
AUTOADVERT
Rich
Posts: 27410
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 12/30/2003
Member: #511
USA
9/14/2005  12:28 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-12-two-governors_x.htm


She [Louisiana Governor Blanco, a Democrat] says that two days after Katrina, desperate for help, she couldn't get through to Bush and didn't get a callback; hours later, she tried again, and they talked.

[...]

Barbour [Mississippi Governor, a Republican] hasn't had to wait hours to talk to Bush. In fact, Barbour said in an interview with USA TODAY, the president called him three to four times in the wake of Katrina. "I never called him. He always called me," he said.
HARDCOREKNICKSFAN
Posts: 26191
Alba Posts: 28
Joined: 6/24/2002
Member: #263
USA
9/14/2005  12:55 PM
Posted by tkf:
Again I have no need to make this a democrat vs Republican war, if you had read my post closely I have said I want bush out of office, and I said I like clinton better, look back and read, read!!

...then out of the other side of your mouth, you defend Bush. Make up your mind, fella. Choose a side and stick to it. That flip-flopping crap won't fly here.

Hardcore don't you see the problem I have with your argument, this is a typical example man, typical. I said I like clinton, I like him better than bush, I just don't think it is fair to heap all the criticism on bush, which is being done unfairly without the local govts getting any share of the blame, this has been my stance all along. go back and look, It is on every thread I posted on this topic in black and white!

Who has been heaping all of anything on Bush? He's ultimately responsible for the actions (and non-actions) of the US government. As I stated previously, don't try to play both sides of the fence and not expect to get called out on it. You sound as if you're obligated to defend Bush in the face of criricism. That's typical of someone who really supports Bush, but just wants to appear to be playing "devil's advocate" when they get called on it. You went as far as to get mad and start trying to put words in some of our mouths that disagree with you. Just because one has legitimate reasons to not like Bush's policies, it doesn't mean that they "hate" him.


This post is typical, you say that I am trying to turn this int a democrat vs republican argument when I have held fast to what I said all along,

See above. Better yet, read the past pages and see where the partisan subject came from.

it is you who are now criticising me for not picking a side, when I said all along I am for what is right, I have no political agenda, yet you flat out criticize me for not picking sides. This is what I mean, now who has an agenda here?

OK, you can either pick a side, or be a hypocrite. You are for "what is right"? Come one, man. WTF does that mean? Anyone can fill in that blank as they please.

I, on the other hand, am for what is correct, accurate and fair. There's no weeble-wobbling this way, and I have clearly stated my stance and the logic behind it.


Another season, and more adversity to persevere through. We will get the job done, even BETTER than last year. GO KNICKS!
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
9/14/2005  1:23 PM
Posted by Bippity10:

I can't stand Bush and yet I still agree with what TKF is saying. If I sneeze in the next few minutes there are some people that would blame that on Bush. In my mind, Bush is A PROBLEM. But he is not THE PROBLEM. Changing presidents tomorrow is not going to make problems go away. I do think that anytime anything goes wrong, members of the media spin it to place the blame on Bush and then the rest of us run with it. People make up stories to further their agendas. When they are proven wrong there is no retraction. The story just goes away. Meanwhile it stays in our heads as a vague truth making us ignore the facts and in the end beleive what "our side" is telling us. In the end who is served by this media and political game. Only those people trying to further their own agendas. The radical right, the leftist left and those that profit from creating racial strife. The rest of us feel good because Bush got his or someone else paid the price. But in the end, we gain nothing.

Blame Bush all you want. Hate Bush all you want. It still doesn't explain why the levees have not been fixed for 30+ years. It still doesn't explain why the media bias about blacks.

[Edited by - bippity10 on 09-14-2005 11:59 AM]


excelent post, and my point exactly. Do I think bush is a bumbling fool at times? yes, do I think he had a agenda in iraq, probably, Do I think he is this racist,murdering monster people want us to believe? NO.. Do I think he is a nice guy? yes... Is he best suited to run this country? probably not, is he THE PROBLEM? NO..

the point is that we have to look back at previous administrations and wonder why things have continued until this day, we have to look at our local govts and hold them responsible for their corruptness, lack of preparation and their indifference at times, to place this blame squarely on bush is not fair, weither you are left or right wing..
Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
9/14/2005  1:39 PM
Posted by HARDCOREKNICKSFAN:
Posted by tkf:
Again I have no need to make this a democrat vs Republican war, if you had read my post closely I have said I want bush out of office, and I said I like clinton better, look back and read, read!!

...then out of the other side of your mouth, you defend Bush. Make up your mind, fella. Choose a side and stick to it. That flip-flopping crap won't fly here.

Hardcore don't you see the problem I have with your argument, this is a typical example man, typical. I said I like clinton, I like him better than bush, I just don't think it is fair to heap all the criticism on bush, which is being done unfairly without the local govts getting any share of the blame, this has been my stance all along. go back and look, It is on every thread I posted on this topic in black and white!

Who has been heaping all of anything on Bush? He's ultimately responsible for the actions (and non-actions) of the US government. As I stated previously, don't try to play both sides of the fence and not expect to get called out on it. You sound as if you're obligated to defend Bush in the face of criricism. That's typical of someone who really supports Bush, but just wants to appear to be playing "devil's advocate" when they get called on it. You went as far as to get mad and start trying to put words in some of our mouths that disagree with you. Just because one has legitimate reasons to not like Bush's policies, it doesn't mean that they "hate" him.


This post is typical, you say that I am trying to turn this int a democrat vs republican argument when I have held fast to what I said all along,

See above. Better yet, read the past pages and see where the partisan subject came from.

it is you who are now criticising me for not picking a side, when I said all along I am for what is right, I have no political agenda, yet you flat out criticize me for not picking sides. This is what I mean, now who has an agenda here?

OK, you can either pick a side, or be a hypocrite. You are for "what is right"? Come one, man. WTF does that mean? Anyone can fill in that blank as they please.

I, on the other hand, am for what is correct, accurate and fair. There's no weeble-wobbling this way, and I have clearly stated my stance and the logic behind it.



no you haven't, but you don't get it. No need going further, you didn't even answer my last question as I expected.. You don't have to pick sides to be fair, that is why it is called being fair. You look at the good and bad of both, make a fair judgment. You claim to be fair and claim to have logic behind your stance. i don't agree. I never got upset and If I called you a hater then I am wrong but your post suggest otherwise, but I digress..

Answer this, You want bush to take full responsibility for this mess in NO? he did that. do you not hold any of the local officials responsible?

Do you think it is fair reporting to say that bush was on vacation while thousands died? Do you think this was done in all fairness to the truth?

Do you think it is fair to call out the president for not caring about blacks when he has during his administration supported programs that have beneifitted blacks as much as any race? And these are not fox numbers these are numbers you can find anywhere?

Now you again call yourself fair but accuse me of being a bush supporter because I seek to be fair? again a diversion tactic. I don't have to chose a side, this is what you fail to see, and it seems to frustrate you. I can easily defend someone when they need to be defended and then slap them on the wrist when the time calls for it. It is called Being fair. You said I sound obligated to defend bush in face of criticism? again diversion tactic. Criticism is one thing, placing complete blame, seeking sensationalism, and misleading the public is another, and something you seem to have a hard time differentiating...


[Edited by - tkf on 09-14-2005 1:42 PM]
Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
9/14/2005  1:45 PM
to place this blame squarely on bush is not fair
is anyone really saying that however? My thing is Bush is a poor leader especially in crisis, and people are now paying for his policies. I dont care if other administrations have had the same or similar policies. Isnt that the whole point of voting in a new guy? To come in and fix whats broke? Everyone knows whoever is in office at the time the bomb goes off is the guy that takes the fall.

Nobody cared about Reagan's insane spending on crap like lasers that can shoot nukes or the fact that he sold arms to a country with an anti-america day for a national holiday, or that his budget was so off that the deficit grew more in his 8 years than in 40 previous years. Who took the fall for all that? Bush Sr. who obviously said "read my lips, no new taxes" BEFORE he took a close look at what Ronnie was handing him.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
HARDCOREKNICKSFAN
Posts: 26191
Alba Posts: 28
Joined: 6/24/2002
Member: #263
USA
9/14/2005  1:50 PM
Posted by tkf:
Posted by HARDCOREKNICKSFAN:
LOL Like the Black people "looting" and the White people "finding". Yeah, sensationalism at it's BEST. Spin that one 'till you're dizzy, but real is real

haha, what does this have to do with bush? again you are reaching and really seem to have another agenda.. this is going nowhere. again as I suspected...

We were discussing the media as well. That reference was directed at that. Keep up with the convo. LOL Why doen't it surprise me that you aren't? It's typical from those who keep bantering in the same circle.


again you miss the point. I am not saying that the media did not or has not in the past portrayed blacks in a negative light, that is proven and the example of looting and finding is typical, but that is not the argument.

Your past statement was that race had nothing to do with the response. I said that it did, and during this time, the media was brought up as well. I got the point, I was making a comparison between the media and the gov't regarding that similarity.

Hey man put any thing you may have against bush aside man, for the sake of fairness, because you are reaching here man.

Why should I, when those things are applicable? As a matter of fact, for all fairness, why do you see it as your obligation to defend him? What's "reaching" is all the insensitive comments I've been hearing from "American citizens" since this disaster occurred.

When someone says that bush was on vacation doing nothing while thousand died is wrong and misleading and it is then validated by the extreme left wing media, politicians, supporters and haters alike.

Then why not simply post a link stating that he did something other than sit on his ass for 2 days, and be able to back it up? That would be acknowledged moreso than calling someone a hater (which is easy to do, compared to accurately refuting a statement.


Just like it is being done here.that is not fair. that is when it is wrong, and if a democrat was in office, it would still be wrong.. that is the point... perpetuating lies and misleading to support ones agenda is wrong.

I say the same thing, on the flip side of the argument.

When the media does that and it is validated by anyone, non bush supporters, left wing extremest it is wrong

OK, but what about when the media reports something true? It should be validated by anyone with sense, and acknowledged as a fact.


and it is a cheap shot at the president.. saying that black people are looting and white people are finding is also wrong and unfair, but has nothing to do with bush or this conversation.

Now you're back to that. Scroll up and read the response to that again. You took a comparison I made, literally.

If the you agree that the media is unfairly portraying blacks in this disaster, which I agree they are doing, then why can't you agree that the same thing is happenning to bush and being validated by bush haters?

LOL You can't be serious. Check out all the posts on "Damage control". I guess it's those diabolical Bush haters that are denying the media to write stories or take pics of the recovery efforts?

Funniest part about that is that at one time, when we'd hear about things like that going on in the old USSR,
and thank God that we live in a freer society. So much for that.


Another season, and more adversity to persevere through. We will get the job done, even BETTER than last year. GO KNICKS!
Rich
Posts: 27410
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 12/30/2003
Member: #511
USA
9/14/2005  2:39 PM
Posted by tkf:
Posted by Bippity10:

I can't stand Bush and yet I still agree with what TKF is saying. If I sneeze in the next few minutes there are some people that would blame that on Bush. In my mind, Bush is A PROBLEM. But he is not THE PROBLEM. Changing presidents tomorrow is not going to make problems go away. I do think that anytime anything goes wrong, members of the media spin it to place the blame on Bush and then the rest of us run with it. People make up stories to further their agendas. When they are proven wrong there is no retraction. The story just goes away. Meanwhile it stays in our heads as a vague truth making us ignore the facts and in the end beleive what "our side" is telling us. In the end who is served by this media and political game. Only those people trying to further their own agendas. The radical right, the leftist left and those that profit from creating racial strife. The rest of us feel good because Bush got his or someone else paid the price. But in the end, we gain nothing.

Blame Bush all you want. Hate Bush all you want. It still doesn't explain why the levees have not been fixed for 30+ years. It still doesn't explain why the media bias about blacks.

[Edited by - bippity10 on 09-14-2005 11:59 AM]


excelent post, and my point exactly. Do I think bush is a bumbling fool at times? yes, do I think he had a agenda in iraq, probably, Do I think he is this racist,murdering monster people want us to believe? NO.. Do I think he is a nice guy? yes... Is he best suited to run this country? probably not, is he THE PROBLEM? NO..

the point is that we have to look back at previous administrations and wonder why things have continued until this day, we have to look at our local govts and hold them responsible for their corruptness, lack of preparation and their indifference at times, to place this blame squarely on bush is not fair, weither you are left or right wing..

I agree that Bush isn't a racist, murdering monster. He is, however, a piss poor president who should resign as a result of his incompetence.
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
9/14/2005  3:14 PM
Your past statement was that race had nothing to do with the response. I said that it did, and during this time, the media was brought up as well. I got the point, I was making a comparison between the media and the gov't regarding that similarity.

How can you prove that race had something to do with the response? Can you explain why during the Hurricanes in Florida in areas where the popluation was mixed, white, jewish, black,mexican, the govt took 4 takes to get there? was that racism? or are you just basing this on pure speculation? Is it not reasonable to think that there were a host of other reasons? as which may soon be revealed? or is race the easiest avenue to pursue?

When someone says that bush was on vacation doing nothing while thousand died is wrong and misleading and it is then validated by the extreme left wing media, politicians, supporters and haters alike.

Then why not simply post a link stating that he did something other than sit on his ass for 2 days, and be able to back it up? That would be acknowledged moreso than calling someone a hater (which is easy to do, compared to accurately refuting a statement.





ah, sensationalism at its best, you see thinking and comments like that are intended to mislead, to make is seem as if bush knew what was going on, decided to do nothing, and let people die. This type of misleading jargon tends to divert the facts and make people believe that no one, except bush had the power to help the people immediately, such as the local authorities and the state govt, in which all have failed miserablly, but we can brush that under the rug and by saying "bush watched out people die as he sat on his ass"..Is sensational, it seems stirring, it places blame, and fuels the fire of the extremest... Good going..

you see I unlike what you are doing will wait until a full commisioned report comes out, before I go to those extremes, it is the responsible thing to do, then I can post links from now until kingdom come. The blame will be spread I am sure and as it should be. My whole gripe is the quick finger pointing based on lack of facts, onesided articles and sensationalism seeking reporters with an agenda...


Just like it is being done here.that is not fair. that is when it is wrong, and if a democrat was in office, it would still be wrong.. that is the point... perpetuating lies and misleading to support ones agenda is wrong.

I say the same thing, on the flip side of the argument.


Oh really, so you are telling me that there is a overwhelming sentiment that bush has no fault in the matter and that we are supporting that view? can you show me where that is happening, because that would be the flipside of what is going on here.. You see people are looking to place blame on bush, while ignoring other factors, I along with others state that is not fair, there is blame that falls on other shoulders also, and the way that writers, media, extremest are trying to mislead and make it look like bush was sipping down pina coladas in the carribean while thousands of people died is completely wrong.... This is the problem I have and you seem to ignore..

If the everyone was trying to say that bush responded on time, was not at fault in the least and was efficient in doing his job and I supported that, then I could see your point, but really this is not the case, and you know it....
Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
9/14/2005  3:16 PM
Posted by Rich:
Posted by tkf:
Posted by Bippity10:

I can't stand Bush and yet I still agree with what TKF is saying. If I sneeze in the next few minutes there are some people that would blame that on Bush. In my mind, Bush is A PROBLEM. But he is not THE PROBLEM. Changing presidents tomorrow is not going to make problems go away. I do think that anytime anything goes wrong, members of the media spin it to place the blame on Bush and then the rest of us run with it. People make up stories to further their agendas. When they are proven wrong there is no retraction. The story just goes away. Meanwhile it stays in our heads as a vague truth making us ignore the facts and in the end beleive what "our side" is telling us. In the end who is served by this media and political game. Only those people trying to further their own agendas. The radical right, the leftist left and those that profit from creating racial strife. The rest of us feel good because Bush got his or someone else paid the price. But in the end, we gain nothing.

Blame Bush all you want. Hate Bush all you want. It still doesn't explain why the levees have not been fixed for 30+ years. It still doesn't explain why the media bias about blacks.

[Edited by - bippity10 on 09-14-2005 11:59 AM]


excelent post, and my point exactly. Do I think bush is a bumbling fool at times? yes, do I think he had a agenda in iraq, probably, Do I think he is this racist,murdering monster people want us to believe? NO.. Do I think he is a nice guy? yes... Is he best suited to run this country? probably not, is he THE PROBLEM? NO..

the point is that we have to look back at previous administrations and wonder why things have continued until this day, we have to look at our local govts and hold them responsible for their corruptness, lack of preparation and their indifference at times, to place this blame squarely on bush is not fair, weither you are left or right wing..

I agree that Bush isn't a racist, murdering monster. He is, however, a piss poor president who should resign as a result of his incompetence.

I feel ya, but you know he is not going to resign. When his term is over, I am sure there will be a huge sigh of relief.....

Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
9/14/2005  3:35 PM
Posted by fishmike:
to place this blame squarely on bush is not fair
is anyone really saying that however? My thing is Bush is a poor leader especially in crisis, and people are now paying for his policies. I dont care if other administrations have had the same or similar policies. Isnt that the whole point of voting in a new guy? To come in and fix whats broke? Everyone knows whoever is in office at the time the bomb goes off is the guy that takes the fall.

Nobody cared about Reagan's insane spending on crap like lasers that can shoot nukes or the fact that he sold arms to a country with an anti-america day for a national holiday, or that his budget was so off that the deficit grew more in his 8 years than in 40 previous years. Who took the fall for all that? Bush Sr. who obviously said "read my lips, no new taxes" BEFORE he took a close look at what Ronnie was handing him.

Yes they are, I think even with the title of this thread and that article, it leads one to believe that the gov of louisianna Blanco, and the local authorities did their job and due dilligence to save those people, the article makes it seem as if they were to the "T" with their actions and bush stood around playing a guitar and ignoring their request. Plain and simple it is disgusting.. reading the article I could only come away with the notion that bush was at complete fault, and we know that isn't the case. Fair reporting would have also held blanco and nagin feet to the fire. Why were there so many busses flooded when they knew they needed to move them to higher ground. Why did blanco delay the red cross and other resources from entering in a timely manner? The local and state govt are supposed to be the FIRST to respond to local disasters, in this article it makes one believe they responded in a timely fashion, while bush sat around sipping mai tai's. Also reporting that condolesa rice was buying shoes had no bearing on the help to NO. It was meant to degrade and detract.. plain and simple...

Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
9/14/2005  3:45 PM
Fish: You know what? If people were saying that bush was slow to react, and that others, meaning the local govt were at fault also, but bush should bear a larger portion of the blame being president. I would agree with that..

BUT! what happened was the accusations of it being racially motivated, that he did nothing as thousands died. Soon this started to smell like a witch hunt, I could just see the haters and extremest salivating at the chops, and from there this whole thing started to stink. It became a forum for those with their personal agendas.. I just want to be fair, I don't care who it is in office. a bad job was done from the lowest to the highest levels, there is blame to spread, but when I see the blood hounds come out with nothing but accusations, misleading articles, and personal agendas,I knew this thing would start to stink to high heaven...
Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
9/14/2005  3:49 PM
It was meant to degrade and detract.. plain and simple...
sure it was, but like I have said he's the ultimate authority and the one with the most power! Thats the way it is in life fair or not. We are talking about Bush being a bad leader and using this as an example. Its totally bashing! People talk about the Moore movies and what total propaganda they are but there were some facts in there as well. The one I am thinking about is how Bush sat for like 15 minutes reading stories to kids after one of his aids had just told him the SECOND plane had hit the tower. Isnt part of leadership conveying action? Even if you dont know what to do yet, you start doing something! Bush does nothing! Rudy's GREAT leadership bailed him out. I would vote for Rudy over Kerry any day and I am a registered dem. One guy is about action. The other is about agendas and canned responses.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
9/14/2005  3:56 PM
Posted by fishmike:
It was meant to degrade and detract.. plain and simple...
sure it was, but like I have said he's the ultimate authority and the one with the most power! Thats the way it is in life fair or not. We are talking about Bush being a bad leader and using this as an example. Its totally bashing! People talk about the Moore movies and what total propaganda they are but there were some facts in there as well. The one I am thinking about is how Bush sat for like 15 minutes reading stories to kids after one of his aids had just told him the SECOND plane had hit the tower. Isnt part of leadership conveying action? Even if you dont know what to do yet, you start doing something! Bush does nothing! Rudy's GREAT leadership bailed him out. I would vote for Rudy over Kerry any day and I am a registered dem. One guy is about action. The other is about agendas and canned responses.

I do think we agree fish more than we dissagree. Bush not going to be missed when he leaves office. I am not denying that the guy can be lost at times, I chalk that up to ineptitudeness, maybe? But should things be twisted the way they are to make him seem like a uncaring, racist, who rather vacation and let people die then do something? There is no evidence to support that, but rather evidence to support your view of him being slow to react, and not such a good leader at times. That I can see, it is the other BS that gets under my skin and is just not reasonable..
Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
9/14/2005  4:08 PM
there is certainly evidence to indicate that the poor have a zero priority. As for not caring when something happens and have no reaction (9-11) or dont take any immediate action (Katrina) you give the appearance that you dont care, and thats a fair criticism.

This is management 101 here. If you want to be a good leader whether its a country or a basketball team, or a bunch of computer techies when something major happens you damn well better give the appearance that your on top of it and taking action.

If I told my manager that a production server crashed and the trading floor wasnt getting market prices and he sat for 8 minutes chatting with a vendor before doing anything I'm pretty sure he wouldnt have a job for very long.

Appearance is critical in leadership, and GW appears to not care by his inaction.

I think thats pretty fair. I said I think the race issue was coincedence, but the issue that the people are poor is valid.

[Edited by - fishmike on 09-14-2005 4:09 PM]
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
HARDCOREKNICKSFAN
Posts: 26191
Alba Posts: 28
Joined: 6/24/2002
Member: #263
USA
9/14/2005  4:13 PM
Posted by tkf:
Posted by HARDCOREKNICKSFAN:
Posted by tkf:

[quote] Again I have no need to make this a democrat vs Republican war, if you had read my post closely I have said I want bush out of office, and I said I like clinton better, look back and read, read!!

...then out of the other side of your mouth, you defend Bush. Make up your mind, fella. Choose a side and stick to it. That flip-flopping crap won't fly here.

Hardcore don't you see the problem I have with your argument, this is a typical example man, typical. I said I like clinton, I like him better than bush, I just don't think it is fair to heap all the criticism on bush, which is being done unfairly without the local govts getting any share of the blame, this has been my stance all along. go back and look, It is on every thread I posted on this topic in black and white!

Who has been heaping all of anything on Bush? He's ultimately responsible for the actions (and non-actions) of the US government. As I stated previously, don't try to play both sides of the fence and not expect to get called out on it. You sound as if you're obligated to defend Bush in the face of criricism. That's typical of someone who really supports Bush, but just wants to appear to be playing "devil's advocate" when they get called on it. You went as far as to get mad and start trying to put words in some of our mouths that disagree with you. Just because one has legitimate reasons to not like Bush's policies, it doesn't mean that they "hate" him.


This post is typical, you say that I am trying to turn this int a democrat vs republican argument when I have held fast to what I said all along,

See above. Better yet, read the past pages and see where the partisan subject came from.

it is you who are now criticising me for not picking a side, when I said all along I am for what is right, I have no political agenda, yet you flat out criticize me for not picking sides. This is what I mean, now who has an agenda here?

OK, you can either pick a side, or be a hypocrite. You are for "what is right"? Come one, man. WTF does that mean? Anyone can fill in that blank as they please.

I, on the other hand, am for what is correct, accurate and fair. There's no weeble-wobbling this way, and I have clearly stated my stance and the logic behind it.

no you haven't, but you don't get it.
Re-read my posts. No need to get into it any further.


No need going further, you didn't even answer my last question as I expected..

Your question was answered in a previous post, more than a page back. Your questions are much too easy to duck, although the redundancy is getting a bit much.

You don't have to pick sides to be fair, that is why it is called being fair.

Then why get so hot and bothered by the criticism of the federal government response? LOL you picked your side by showing your reaction. It's obvious.

You look at the good and bad of both, make a fair judgment. You claim to be fair and claim to have logic behind your stance. i don't agree.

You have a right to your opinion, no matter how skewed it is. I'll let my previous posts represent themselves./

I never got upset and If I called you a hater then I am wrong but your post suggest otherwise, but I digress..

For the last time, it's not about hate, it's about the safety of the American citizenry. Whether you think I'm a Bush hater is completely irrelevant.

Answer this, You want bush to take full responsibility for this mess in NO? he did that. do you not hold any of the local officials responsible?

Again, re-read my posts. In fact, read the whole thread over again. You aren't even keeping up with the discussion. I won't dignify redundant questions that I've answered pages back, days back in this same thread.

Do you think it is fair reporting to say that bush was on vacation while thousands died?

When it's the truth? Hell friggin' yeah! Why not? Because it's your buddy Bush that screwed himself? Please. LOL

Do you think this was done in all fairness to the truth?

From the research I have done, yes. Read the links that were posted already about this.

Do you think it is fair to call out the president for not caring about blacks when he has during his administration supported programs that have beneifitted blacks as much as any race?

You are talking out of the side of your neck. Do the proper research, if youre capable. Then get back to me on that.

And these are not fox numbers these are numbers you can find anywhere?

Do the research and state the figures you find, if that's the case.

Now you again call yourself fair but accuse me of being a bush supporter because I seek to be fair?

This is repetitive.

again a diversion tactic.

No need for that. I've been on topic the whole time. I'll simply let my posts prove that one wrong.

I don't have to chose a side, this is what you fail to see, and it seems to frustrate you.

Nothing you say or do frustrates me. You're all over that place, and your playing the "Bush fanatic" one second and "allegedly neutral" the next doesn't wash. It's entertaining exposing hypocrites, so please forgive me if I respond to you while fairly amused, because I am.


I can easily defend someone when they need to be defended and then slap them on the wrist when the time calls for it.

See above. This is too easy, and is now getting boring.

It is called Being fair.

Please.

You said I sound obligated to defend bush in face of criticism? again diversion tactic.

How so? Man, Now you're sounding like you're throwing that phrase around because you think it makes you sound like you're saying something substantial. Again, I don't have to divert from anything, especially an argument where the opposition can't stay on topic himself.

Criticism is one thing, placing complete blame, seeking sensationalism, and misleading the public is another, and something you seem to have a hard time differentiating...

Say that in the mirror until you REALLY believe that!

We aren't going to see this in the same way. Why? Every time the discussion moves on, here you go, asking the same lame redundant questions that I've addressed days and pages ago.

If I say that we might as well agree to disagree, would that be questioned too? I say this because circular banter is a waste of time (mine, in particular).

I told a friend of mine about this discussion, and after laughing about it, he asked me why I even bothered to waste my time trying to talk sense into a Fox News-head. I told him that some folks are just misinformed.
He said that I'd have to repeat the same things over and over, simply because most of those who are pro-Bush and pro-Fox have selctive memories that don't allow for reason, especially when they start name-calling and getting all pissy. Thanks for proving me wrong, TKF. I'll tell him that I had no idea how right he called it! lol




[Edited by - HARDCOREKNICKSFAN on 09-14-2005 5:32 PM]
Another season, and more adversity to persevere through. We will get the job done, even BETTER than last year. GO KNICKS!
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
9/14/2005  4:15 PM
Posted by fishmike:

there is certainly evidence to indicate that the poor have a zero priority. As for not caring when something happens and have no reaction (9-11) or dont take any immediate action (Katrina) you give the appearance that you dont care, and thats a fair criticism.

This is management 101 here. If you want to be a good leader whether its a country or a basketball team, or a bunch of computer techies when something major happens you damn well better give the appearance that your on top of it and taking action.

If I told my manager that a production server crashed and the trading floor wasnt getting market prices and he sat for 8 minutes chatting with a vendor before doing anything I'm pretty sure he wouldnt have a job for very long.

Appearance is critical in leadership, and GW appears to not care by his inaction.

I think thats pretty fair. I said I think the race issue was coincedence, but the issue that the people are poor is valid.[Edited by - fishmike on 09-14-2005 4:09 PM]


I could agree with that, I think economics had a lot to do with that, but when people realize that the fed govt is not going to take care of you and that you need to hold your local and state govt and officials to higher standards disasters like these can be better managed, again it all doesn't fall on one shoulder, it is a concerted effort, one that has failed during many administrations... But on the flipside fish, I mentioned and this can be vefiried anywhere that the bush admin. supported more than the previous administration programs that helped poor people.. Again should this be ignored. I just hate when it is ignored and people are quick to shout, racist, and he doesn't care about the poor, when there is also evidence against that,as you pointed out evidence to support it.. In other words, I could chalk this up to incompetence, failing to do your job, whatever, but all the underlying agendas going on is what bugs me.. and not fair...

Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
9/14/2005  4:18 PM
thats politics baby! everyone that plays the game knows this
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
9/14/2005  4:32 PM
Posted by HARDCOREKNICKSFAN:
Posted by tkf:
Posted by HARDCOREKNICKSFAN:
Posted by tkf:
Again I have no need to make this a democrat vs Republican war, if you had read my post closely I have said I want bush out of office, and I said I like clinton better, look back and read, read!!

...then out of the other side of your mouth, you defend Bush. Make up your mind, fella. Choose a side and stick to it. That flip-flopping crap won't fly here.

Hardcore don't you see the problem I have with your argument, this is a typical example man, typical. I said I like clinton, I like him better than bush, I just don't think it is fair to heap all the criticism on bush, which is being done unfairly without the local govts getting any share of the blame, this has been my stance all along. go back and look, It is on every thread I posted on this topic in black and white!

Who has been heaping all of anything on Bush? He's ultimately responsible for the actions (and non-actions) of the US government. As I stated previously, don't try to play both sides of the fence and not expect to get called out on it. You sound as if you're obligated to defend Bush in the face of criricism. That's typical of someone who really supports Bush, but just wants to appear to be playing "devil's advocate" when they get called on it. You went as far as to get mad and start trying to put words in some of our mouths that disagree with you. Just because one has legitimate reasons to not like Bush's policies, it doesn't mean that they "hate" him.


This post is typical, you say that I am trying to turn this int a democrat vs republican argument when I have held fast to what I said all along,

See above. Better yet, read the past pages and see where the partisan subject came from.

it is you who are now criticising me for not picking a side, when I said all along I am for what is right, I have no political agenda, yet you flat out criticize me for not picking sides. This is what I mean, now who has an agenda here?

OK, you can either pick a side, or be a hypocrite. You are for "what is right"? Come one, man. WTF does that mean? Anyone can fill in that blank as they please.

I, on the other hand, am for what is correct, accurate and fair. There's no weeble-wobbling this way, and I have clearly stated my stance and the logic behind it.

no you haven't, but you don't get it.
Re-read my posts. No need to get into it any further.


No need going further, you didn't even answer my last question as I expected..

Your question was answered in a previous post, more than a page back. Your questions are much too easy to duck, although the redundancy is getting a bit much.

You don't have to pick sides to be fair, that is why it is called being fair.

Then why get so hot and bothered by the criticism of the federal government response? LOL you picked your side by showing your reaction. It's obvious.

You look at the good and bad of both, make a fair judgment. You claim to be fair and claim to have logic behind your stance. i don't agree.

You have a right to your opinion, no matter how skewed it is. I'll let my previous posts represent themselves./

I never got upset and If I called you a hater then I am wrong but your post suggest otherwise, but I digress..

For the last time, it's not about hate, it's about the safety of the American citizenry. Whether you think I'm a Bush hater is completely irrelevant.

Answer this, You want bush to take full responsibility for this mess in NO? he did that. do you not hold any of the local officials responsible?

Again, re-read my posts. In fact, read the whole thread over again. You aren't even keeping up with the discussion. I won't dignify redundant questions that I've answered pages back, days back in this same thread.

Do you think it is fair reporting to say that bush was on vacation while thousands died?

When it's the truth? Hell friggin' yeah! Why not? Because it's your buddy Bush that screwed himself? Please. LOL

Do you think this was done in all fairness to the truth?

From the research I have done, yes. Read the links that were posted already about this.

Do you think it is fair to call out the president for not caring about blacks when he has during his administration supported programs that have beneifitted blacks as much as any race?

You are talking out of the side of your neck. Do the proper research, if youre capable. Then get back to me on that.

And these are not fox numbers these are numbers you can find anywhere?

Do the research and state the figures you find, if that's the case.

Now you again call yourself fair but accuse me of being a bush supporter because I seek to be fair?

This is repetitive.

again a diversion tactic.

No need for that. I've been on topic the whole time. I'll simply let my posts prove that one wrong.

I don't have to chose a side, this is what you fail to see, and it seems to frustrate you.

Nothing you say or do frustrates me. You're all over that place, and your playing the "Bush fanatic" one second and "allegedly neutral" the next doesn't wash. It's entertaining exposing hypocrites, so please forgive me if I respond to you while fairly amused, because I am.


I can easily defend someone when they need to be defended and then slap them on the wrist when the time calls for it.

See above. This is too easy, and is now getting boring.

It is called Being fair.

Please.

You said I sound obligated to defend bush in face of criticism? again diversion tactic.

How so? Man, Now you're sounding like you're throwing that phrase around because you think it makes you soung like you're saying something substantial. Again, I don't have to divert from anything, especially an argument where the opposition can't stay on topic himself.

Criticism is one thing, placing complete blame, seeking sensationalism, and misleading the public is another, and something you seem to have a hard time differentiating...

Say that in the mirror until you REALLY believe that!




it is easy to be sophmoric to avoid issues, you have done nothing to support your point, phrases like LOL I guess are suppose to lend credibility to your lack of wanting to address the issues. So keep dancing.. LOL..(rolling eyes)

I have stayed on topic, you are the one who needs to go off topic, post "LOL" and accuse with no rhyme or reason. Thats cool.. I am done... you haven't proven a thing other than a willingness to reason...

case in point:

[ [quote] b]Who has been heaping all of anything on Bush? He's ultimately responsible for the actions (and non-actions) of the US government. As I stated previously, don't try to play both sides of the fence and not expect to get called out on it. You sound as if you're obligated to defend Bush in the face of criricism. That's typical of someone who really supports Bush, but just wants to appear to be playing "devil's advocate" when they get called on it. You went as far as to get mad and start trying to put words in some of our mouths that disagree with you. Just because one has legitimate reasons to not like Bush's policies, it doesn't mean that they "hate" him. [/b]

again unreasonable, I never played both sides of the fence, I just defended the side of reasonablenes, you don't want people to judge you but here you go, labeling me as a bush supporter.. But that is expected and typical.. I don't care about bush policies, when in the heck did that ever become the topic of discussion here? Oh I know when.. it is when you went on diverting..
The point here and still remains, the misleading, the personal agendas, and the lack of integrity.. If you think that it is fair to write that bush was doing nothing while thousands died is fair then this is a lost argument. Can you prove right now that Thousands died during those two days bush so called was doing nothing? No you can't and you know why? it is because it didn't happen, that type of jargon is printed to mislead, and to degrade. who's responsibility is it in a disaster to be the first to respone? isn't it the local govt and state govt? why not be true and mention that? I mean you are seeking the truth aren't you? That is the point of this argument, but you have forgotten becuase you were too busy entertaining yourself with "LOL".....

I am done arguing these points with you... I have seen enough...
Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
rojasmas
Posts: 21207
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/25/2004
Member: #639
9/14/2005  6:31 PM
Thought I'd bring a little anti-Bush levity to the situation at hand. Bill Maher ranked on him nicely on his show last week on HBO. For those who missed it, here it is verbatim from another poster on another site. Classic.
http://www.nj.com/forums/nationalnews/index.ssf?artid=32133
We could be the Dallas Mavs of the East.
Page 4 of 5 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4  5 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Timeline of what the Bush Administration was doing while people were dying.
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy