RadioBanter - View Single Post

September 14th 05, 08:48 PM

From: (Kevin,=A0WB5RUE)
What's the difference, main difference,

between the Florida hurricanes and the New

Orleans one?

The hurricane Class (I, II, III, IV, V) of intensity.

New Orleans is still under water. It's going to

be very difficult, if not impossible, to rebuild

until the water is gone. In Florida the water

was gone almost immediately. In New Orleans
the damage wasn't caused so much by the

storm directly but by the breach of the levies.

Regardless of the causes of the damage to

bring race and/or racism into this is totally

irresponsible.

Agreed, but one can not merely "disregard" the reasons for breach, as
much as the Bush administration would like. Besides, I said nothing
regrding race.

Yes, most of the victims are black. So what!

They are all people, their color doesn't matter.

In Florida most of the victims were white. Did

you hear any of them whining about racism?

Like I said before, it's not a question of the

government's failure in this storm.

Exactly, as there is no question whatsoever. The Bush admin most
certainly failed.

It's the fact that the liberal government of

Louisiana has failed totally for the past forty

years in its "War of Poverty."

So it's not about race but poverty? One can not colllectively speak of
poverty without speaking of the blacks in the same manner one can not
speak of the ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots without
mentioning the poorly constructed government that encourages such
disparity, as has been lovingly embraced by the Bush admin from day one.
And once again, you abdicate and ignore all responsibility for the
federal positons filled by Bush (Brown) who were supposed to be on top
of things like emergency disaster response, among other items. This
shall not be ignored.

Face it, the war is lost! But then I doubt that it

was ever meant to be won, the "poor" are the

Democrats' cash cow so there is no desire to

fix the problem that is multi-generational.

Now you are getting to the crux of the matter. This government has no
desire to "fix" the disparity and the poor's plights, so one can
understand their extreme slow and incapable response to the disaster.

Back in the middle of the nineteenth century

the "Democratic party" was pro-slavery.

So was the republicans throughout much of American history. In fact,
Lincoln may very well have begun the republican hypocrisy that has
become such staple in today's usual politics of the right, as he was a
-slave- owner.

It was a Republican president who gave the

order to free the slaves.

The war was north vs south, not repub vs demo.

The Democratic Party has always been the

party of the "down trodden" and they do what

they can to keep them there.

By "they", you astutely and correctly refer the republican party. You,
sir, are right on this count.

Kevin, WB5RUE