"I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message
...
From: (Kevin, WB5RUE)
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.

Andrew was a cat-4, Katrina was barely cat-5. Not to minimize it but there
really wasn't much of a difference in distruction caused directly by the
storm. If the dam had not been breached the distruction would have been
much less.

However my point was the the main reason for the delay in relief effort is
that New Orleans was still under water. No one could get in. After
hurricane Andrew, the day after, teams were combing the area. That was not
possible in New Orleans. However in upstate LA and in Mississippi teams
were on the ground the next day. No one talks about that.

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.

I don't believe I accused you of bringing up race but many others on the
left have. The "reason" for the breach was wind and has nothing to do with
either the Democrat party or Republican party other than it was a Democrat
administration (local/state) in charge of maintanance and supervision. It
was a Democrat administration (city) that FAILED to warn the people and get
them to safety. It's not the federal government's job to pick up the pieces
after a local government fails. It's the federal government's job to
protect our boarders and to deal with other nations and not much else.

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 is also an indictment of the local governemental failures. Where were
the warnings BEFORE the storm hit? What did the local and state governments
do to protect the people BEFORE the storm hit? It's NOT the job of the
federal government to pick up the pieces of a local government's
failures...at least it wasn't until FDR. In 2002 San Antonio and the
surrounding areas had the worse flooding in 100 years. We got (ask for) no
federal aid. There were the typical low interest federal loans for the
rebuilding but we didn't need the Army and National Guard. We didn't blame
the lack of help on the federal government. No! We recovered ourselves.
Also you didn't hear about the racism of the storm and recovery efforts even
though more than 80% of the people who lost houses were Hispanic.

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.

Why can't you speak of poverty without bringing in the race of the poor? So
what if X% of the poor in that part of the country are black. Just about
the same percent of the total population is black. It just so happens.
Remember, it's been under a Democrat administration for the past 40 years.
Those who were poor 40 years ago are still poor, and how have poor children
and poor grandchildren. Where's the "War on Poverty" going? So what if
they are black, green blue or polk-dotted, they are still poor and the
Democrat administration has done nothing about it. BUT...as you say there
are "poor" and those "poor" are of a "minority" race the Democrat party can
feed the fires of division and keep them right where they want them --
dependent! It's the only legal way of buying votes. "Vote for me and I'll
guarantee that welfare check will keep coming without restrictions..."

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.

So where was the state government? It's the responsibility of the STATE to
initiate relief first. Where was that? Remember, democrat state
government, democrat county (parish) government and democrat city
government. Failure at all three levels for the past 40 years. This storm
did nothing but uncover that failure (and corruption it seems now).

Read your history books, the South has been predominatly
Democrat...always...even during the days of slavery. They were the party of
sessession. The Democrat party became anti-slavery when slavery became
against the law.


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.


Urban ledgend, Lincoln didn't own slaves. Washington owned slaves but
Lincoln himself did not.


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

No, the "they" is always the democrat party, always. What has the democrat
party done other than point out the differences? Certainly they aren't
doing anything about it. To be a democrat liberal all you have to do is
care and/or complain. There need be no corrective action and there rarely
is otherwise this "war on poverty" would have been won years ago.

A liberal gets his self worth by counting the number of people he is
helping.
A conservative gets his self worth by counting the number of people who no
longer need his help.

Poverty under a Democrat administration is self perpetuating.

Kevin, WB5RUE



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----