You two are way off topic. Not that I mind but this one on one is just banging heads isn't it?
To remind each of you the topic is McCain and his stretching the truth as he will do if he becomes President. Did either of you notice my earlier post on his speech and physical abilities or the others who have posted. I wonder if he won't have a heart attack while running for the office. Don't mind me as I am just trying to get my 2 cents worth into the discussion...

<McCain who? The rifleman? Lucas McCain

Sure but not everything. Presidents don't have a lot of direct immediate influence on anything.

It's primarily the fault of the misrepresenations of the MSM.

Oh that has a LOT to do with it. I'll give you an example. USA Today was trying to lamblast him today and stated he inherited a surplus budget and turned it into a deficit. That is a lie. He inherited a budget that had already fallen out of surplus and a recession. His tax cuts were PRECIESLY the right thing to do yet they don't memtion that fact.


How about for keepeing us safe from attacks on our homeland? How about the strong economic growth we have had in spite of the recession he inherited and 9/11.

OK whatever makes yer boat float. Can I ask you a simple question. What happens if someone wants to terrorize the U.S.? I mean how is he stopping anyone from screwing with us. It doesn't take a major attack to terrorize our country. Like I said before any nimrod with a rifle could terrorize a city for months. Of shut down freeways for weeks. It doesn't take that much. We will never be safe from terror and be free at the same time. Unless people decide to stop being terrorists. And I still don't see how Bush or anyone can stop terror if there are folks willing to die for their cause. What can we really do except be lucky.

Exactly.
A nobody who would criticize a Republican no matter what he did.
But meanwhile, the REST of the country includes people who actually APPROVED of Bush before Katrina, and then DID NOT approve of him afterwards.

Do you think Sean Penn is responsible for all that?
Or can you get off this meaningless kick you are on and address an issue with substance.


It was all three levels of failures.
A bi-partisan Congressional investigation explicitly concluded that.

Brown wasn't qualified for either position, so your comment is just as meaningless...


You're asking a guy who doesn't care about your boring hypothetical.
Bush's MAIN failure was in appointing "Brownie".
I consider it a FURTHER failure that he didn't have a clue what was happening in New Orleans, as evidenced by the "You're doing a heck of a job Brownie" comment.

What happens in what way?

Has any Islamic terrorist group been able to launch an attack on the US since 9/11? No.

The question "been able to" involves a false presumption.
In fact, MULTIPLE tests of our "security" have shown that we still have some pretty serious holes.

It's not an issue of not "been able to".
It's an issue of they haven't...

There is a mile between "Been able to" and "Has tried to".
Like I said we don't know who is here. Or what their time table is. Or if they have any interest right now. There is no physical reason someone couldn't terrorize America if they had the ambition and a little wit. So the idea that they are not able to is really not true. In a free society we will always be vulnerable. There is at least 12 million people in this country who we don't know. How many need to have bad intentions? And then you always have the home grown extremists.
I am not blaming Bush for this. Its just a fact that we can't stop someone bent on disaster. Trains, Planes. Nah Its too easy if they want to.

He is certainly not a nobody, he got major press coverage and he was lambasted for trying to get that publicity.


And after how the hold deal was totally misrepresented in the press who would wonder why?

I think you have lost your train of thought on this one, you asked who went there and got criticized for going there and I gave you one, I didn't say HE was responsible for anything.

Can you follow the subject please.


A Bipartisan Democrat led. Was he the best who ever served in the position? No. But the blame is not with him and FEMA, it was a state and local failure. I grew up on and current live on the Gulf Coast. Can't even remember all the storms I have been through. It is a state and local government responsibility to be the first responders and to lead all search and rescue and recovery. Katrina in Louisiana was a local and state failure to be prepared and failure to adequately respond, the federal government finally sent in an authority in the General Honore who went in to "oversee" and actually took over. That is highly unconstitutional and violated the authority of the Governor. Bush had offered it earlier and she had told him no the state would remain in charge. But I have little doubt that Bush finally told Blanco he was doing it even without her asking for them to take over.

Do you know the context of that statement? Do you know who had just spoken previously giving him and FEMA praise? Any clue as to the whole story? It was one of the ways the MSM has misrepresented the whole thing. Same as with this whole McCain thing here.

< yawn >
Just because the press report that somebody said something doesn't mean that it influences people.
Sarandon has stated she will leave the U.S. if McCain is elected.
What percentage of the population is changing their votes away from McCain because of this?

He's a "nobody" from the stance that him farting will influence people...


I don't wonder why because I see legitimate issues that Bush failed miserably on that you continue to prove incapable of addressing.
1) Bush put Brown in a position he had no qualifications for.
2) But did not see that Brown was totally screwing up the FEMA effort, and thus did nothing to intervene.

Instead of trying to obfuscate the issue with meaningless side-points, how about sticking to substance?


I didn't lose my train of thought.
My train of thought was to demonstrate how meaningless your complaint truly was. You keep trying to side-track legitimate points with meaningless side-bars.

I just gave you enough rope to hang yourself. You're the one who tied the knot...


It's funny how you keep trying to blame state and local failure, to avoid blaming Brown and FEMA.
But the truth of the matter, which you can't address with that tactic, is that Brown and FEMA ALSO failed.
Pointing to the state and local problems doesn't make Brown innocent of incompetence.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security. The purpose of FEMA (begun by Presidential Order on April 1, 1979)[1][3] is to coordinate the response to a disaster which has occurred in the United States and which overwhelms the resources of local and state authorities. The governor of the state in which the disaster occurred must declare a state of emergency and formally request from the President that FEMA and the federal government respond to the disaster.

Federal Emergency Management Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You keep pulling the same lame tricks over and over again.
You repeatedly fail to ADDRESS what was said, but instead make some non-sequitur point that in no way invalidates the original point.
While what you describe has truth, there is MORE to the situation than just that.
There is NO way in hell that the state and local governments could have had "responsibility" for responding to this disaster alone.

If you seriously pretend that they should have been able to go it alone, then FEMA has no point in existing.


Do you know how to make an argument? I mean a REAL argument that doesn't involve pretense or non-sequiturs?
Cause you certainly know how make leading questions which don't actually say anything.
NOTHING shown out of context.
NO refutation of the point of my argument.