You mean like FEMA?

So if what you say is true then Senator Obama is inept, and ignorant of the government services we already have. I guess you prove he is not worth voting for. Thanks.



How old are you?

Let me put it this way, I was shot wounded and because it was for President Carter and there was no declared war my disability was nil. Two years after I was shot I was part of the president’s protection team in Italy. When years later I could no longer work in the military I was discharged with nothing and only a friend from DIA arranged my disability payments by declassifying the thing I was shot doing. Under President Carter we were losing 5000 service men and women a year. Under President Bush we have lost 4000 service people over 7 years. Which one would you rather serve under?

Part of being in the military is the risk of being killed or wounded, this is not a shock to the service people it is drilled into our heads from day one in boot camp. You cry over 4000 families but say nothing over the 20,000 families of the killed under President Carter the man of peace, the person that let our service people die rather than go to war. So it is safer being at war under Mr. Bush than living in peace under Mr. Carter. Sorry for the rant I sort of lose it sometimes when I read trash like what you wrote. Yes, I feel for your sister, I feel for the bullet hole in my chest as well. You are hurt because your sister is hurt and I understand that but don’t hate someone that is trying to keep you safe. That is what the military is paid for and we do it gladly even thought the results are not what we hoped for.

Mooseplow:

Wrong again. Where did I get my information? I read the New Orleans and Louisiana Emergency Management Department protocols for Hurricanes. I compared them to Nagin and Blanco's responses to Hurricane Katrina and the flooding. Guess what, they outright refused to activate and follow the protocols.

I compared their responses with those of other areas hit by Katrina and Rita. I matched that with my own experiences in disaster response and recovery.

Yes, I read and listened to the reports from the incompetent press. I compared the reports to the reality and found the reports to be complete lies, unfounded rumors and disinformation. I watched as the incompetent press created a political groundswell out of a disaster.

Why was it that every "reporter" on scene at the Superdome reported over 100 murders? Why didn't even one of those incompetent wastes of a paycheck so much as go to the basement freezers to see if it was true. If they had of, they would have found exactly 3 bodies. 2 from heart attacks and 1 from a stroke.

Why weren't the tow truck drivers contracted to be at specific points along the freeways called out to do their jobs? Why did most of the people of NO think that the Superdome was a primary shelter when the protocols specified other places? Why was it that when FEMA showed up to support the recovery, Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin had no idea what was needed? Why? Because they never once bothered to conduct evaluations of the disaster areas... which is their job, not the job of FEMA.

The incompetent press wanted the world to believe that the federal government, under Prs. Bush, was to blame for the fiasco that was (and still is) New Orleans. They only succeeded because too many people sit fat and happy, ready to swallow whatever they are fed.

Did you ever ask yourself why FEMA seemed so incompetent in Louisiana, but so on the ball everywhere else? Did you ever wonder why the response for Katrina was so incompetent, but the response to Rita went off with only a few problems? The incompetent press wanted us to believe that Texas saw what happened in New Orleans and learned from the mistakes. The reality was, Texas city, county and state officials USED the Disaster Protocols that have been on file for years.

That is how I know of what I speak. That is why I don't sit and let a bunch of overpaid airheads tell me what to think about a situtation. Yes, I listen to their reports, but I don't take what they say as gospel. In fact, it is my experience that any news reports in the first 72 hours after a major disaster will be wrong. It is also my experience that the incompetent press has blown it on every major story in the last 20 years... probably longer, but that is as far back as my experience goes.

I'm sure he has been to the Obama website also, but did he ever actually think about what is said there? Did he match Obama's ideas and proposals to what the US Constitution defines as the job of the President of the United States? Did he ever question a single thing Obama said there, or did he merely fawn and genuflect to the annointed one?

If he listened to what Obama has been doing and saying, he would see a man who can't afford to let too much of himself bleed into his campaign. He would see a man who accomplished little to nothing in the Senate and even less in Illinois state government. He would see a man who owes his allegiences to Africa.

If he learned about Obama the man (as opposed to Obama the candidate), he would know that the man lied about knowing more languages than just English. He would know that Obama lied about not knowing the views of his preacher and the tenents of the church he attends.

If he was intellectually honest, he would wonder why Obama refused to meet with wounded troops, citing time constraints, but had plenty of time for a workout.

and before you spew on about the Republican nominee... yes, the intellectually honest voter should be asking themselves the same questions about McCain.

Sorry Kurtin, but no where did mooseplow identify himself as a veteran, or even a former service member. He is complaining because his sister came home hurt, a natural response to the injury of a loved one. I am not complaining about the numbers high or low because it is not worth complaining about. Death is a simple fact of life. War has been with us longer than man has been on the planet. I am pointing out to my misguided friend that while he sniffles over 4000 he is ignoring the deaths of 20,000.

This is his generation and all he knows. I was broadening his view point a bit and letting him know that service people have died due to the incompetence of civilian leadership since the beginning of history. This war like the last the civilian leadership did the right thing. They told the generals what they wanted as an end result and let them do it. Some mistakes were made as will always happen in war. But to blame it on the president is just wrong. I watched the video of Bin Laden brag about the attack on 9/11 and describe to his friend how he went about it. It was played on national TV for almost a week on every network. So Mr. Bush did not plan the attacks. We went after the people that planned them and have been rounding them up over the years. People we were fighting in Afghanistan were turning up in Iraq in clear violation of the Bush Doctrine, we were also attacked with WMD and the only world leader that cheered on the 9/11 attacks and had WMD was Saddam. Put 2+2 and it looks like the answer is 4. We find out later that the anthrax attack came from our own people and dealt with it. But since there was a clear link with Iraq and AQ why wait until we have thousands of dead and then deal with that monster? He was given a chance to disarm and refused. We disarmed him.

To this day we are still hunting down Nazis and bringing them to trial. That war was over, 60 years ago. Yet my friend chooses to point out that after 7 years, and while fighting is still going on, we have not caught Bin Laden. His and most liberal expectations are unrealistic, and politically motivated. If this is ignorance on his part then he can learn something if he chooses, if not then he is dishonest to us and himself. Every time he brings up a lie I have proven it was a lie yet he still clings to the lies. Others read this and at least get a chance to learn and see for themselves.

Please understand, as a Senator he was granted full access to the troops. The only condition was that he could not take more than his senate staff and no photographers one military photographer was provided but no news staff were allowed. It was at that point that he had the scheduling problem. He was doing it as a photo op and once that was taken away then the troops no longer served his political purpose and he begged off. You need to understand that political people have schedules that are tight. No time for fool around, there are people on the payroll to ensure that the political person sticks to that schedule. Before he left the United States he knew where and when he was gong to be some place or do some thing. This stuff is published months in advance. To suddenly change that schedule meant that he was not going to get what he wanted and used the scheduled time to work out. Here is an example of what I mean. President Bush wakes up early in the morning, works out in the gym, then runs three miles on an expected light day. Then he gets on a plane and fly’s to Florida to talk to some second graders to push his no child left behind and the attacks start. The rest of his schedule goes into the toilet. To say that Senator Obama had a scheduling issue is not like you having a scheduling issue when you plan to cut the grass and it starts raining.

Kurtin:

Nice try, but no banana... Africa is not a codeword for Black. Read the website of Trinity United Church of Christ... here's a direct quote...



and here...



So don't try to paint me as a racist when I say Obama owes his allegiences to Africa. It is a published and public fact.



Yes, there are people who have the ability to think for themselves who support Obama. You can tell them because they make well thought out arguments. They are also usually able to come up with original thoughts of their own that show why they feel Obama most closely fits what they want in a candidate. Mooseplow doesn't do that. So far, all Mooseplow has done is repeat the talking points spoon fed by the incompetent press.



Interesting you bring this up. He has been in the Senate for years now. He has been in a position to go to Africa anytime he wanted. He can't say he "didn't have time" since he has found time to travel to other places (both for government and personal reasons). In other words, if he wanted to "support the AIDS protection/prevention programs" he could have.

Kurtin:

Accepted and I do understand what you mean. Thanks for the explanation.



If he was a casual attender I would agree with you. However, he has been a very active member for 20 years. He and the pastor he now denounces spent time together as close friends. For all we know, he could disagree with some of United Trinity's tenets, but the wording of the website does not make that kind of exception. "The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:" Unless he sat in that church, without ever officially becoming a member, and never once said, "Amen" at the end of the sermons, he has committed to that 10 point vision... or he's just a guy who has been lying to his God for 20 years.


Horse Hockey! I have yet to see human fecal material like Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Craig, Crapo, McCain, Jack "America's Only Ex-Marine" Murtha or Feingold (just to name a few) serve this nation (while in the House or Senate), even by accident. On the other hand, to my knowledge NONE of the above mentioned vermin have refused to pledge allegience to the United States but have pledged allegience to another continent and people.



Isn't it interesting that, while he claims to care, the proposition of actually doing anything constructive has to be purely hypothetical.

Kurtin:

Sadly, you're right. I think it was Cactoblasta who said that most Americans aren't choosing a leader, they are choosing a winner... It seems they look at their right to vote as little more than participation in the "reality show" "So You Want to Be President". Even more sad is the number of Americans who don't know the difference.



I'm not talking about his actions as a candidate (at least not in this part), I'm talking about the man, Barack Obama. He's had ample opportunity to act on every issue he claims to care about. We don't need a campaign soundbite to know what he's about, we have his record... and it speaks for itself.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/386abhgm.asp?pg=1

Yet out of the other end we hear he has no record because hes only been in the senate 2 years, you guys cant have it both ways either he doesnt have a record to stand or he does, but dont say both are right.

 

Mooseplow:


That's the point, in 2 years in the Senate he has never once championed a single issue. I don't like Hillary a bit, but at least she has accomplished a few things in her time on the hill. Even if we go back to his days in Illinois State government, there is still no real record of accomplishments.

So far all we see is a guy who is awesome when reading a speech. I give him a lot of credit for that because I know it isn't an easy thing to do. However, the president of the United States doesn't bring a teleprompter with him when meeting and negotiating with foriegn leaders. He says he's willing to meet with even our nations enemies without conditions, yet he won't even meet with American citizens or wounded US troops without conditions.



I demonstrated to you how incompetent the press is on a matter you brought up, yet you ignored it like I never pointed it out. You are free to disagree with me all you want, but if you are going to tell me I'm wrong, back it up with at least as much in your rebuttal as I offered in mine.



Apparenlty your woefully ignorant on this point also.

Again, I waste my time offering links and quotes to you, but here goes...



This isn't from Rush Limbaugh, The Wall Street Journal or any other Conservative leaning organization, this is from Journalism.org. A website for, by and about the profession.



The basis for any libel or slander case is fact. It isn't libel to expose incompetent boobs for what they are. Again, I'll use Hurricane Katrina "reporting" as an example. They were too lazy to even check on stories before they reported rumors and outright lies. This is the definition of incompetence.

You can't sue for libel simply because the truth hurts.

If you want to be taken seriously by other bloggers, repond with a few thoughts of your own, in your own words, instead of repeating the tired soundbites you have littered the forums and blogs with here at JU.

Please read "The Republican Noise Maker"

Not to mention who owns the airwaves with talk shows, who owns fox, who owns print material.  Not liberals.  Sure I guess we got CNN, and to some extent nbc but everything else is advantage conservative.