Wishing for Obama's "progressive" agenda to fail isn't a good example of "wishing for the worst." In fact, I would argue it's the best that could happen.
No, it wouldn't.
At this point, doing nothing is better than anything the Democrats have proposed. Period.
Republicans have forwarded a number of ideas that have been rejected out of hand.
Nope. Worst is allowing Obama to get off the canvas, dust himself off, and then point out that his critics are worried about helping out a bunch of poor black people with a trifling amount of the federal budget.
Damn. I was thinking ten months was too long for the GOP not to this up. Looks like it was ten minutes instead.
What would you suggest and, by the way, the cost of Obamacare isn't "trifling."
Again, what would you have Republicans do at this point?
Topicality, Yoni. MB was referring to disaster aid.
No . Helping some poor Haitians is.
ing enjoy the photo ops and hug him tighter. We're all Haitians now. Etc.
Again, what would you have Republicans do at this point?
R O F L. And the true objection emerges.
lol, now he's an expert on indonesia.
...(off the mark)
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-20-2010 at 08:02 PM.
I certainly wouldn't hold that many republicans in the House or Senate are against sending aid to Haiti. I thought that even the most staunch "conservatives" on this board would be unanimously in favor of that... how wrong this forum continues to prove me.
Yoni has trouble paying attention. Unfortunately, this makes it almost impossible to keep him on task.
lol at the 3rd page of this thread.
I'm not complaining about aid to Haiti. And, I think Rush Limbaugh is a jackass for inferring that we've done enough already.
I do agree with the comment that this president factors politics into everything he does, everything. But, that aside, I think sending aid to Haiti was a foregone conclusion - politics aside.
He'll take the kudoes, though. That is, if he can show his administration is handling it better than Katrina; over which, you may recall, President Bush was vilified -- even though the root cause of that disaster was the diversion of Corp of Engineers funds away from Levee maintenance by local governments and the unfortunate failure of those levees 2 days after Katrina cleared New Orleans and everyone thought a bullet had been dodged.
Democrats didn't cut Bush any slack for missteps occurring in the face of unforeseeable cir stances. Don't expect Obama's critics to do the same. And, by comparison, the Bush administration's response to the Indonesian tsunami was, by far, more organized and immediate than what Obama's doing in Haiti.
I just hope he's doing something down there. It seems U.S. aid has been slow in getting to Port au Prince.
But, I've not paid that close attention. And, it seems, the media is playing up the problems over the successes...so, who's to say how things are going down there.
Now's not the time to worry about Obama getting a free pass on Haiti(!).
The GOP just won in Massachusetts(!).
So now Obama is bungling relief. Good thing for Haiti the rest of the world is responding too.
I was responding to your post and I though MB was responding to mine. My bad.
If you look back, I think you can see how that might have happened. You generalized the conversation by suggesting...
and...
My bad for immediately assuming MB was responding to my post, I'll try to do better. But, you're the one that got off topic. Besides, I've never wished for anything but grace, mercy, and relief for the Haitian people, after the earthquake.
This is one instance where I hope the Administration is successful and I don't care if Obama gets political points for doing so.
That's nothing new for a president to see everything from a political viewpoint. In fact, can you name a president in the last 50 years who did not?I do agree with the comment that this president factors politics into everything he does, everything. But, that aside, I think sending aid to Haiti was a foregone conclusion - politics aside.
Like the props you're giving Bush for his response to the tsunami?He'll take the kudoes, though.
Bush certainly didn't receive the most criticism. That was directed at the mayor and the head of FEMA -- whom Bush appointed even though he had absolutely NO relevant experience. It was a buddy-buddy promotion that might have slipped through the cracks without a disaster on the scale of Katrina.That is, if he can show his administration is handling it better than Katrina; over which, you may recall, President Bush was vilified
For starters, it certainly wasn't two days later. It was less than 24 hours after the hurricane hit that the levees began to fail. But we had known about the possibility of a hurricane wiping out NOLA since the 60s -- in fact, it happened once prior to Katrina. Every president who did NOT build the levee that was recommended by virtually every head meteorologist shares the blame for Katrina.-- even though the root cause of that disaster was the diversion of Corp of Engineers funds away from Levee maintenance by local governments and the unfortunate failure of those levees 2 days after Katrina cleared New Orleans and everyone thought a bullet had been dodged.
You mean an entire city being destroyed less than three years after 9/11?Democrats didn't cut Bush any slack for missteps occurring in the face of unforeseeable cir stances.
I'm gonna need a source on this. Indonesia has more than one working airport though, so it's expected aid would be able to arrive more quickly.Don't expect Obama's critics to do the same. And, by comparison, the Bush administration's response to the Indonesian tsunami was, by far, more organized and immediate than what Obama's doing in Haiti.
The media is doing exactly what it needs to get ratings. But as I said in another thread, I have a close friend who is a native of Haiti. She has been in contact with their immediate family, and at the moment, there is very little that is good in that country right now. People cannot even re-enter their homes even if they survived the quake, because aftershocks could bring the building down if they try to enter it. So they must sleep outside, usually on the ground that just destroyed their home. To put it bluntly, they have little solace and precious little real help yet.I just hope he's doing something down there. It seems U.S. aid has been slow in getting to Port au Prince. But, I've not paid that close attention. And, it seems, the media is playing up the problems over the successes...so, who's to say how things are going down there.
Vive la difference.Socialist.....Sommelier....what's the difference?
I can sort of see it. Fair enough.
we should give everyone in Haitai 200,000 dollars and say, good luck. It'd end up being cheaper than what is going to happen.
Times 10,000,000 Haitians. That's $2 quadrillion dollars. Math fail.
Seriously, you'd give a man in a shattered country, who needs water, food, fuel and medical care a cash kiss-off and be done with it?
That is seriously angry, internetz tough guy.
People are dying as we speak, and you're worried about the cost of helping out. Unbelievable.
I guess I was foolish for believing this thread had already reached it's nadir.
Come on...
But the democrats could say "Look how caring we are."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
