At 6/13/12 08:02 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
At 6/13/12 06:21 PM, ohbombuh wrote:
Oh shit, I forgot to point to a single, notable climatologist giving such a specific warning.Go ahead and Google "Hurricane Pam". FEMA had conducted a hurricane simulation that predicted exactly what would happen if a hurricane of Katrina's size hit Louisiana 14 months before it happened.
Simulating a disaster is not the same as confidently predicting it will happen. Moreover, FEMA only exists to solve emergencies; i.e. its members stay employed if there's some mess to clean up. Of course the agency is going to look for possible problems, even if it considers them unlikely. And if there was so much reason to believe the flooding was imminent, why didn't local leaders (mayor of New Orleans, governor of Louisiana, etc.) shore up their own levees?
Moreover, I forgot that Katrina was a problem for the South, whose history's leaders called for states to solve their own problems.Oh, right, I forgot how the Confederates actually won the Civil War, thus making the South not really part of the United States of America.
I don't care as much about the winning side as I do for the side with a view of the Constitution that won't result in a Leviathan government. What works is important, but it's a small touch of irony that people in the once-independent South were "using pity as a weapon," so to speak.
I'm not endorsing slavery, but I frankly don't believe you can make a bunch of shortsighted fools better in the long run by chaining them together. Most often, you'll have them become even more foolish and expect other members of the group to solve their problems (I'm looking at you, PIIGS).
Oh well, Bush was still a fool for not throwing money at schoolsNo, he's a fool for thinking that what failing schools really need to succeed is to have their funding cut.
Tit for tat. Still, I can't deny a lot of educational problems are out of individual teachers' hands (compulsory attendance, waiting at the mercy of old union members, politics changing curricula, etc.). My take on it is that states have the most educational clout, but at least he managed to build a bridge between the parties.
and for trying to defend America (in an admittedly historically-uniformed way).I assume that what you meant to say was "uninformed" which is right on the money, and "trying" is another keyword, but "massive failure" seems to be missing however.
Yes, please excuse my typo. And yes, that was a failing point of Bush, but that doesn't support the original video's implied conclusion that the Democrats would automatically stop it. Personally, I view Ron Paul (neither a man of war nor a Democrat) as a wiser version of Bush in that he'd actually spend less when he taxes less and avoid intervention in foreign countries.
Unlike him, Obama has really done a lot for peace in the Middle East; that's why he got the Nobel Peace Prize, and that's why I'm voting Democrat.Oh, you must have me confused with someone who thinks Obama good on foreign policy. No, Obama is pretty much an adherent of the neo-con ideology when it comes to foreign policy, which is why you don't see as many Republicans criticizing Obama on this front as on other matters of policy.
Sorry, it's just that seemingly few anti-war liberals criticize him for it either. As it stands at my school, the people who see Obama as a flawless replacement for Bush's warmongering tend to be the ones who think Obama should shoot up Africa until Joseph Kony disappears.