"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:34:57 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Gallup says 42%

CNN says 42%

Two months 'til the mid-terms. Plenty of time to hit that magical 50%.
;-)

And you know what?

Nobody, and I mean nobody, cares. Everyone is sick and tired of
meaningless polls which prove nothing because the samples are so
skewed as to make them useless.

The average American could care less.

As long as he is near 50%, it makes it easier for Diebold to steal another
election without anybody getting suspicious...or at least that's what the
moonbats over at the liberal blogs think.

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:17:37 +0000, NOYB wrote:


As long as he is near 50%, it makes it easier for Diebold to steal another
election without anybody getting suspicious...or at least that's what the
moonbats over at the liberal blogs think.

And if he loses,

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/...608200322/1002

All this time, I thought Republicans believed in states rights.

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:17:37 +0000, NOYB wrote:


As long as he is near 50%, it makes it easier for Diebold to steal another
election without anybody getting suspicious...or at least that's what the
moonbats over at the liberal blogs think.

And if he loses,

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/...608200322/1002

All this time, I thought Republicans believed in states rights.

Republicans only believe in someone's rights if it suits there M.O.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:17:37 +0000, NOYB wrote:


As long as he is near 50%, it makes it easier for Diebold to steal
another
election without anybody getting suspicious...or at least that's what the
moonbats over at the liberal blogs think.

And if he loses,

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/...608200322/1002

All this time, I thought Republicans believed in states rights.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Bush got criticized to holy hell for not responding more quickly after
Katrina. And now you're citing an article that states unequivocally that
Gov. Blanco resisted the White House's urging to turn control of the guard
over to Federal authority!?!

I think the President ought to have the authority to take over the National
Guard during "a serious natural or man-made disaster, accident, or
catastrophe that occurs in the United States, its territories and
possessions, or Puerto Rico." Afterall, the Guard is paid for by revenue
from Federal taxes.

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/...608200322/1002

All this time, I thought Republicans believed in states rights.


NOYB wrote:
Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Bush got criticized to holy hell for not responding more quickly after
Katrina. And now you're citing an article that states unequivocally that
Gov. Blanco resisted the White House's urging to turn control of the guard
over to Federal authority!?!


Why was Federal aid to the area struck by Hurricane Katrina
contingent upon turning over authority over the National Guard?

Are you saying you support this fascist power grab by the
Bush Administration, and offer up it's failure as a serious
reason why they should not have bothered sending the various
federal agencies to actually do their job?


I think the President ought to have the authority to take over the National
Guard during "a serious natural or man-made disaster, accident, or
catastrophe that occurs in the United States, its territories and
possessions, or Puerto Rico." Afterall, the Guard is paid for by revenue
from Federal taxes.


Of course. One might surmise from your attitude that you
feel President Bush ought to be declared
Dictator-For-Life... you almost certainly would not support
turning any authority over to a Democrat President.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
news
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/...608200322/1002

All this time, I thought Republicans believed in states rights.


NOYB wrote:
Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Bush got criticized to holy hell for not responding more quickly after
Katrina. And now you're citing an article that states unequivocally that
Gov. Blanco resisted the White House's urging to turn control of the
guard over to Federal authority!?!


Why was Federal aid to the area struck by Hurricane Katrina contingent
upon turning over authority over the National Guard?

Are you saying you support this fascist power grab by the Bush
Administration, and offer up it's failure as a serious reason why they
should not have bothered sending the various federal agencies to actually
do their job?

The federal agencies are incapable of handling a crisis of that magnitude
without the help of the military (active duty, reservists, or the guard).
It wouldn't be feasible to keep a federal agency of large enough size at the
ready in case of an emergency like Katrina. That's the purpose of the
Guard.

So there were two problems:

1) the posse comitatus act prevented Bush from sending US troops

2) Gov. Blanco refused to allow Bush to have authority over Guard troops.

So how was Bush supposed to handle the Katrina crisis?

I look forward to how you'd have handled things differently.





I think the President ought to have the authority to take over the
National Guard during "a serious natural or man-made disaster, accident,
or catastrophe that occurs in the United States, its territories and
possessions, or Puerto Rico." Afterall, the Guard is paid for by revenue
from Federal taxes.


Of course. One might surmise from your attitude that you feel President
Bush ought to be declared Dictator-For-Life... you almost certainly would
not support turning any authority over to a Democrat President.

After a crisis like Katrina? Of course I would...especially if the Guard is
in the hands of an inept Governor.

As long as guys like Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist are in charge down here,
there's no need for Federal control of the guard in Florida. Unfortunately
that's not the case in many states.

Here's the funny thing:
The fact that you're making up excuses just goes to show
that you agree President Bush was absent and/or incompetent
in providing leadership after Hurricane Katrina.

Are you saying you support this fascist power grab by the Bush
Administration, and offer up it's failure as a serious reason why they
should not have bothered sending the various federal agencies to actually
do their job?


NOYB wrote:
The federal agencies are incapable of handling a crisis of that magnitude
without the help of the military (active duty, reservists, or the guard).

Is that an excuse for not bothering to activate gov't
civilian aid agencies, most of which were standing around
for a week before getting their asses in gear?


It wouldn't be feasible to keep a federal agency of large enough size at the
ready in case of an emergency like Katrina.

Is that an excuse for not directing those agencies already
in existence, and already paid for, to get to work soon
after a catastrophe? Or for that matter, two days in advance
when it becomes obvious that a really big catastrophe is
about to happen?





So there were two problems:

1) the posse comitatus act prevented Bush from sending US troops


But it din't prevent him from sending others.
Furthermore, regular U.S. military can be (and have been)
used for disaster relief.


2) Gov. Blanco refused to allow Bush to have authority over Guard troops.

So how was Bush supposed to handle the Katrina crisis?


By sending people other than the National Guard

I look forward to how you'd have handled things differently.


Let's put it this way... the U.S. Coast Guard was *there*
that very afternoon.

Of course, the Coast Guard has leadership. The other Federal
agencies have President Bush.

You figure it out.


As long as guys like Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist are in charge down here,
there's no need for Federal control of the guard in Florida.

That must be why Jeb Bush is against turning over authority
over the Guard to the President.

DSK