| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 2006/3/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42049 Activity:moderate |
3/1 http://csua.org/u/f4e (AP via http://latimes.com) Watch Dubya participate via videoconference in FEMA briefing one day ahead of Katrina arrival. fyi, note that levy "breach" != levies being "topped" See "Nobody anticipated ..." below http://www.factcheck.org/article344.html \_ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/politics/10katrina.html \_ Face it, nothing is going to change the public opinion to the left. This includes oh so boring facts "made up" by liberal biased media. The only thing that'll change the mind of the overwhelmingly conservative dominated America is when Fox News shows footage of a whitehouse intern sucking GWB's dick. \_ or news aboot da Arabs buying our ports! \_ Ok. Whether it's Bush's fault or not is not relevant to the future of America. What's relevant is that most of the Red State folks believe that the New Orleans brought the disaster onto themselves by a series of mismanagement and corruption. The New Orleans are like the grasshoppers who partied at Mardi Gras while the ants (Red State people) worked hard because they're self-reliant and have moral and family values. Guess what? These Red State hicks are praising Bush for not wasting money on these New Orleans and welfare leeches who by the way are mostly colored negros that they despise of in the first place. And by 2008, there will be more conservatives bearing more conservative babies, and more aging folks opting for conservative politics, and even more young college kids opting for conservative politics. The university is now no longer a playground for the liberals. So you see, it doesn't matter what Bush does. Regardless of all the fuckups, what is clear in the future is that you'll see more and more car bumper stickers that say "Work harder. Millions of welfare recipients depend on you!" and "<Conservative Candidate> 2008" \_ Is that why Bush is at a 34% approval rating? \_ Yes, that's what happens when you poll 2x as many Democrats as Republicans. Go look at they poll data on that one then wash the koolaid out of your mouth. \_ Clearly, you're not a member of the reality-based community. community. Gallup had him at 39 a few weeks before the latest shit hit the fan, Quinnipiac just polled him at 36...but please, go on making tired kool-aid jokes. \_ Seriously, go look at the poll data. It was almost 2x D vs R. Believe what you want. I believe in facts. Koolaid jokes are appropriate when the other person doesn't bother to research the basis of their numbers. \_ The poll was for "adults nationwide" not "registered voters", and not "likely voters". The weighted %s are 37.4D 28.4R 34.2I. You'd be hard pressed to refute these. And 37.4 != 56.8. Hell, even unweighted, 40 != 53. Your "facts" are broken. \_ Hey nice of you to actually find them. Now you can do the reading comprehension part of this where the word "almost" appeared in my statement which is another way of saying, "your numbers are so messed up it isn't even worth discussing". I also note you chose to focus on the weighted numbers but I'll give you a nickel's credit for at least mentioning the raw numbers since we have no idea how they weighted anything. Next time you post crappy poll numbers you can put a "*" next to them and provide the raw data instead of spewing random numbers that you think support your partisanship. Had you noted them in the first place instead of tossing off your cutesy one liner I wouldn't have said anything. \_ The ratio of registered Democrats to registered Republicans is 1.35:1. -tom \_ "registered" != "likely voters" or we'd not have a Republican controlled government. Registered voters is no more interesting than "adults nationwide". If they don't vote, their political opinions don't matter. \_ That was my first post in the thread. You've challenged the credibility of the poll based on its methodology without any evidence but hand-waving. You wanna call them crappy, fine, but it's not a winning debate tactic. What would be a valid distribution in your mind? Please show your work. \_ applying near zero brain power to this I would say that a poll of people who are likely voters in upcoming elections based on previous voting patterns that closely matches the political demographics of the total likely voter population would be a good start for a poll. i'm sorry if this is a difficult concept for you but very few polls even attempt to actually reflect what voters think or want about anything so spewing random numbers about what percentage of a skewed survey of "adults nationwide" is a stupid and useless information-free political act. the poll in question in this thread is so slanted away from anything resembling a useful poll it isn't worth posting or discussing the 'results'. And I use that word very loosely. \_ If you want a "likely voters" poll, go find one. Your claim, still unsupported, is that their methodology was bogus. You claim, also unsupported that the values are skewed. Grow up, put up, or shut up. BTW, Fox just released theirs of Registered voters. 39/54 app/dis \_ I claim that a political poll that covers anything other than voters is useless junk produced solely for PR purposes. If they don't vote, they don't matter. See above for my comments on registered voters. Not interesting. How hard is it to figure out that when I said "likely voters" I meant "people most likely to vote, thus having opinions that matter", not every asshat with a useless non-voting opinion? Spewing at me that my claims are unsupported is ridiculous since my claims are so simple, even a motder could understand them. Frankly, I don't care at all what the actual numbers would be in a real poll anyway. GWB could be at 100 or at 0 and I wouldn't care, but the methodology in that poll is weak and then to spew it on the motd as if it has value is just trollish. \_ "don't vote" != "can't vote". I'd agree with you if the president were up for election that a "likely voters" poll would be more useful. But non-voters have to live under this administration too. And they can very well become voters. To ignore their voice is stupid and undemocratic. \_ true but historically not the case. over time the number of voters as a percentage of those eligible to register+vote has been slowly dropping over the years. I agree that it would be nice if the opposite were true but it isn't the case. As far as elections and such go, I agree in general that doing a popularity poll on a second term President isn't useful but we're never that far from a mid-term or the start of the next general election cycle so I do believe that polls of likely voters carry some weight in regards to which way the country is going politically. \_ Why don't you get even more pedantic and point out that "likely voters" are self-reported, so those are meaningless too? All polls are worthless! The only useful information is what some dipwad who hasn't fashioned a survey in his life says on the MOTD! -tom \_ thanks for contributing. without you here, it just wouldn't be the same. glad to have you on board. you're the best, nay! dare i say, U r0xx0rz, tom! if you have nothing to say, say nothing. you'll look smarter. \_ He's looking smarter than you, and that ain't saying much. \_ Just coming down to his level so he can understand. Anyone who uses "dipwad" at his age.... \_ Thank you. This further illustrates the fact that AP is yet another liberal mouth blabbering about nothing but non-sense. \_ At least he assured them that they were "fully prepared" \_ well, dubya said the federal govt was fully prepared to assist state govt, but it's doubtful whether that was true too my analysis is that pre-dubya, fema was in charge. when dubya came in, he whacked fema and said the states are now in charge. he broke something and then expected someone else to fix it ... hmm, sounds like ... gimme some help here. \_ He didn't "whack" it. He "privatized" it. THE FREE MARKET FIXES EVERYTHING! Except that it doesn't. \_ now there's a novel idea. pump all the money to the government and let it do its job. Let me guess, you're a socialist? \_ people should put that enron movie in their netflix queue |
| 5/23 |
|
| csua.org/u/f4e -> www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-bushkat-vid,0,3947548.wmvfile Bush Briefing on Katrina |
| www.factcheck.org/article344.html Printer Friendly Version Summary Some critics are suggesting President Bush was as least partly responsible for the flooding in New Orleans. In a widely quoted opinion piece, former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal says that "the damage wrought by the hurricane may not entirely be the result of an act of nature," and cites years of reduced funding for federal flood-control projects around New Orleans. Our fact-checking confirms that Bush indeed cut funding for projects specifically designed to strengthen levees. Indeed, local officials had been complaining about that for years. It is not so clear whether the money Bush cut from levee projects would have made any difference, however, and we're not in a position to judge that. The Army Corps of Engineers - which is under the President's command and has its own reputation to defend - insists that Katrina was just too strong, and that even if the levee project had been completed it was only designed to withstand a category 3 hurricane. Analysis We suspect this subject will get much more attention in Congress and elsewhere in the coming months. com carried the headline: "No one can say they didn't see it coming." And it said the Bush administration cut flood-control funding "to pay for the Iraq war." He continues: Blumenthal: With its main levee broken, the evacuated city of New Orleans has become part of the Gulf of Mexico . But the damage wrought by the hurricane may not entirely be the result of an act of nature. By 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the US Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. forced the New Orleans district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze. The multi-decade project involved building new levees, enlarging existing levees, and updating other protections like floodwalls. Over at least the past several budget cycles, the Corps has received substantially less money than it requested for the Lake Pontchartrain project, even though Congress restored much of the money the President cut from the amount the Corps requested. In fiscal year 2004, the Corps requested $11 million for the project. "This was insufficient to fund new construction contracts," according to a US Army Corps of Engineers' project fact sheet. The President proposed $3 million for the project in the budget for fiscal 2006, which begins Oct. It says the Corps "could spend $20 million if funds were provided." The Corps of Engineers goes on to say: Army Corps of Engineers, May 23: In Orleans Parish, two major pump stations are threatened by hurricane storm surges. Major contracts need to be awarded to provide fronting protection for them. Also, several levees have settled and need to be raised to provide the design protection. The current funding shortfalls in fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 will prevent the Corps from addressing these pressing needs. The Corps has seen cutbacks beyond those affecting just the Lake Pontchartrain project. The Corps oversees SELA, or the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control project, which Congress authorized after six people died from flooding in May 1995. The Times-Picayune newspaper of New Orleans reported that, overall, the Corps had spent $430 million on flood control and hurricane prevention, with local governments offering more than $50 million toward the project. Nonetheless, "at least $250 million in crucial projects remained," the newspaper said. In the past five years, the amount of money spent on all Corps construction projects in the New Orleans district has declined by 44 percent, according to the New Orleans CityBusiness newspaper, from $147 million in 2001 to $82 million in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. A long history of complaints Local officials had long complained that funding for hurricane protection projects was inadequate: * October 13, 2001: The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported that "federal officials are postponing new projects of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Control Program, or SELA, fearing that federal budget constraints and the cost of the war on terrorism may create a financial pinch for the program." The paper went on to report that "President Bush's budget proposed $52 million" for SELA in the 2002 fiscal year. The House approved $57 million and the Senate approved $62 million. Still, "the $62 million would be well below the $80 million that corps officials estimate is needed to pay for the next 12 months of construction, as well as design expenses for future projects." Meanwhile, an engineer who had direct the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study - a study of how to restore coastal wetlands areas in order to provide a bugger from hurricane storm surges - was sent to Iraq "to oversee the restoration of the Garden of Eden' wetlands at the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers," for which President Bush's 2005 gave $100 million. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us. The Bush administration "ordered the New Orleans district office" of the Army Corps of Engineers "not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money." That would have been the largest single-year funding loss ever. They noted that money "was so tight" that "the New Orleans district, which employs 1,300 people, instituted a hiring freeze last month on all positions," which was "the first of its kind in about 10 years." Blumenthal implies that increased funding might have helped to prevent the catastrophic flooding that New Orleans now faces. The White House denies that, and the Corps of Engineers says that even the levee project they were working to complete was not designed to withstand a storm of Katrina's force. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, at a press briefing on September 1, dismissed the idea that the President inadequately funded flood control projects in New Orleans : McClellan: Flood control has been a priority of this administration from day one. We have dedicated an additional $300 million over the last few years for flood control in New Orleans and the surrounding area. Q: Local people were asking for more money over the last couple of years. They were quoted in local papers in 2003 and 2004, are saying that they were told by federal officials there wasn't enough money because it was going to Iraq expenditures. McClellan: You might want to talk to General Strock, who is the commander of the Army Corps of Engineers, because I think he's talked to some reporters already and talked about some of these issues. I think some people maybe have tried to make a suggestion or imply that certain funding would have prevented the flooding from happening, and he has essentially said there's been nothing to suggest that whatsoever, and it's been more of a design issue with the levees. David Hewitt, a spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers, said McClellan was referring to the fact that "the levees were designed for a category 3 hurricane." He told us that, consequently, "when it became apparent that this was a category 5 hurricane, an evacuation of the city was ordered." Still, even if it had been completed, the project's goal was protecting New Orleans from storm surges up to "a fast-moving Category 3 hurricane," according to the fact sheet. We don't know whether the levees would have done better had the work been completed. But the Corps says that even a completed levee project wasn't designed for the storm that actually occurred. Bush is technically correct that a "breach" wasn't anticipated by the Corps, but that's doesn't mean the flooding wasn't forseen. But the Corps thought it would happen differently, from water washing over the levees, rather than cutting wide breaks in them. Greg Breerword, a deputy district engineer for project management with the Army Corps of Engineers, told the New York Times: Breerword: We knew if it was going to be a Category 5, some ... |
| www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/politics/10katrina.html Breaking news and award winning multimedia New York Times newspaper articles Arts & Dining reviews Online Classifieds It's free and it only takes a minute! |
| latimes.com -> www.latimes.com/ Private Rocket Nears Space By Peter Pae Craft designed by Burt Rutan goes where no private craft has gone before in bid for prize. US Military Lawyers Felt 'Shut Out' of Prison Policy By Ken Silverstein They said civilian political lawyers were deciding how prisoners could be questioned. Governor Opts to Put Off the Pain By Peter Nicholas ANALYSIS: Schwarzenegger's revised plan avoids deep cuts in spending and includes no new taxes. An Editor's Hollywood Ties Pay Off By Claudia Eller, Michael Cieply and Josh Getlin Vanity Fair's Graydon Carter strikes business deals with some people his magazine covers. Tough Outing for Nomo By Ben Bolch He gives up six runs and walks three in shortest outing of the season as Dodgers fall to Cubs, 7-3. US Military Lawyers Felt 'Shut Out' of Prison Policy By Ken Silverstein They said civilian political lawyers were deciding how prisoners could be questioned. Awed, one and all, deep below ground By Vani Rangachar A family visits Carlsbad Caverns National Park to witness what millions of years and sulfuric acid can do. Setting a Modern standard By Cara Mullio and Jennifer M Volland An architect of Case Study Houses, Edward Killingsworth used many of the same principles in his own home -- light, glass, an emphasis on indoor-outdoor living. |