Republican or Democrat
383 RepliesJump to last post
[quote=Cruiser]
I am sure another clinton is going to have to come in and clean up after W's mistakes. Just like a clinton did after W's daddy was president.
[/quote]
Anyone else laugh so hard at that that they ended up with tears in their eyes? That was priceless
[quote=mikebutler222][quote=menotellname]
Yes...Mr. Bush f**ked up...
He declared a disaster on August 27th...and still couldn't rally the troops...
Only Republican sympathizers make up weak excuses for their even weaker leader.
[/quote]
It's hard to believe that someone could be so ill-informed as to believe that the declaration of emergency (which simply begins the funding process) means the Feds come in immediately and take charge with local requests.
I can only assume it's being that ill-informed that makes you the perfect Democrat,,,,
[/quote]
Emergency declared on 8/27
Disaster declared on 8/29
Did you read the link?
Perhaps you are too stupid to understand that the feds have jurisdiction over federally declared disasters. That means any missteps are directly attributable to those in charge (read: the feds). Or for you: George W. Bush and his inept cohorts.
None of you seem to get it.
Government in our country has as it's highest goal self-service, and not service to the people. Democrats or Republicans...it makes no difference. Whomever is in power at a given time is intent upon creating greater and more grandiose bureaucracies whose main underlying purpose seems to be to keep the "ins" in. And the more we as citizens fight amongst ourselves, the less likely we will be to hold these bandits accountable for their actions.
Admit it to yourselves...there wasn't a hair's breadth of difference between Bush and Kerry. Between Bush and Gore. Between Dole and Clinton. Between Bush 1 and Clinton. All we get anymore is higher taxes, less service, bigger government and worst of all in my humble opinion, troops in the field.
[quote=Starka]
Admit it to yourselves...there wasn't a hair's breadth of difference between Bush and Kerry. Between Bush and Gore. Between Dole and Clinton. Between Bush 1 and Clinton. All we get anymore is higher taxes, less service, bigger government and worst of all in my humble opinion, troops in the field.
[/quote]
I agree that all we get are higher taxes. However, there is a subtle yet distinct difference in the philosophy behind the tax increases and the uses of the money. Hence, the larger differences in the individuals that you named. Yes; both parties pander to the wealth. Unfortunately, one party completely ignores AND abuses the poor. Can you guess which one?
It's BOTH of the major parties. One believes in trickle down economics, and the other, redistribution of wealth, with a healthy chunk for the middleman for both.
Neither one does me any good.
[quote=menotellname][quote=mikebutler222][quote=menotellname]
Yes...Mr. Bush f**ked up...
He declared a disaster on August 27th...and still couldn't rally the troops...
Only Republican sympathizers make up weak excuses for their even weaker leader.
[/quote]
It's hard to believe that someone could be so ill-informed as to believe that the declaration of emergency (which simply begins the funding process) means the Feds come in immediately and take charge with local requests.
I can only assume it's being that ill-informed that makes you the perfect Democrat,,,,
[/quote]
Emergency declared on 8/27
Disaster declared on 8/29
Did you read the link?
Perhaps you are too stupid to understand that the feds have jurisdiction over federally declared disasters. That means any missteps are directly attributable to those in charge (read: the feds). Or for you: George W. Bush and his inept cohorts.
[/quote]
Read your own link. It says NOTHING of the sort. All declaring and emergency does is make it possible to local officials to apply for federal financial assistance. The Feds do not, I say again, do NOT have the right to march in and take over the situation without specific requests from the locals. We have a FEDERAL system of government.
[quote=SonnyClips]Starka has the last word and the question is moot.
Best,
Sonny[/quote]
ROFLMAO Menotellname, er "Sonny" has spoken...
[quote=mikebutler222]
Read your own link. It says NOTHING of the sort. All declaring and emergency does is make it possible to local officials to apply for federal financial assistance. The Feds do not, I say again, do NOT have the right to march in and take over the situation without specific requests from the locals. We have a FEDERAL system of government.[/quote]
Wrong again, Mike.
In addition to what you stated (which is actually correct). A federal emergency and a federal disaster make the federal agency that covers the incident the primary agency of the entire incident.
Think about a bank robbery. Federal crime. Federal jurisdiction (FBI).
Counterfeit money? Federal crime. Federal jurisdiction (Secret Service).
Similarly a federal disaster or federal emergency has FEMA as the primary agency. The locals just support the feds.
[quote=mikebutler222]
[quote=SonnyClips]Starka has the last word and the question is moot.
Best,
Sonny[/quote]
ROFLMAO Menotellname, er "Sonny" has spoken...
[/quote]
I repeat...
"You are a paranoid little bitch...aren't you?"
Menotellname, your analogies don't hold any water.
The first two that you mentioned involved US currency, and thus fall under the purview of the enumerated powers listed in the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8), while the third does not. My understanding is that absent a violation of Constitutional guarantees, Federal Authorities cannot intervene (such as nationalizing the States Militia) without the direct and specific request of the governor. Governor Blanco has said that she did not request nationalization because, "good people would go to jail". Whatever that means.
This being said, I think there's plenty of blame to go around at all levels, and I have every confidence that the Congress will have hearings ad nauseum, at least as long as they can get their names in the papers.
No Sonny, I don't think what "is" is has anything to do with it. I believe that the request must be both specific and formal.
I don't know if the President acted in a timely enough manner or not. One thing I do know...it won't be settled here.
[quote=Starka]
Menotellname, your analogies don't hold any water.
The first two that you mentioned involved US currency, and thus fall under the purview of the enumerated powers listed in the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8), while the third does not. My understanding is that absent a violation of Constitutional guarantees, Federal Authorities cannot intervene (such as nationalizing the States Militia) without the direct and specific request of the governor. Governor Blanco has said that she did not request nationalization because, "good people would go to jail". Whatever that means.
This being said, I think there's plenty of blame to go around at all levels, and I have every confidence that the Congress will have hearings ad nauseum, at least as long as they can get their names in the papers.
[/quote]
Wrong again "captain".
The analogies are perfectly valid when comparing state and federal jurisdiction in matters that seemingly fall to the locale where the incident occurs but are subject to federal authority.
You might want to read the posts and supporting documentation again.
Ah, but Sonny, you’re jumping to conclusions that may or may not be valid. You see, I never posted that I thought your charges were wrong. The fact is, I don’t know.
Lets give a hell yeah to the NO police department. They only had about 300 police officers take off. Some took the cars and drove a few hundred miles.
Know that the state police did not have one man or woman walk off the job. I know our military does not have 25% take off.
Did you know in 96 governor for LA was David Duke (KKK), Woody Jenkins (Amway emerald) and some other corupt person. The election was really close between Jenkins and Blanko. Everyone knew there was a lot of coruption.
A trail of great LA leaders http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/04/25/edwards.trial/
[quote=Starka]
I don't know if the President acted in a timely enough manner or not. One thing I do know...it won't be settled here.
[/quote]
Agreed. However, what's not in doubt is the incorrect nature of menotellname's claim that a declaration of emergency means the Feds have assumed control in the case of a disaster.
[quote=mikebutler222]
However, what's not in doubt is the incorrect nature of menotellname's claim that a declaration of emergency means the Feds have assumed control in the case of a disaster. [/quote]
Obviously you fail to understand parallelism.
Federal emergency = feds are in charge
Federal disaster = feds are in charge
Why would the locals be in charge of a "federally declared disaster"?
[quote=menotellname]
[quote=mikebutler222]
However, what's not in doubt is the incorrect nature of menotellname's claim that a declaration of emergency means the Feds have assumed control in the case of a disaster. [/quote]
Obviously you fail to understand parallelism.
Federal emergency = feds are in charge
Federal disaster = feds are in charge
Why would the locals be in charge of a "federally declared disaster"?
[/quote]
Because, as you've been told many, many times FEDERAL FUNDS become available to the state when a FEDERAL disaster has been declared. The law says specifically that As part of such request, and as a prerequisite to major disaster assistance under this Act, "...the Governor shall take appropriate response action under State law and direct execution of the State's emergency plan.
Need any more help?
Here Mike...take a look...
The entire National Response Plan...all 426 pages:
http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRP_FullText.pdf
I like Section III, Roles and Responsibilities, under the heading Federal Government. Under the subsections; Department of Homeland Security, Secretary of Homeland Security...item 4.
Which clearly states:
"Pursuant to HSPD-5, the Secretary of Homeland Security is responsible for coordinating Federal operations within the United States to prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. HSPD-5 further designates the Secretary of Homeland Security as the "principal Federal official" for domestic incident management.
In this role, the Secretary is also responsible for coordinating Federal resources utilized in response to or recovery from terrorist attacks, major disasters, or other emergencies if and when any of the following four conditions applies:
(1) a Federal department or agency acting under its own authority has requested DHS assistance;
(2) the resources of State and local authorities are overwhelmed and Federal assistance is requested;
(3) more than one Federal department or agency has become substantially involved in responding to the incident; or
(4) the Secretary has been directed to assume incident management responsibilities by the President."
****************************************************
You are Starka keep harping on #2. Keep in mind that the exact verbage states "or" (see number 3) not "and".
Also, #4 applied from 8/29 at the absolute lastest when the President declared a Federal disaster and sent in Mike Brown.
Any questions?
Mike, I am sure that you will post some useless diatribe after reading page 8...
*sighs*
[quote=menotellname]
Here Mike...take a look...
The entire National Response Plan...all 426 pages:
http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRP_FullText.pdf
I like Section III, Roles and Responsibilities, under the heading Federal Government. Under the subsections; Department of Homeland Security, Secretary of Homeland Security...item 4.
Which clearly states:
"Pursuant to HSPD-5, the Secretary of Homeland Security is responsible for coordinating Federal operations within the United States to prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. HSPD-5 further designates the Secretary of Homeland Security as the "principal Federal official" for domestic incident management.
In this role, the Secretary is also responsible for coordinating Federal resources utilized in response to or recovery from terrorist attacks, major disasters, or other emergencies if and when any of the following four conditions applies:
(1) a Federal department or agency acting under its own authority has requested DHS assistance;
(2) the resources of State and local authorities are overwhelmed and Federal assistance is requested;
(3) more than one Federal department or agency has become substantially involved in responding to the incident; or
(4) the Secretary has been directed to assume incident management responsibilities by the President."
****************************************************
You are Starka keep harping on #2. Keep in mind that the exact verbage states "or" (see number 3) not "and".
Also, #4 applied from 8/29 at the absolute lastest when the President declared a Federal disaster and sent in Mike Brown.
Any questions?
Mike, I am sure that you will post some useless diatribe after reading page 8...
*sighs*
[/quote]
You continue to be wrong.... it's really a shame. Declaring an emergency does NOT mean the Feds are in charge, it simply means Federal funds become available. FURTHER assistance comes to the state and local leaders WHEN REQUESTED. Nothing in your post changes that fact.