We don’t need no steenking relief supplies
Blanco’s Louisiana State Homeland Security. BEFORE THE FLOOD.
I was watching up on the corner television in my studio, and it’s headlined that the Red Cross was blocked from delivering supplies to the Superdome, Major Garrett. Tell us what you found out.
MG: Well, the Red Cross, Hugh, had pre-positioned a literal vanguard of trucks with water, food, blankets and hygiene items. They’re not really big into medical response items, but those are the three biggies that we saw people at the New Orleans Superdom, and the convention center, needing most accutely. And all of us in America, I think, reasonably asked ourselves, geez. You know, I watch hurricanes all the time. And I see correspondents standing among rubble and refugees and evacuaees. But I always either see that Red Cross or Salvation Army truck nearby. Why don’t I see that?
HH: And the answer is?
MG: The answer is the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security, that is the state agency responsible for that state’s homeland security, told the Red Cross explicitly, you cannot come.
HH: Now Major Garrett, on what day did they block the delivery? Do you know specifically?
MG: I am told by the Red Cross, immediately after the storm passed.
HH: Okay, so that would be on Monday afternoon.
MG: That would have been Monday or Tuesday.
***
HH: I also have to conclude from what you’re telling me, Major Garrett, is that had they been allowed to deliver when they wanted to deliver, which is at least a little bit prior to the levee, or at least prior to the waters rising, the supplies would have been pre-positioned, and the relief...you know, the people in the Superdome, and possibly at the convention center, I want to come back to that, would have been spared the worst of their misery.
MG: They would have been spared the lack of food, water and hygiene. I don’t think there’s any doubt that they would not have been spared the indignity of having nor workable bathrooms in short order.
HH: Now Major Garrett, let’s turn to the convention center, because this will be, in the aftermath...did the Red Cross have ready to go into the convention center the supplies that we’re talking about as well?
MG: Sure. They could have gone to any location, provided that the water wasn’t too high, and they got some assistance.
Clearly Bush’s fault.
Comments
The fact that it’s done by a Fox News staffer is going to put most libs off this story right away. Personally, I’d like to see the same information mirrored by other sources as well. The American Red Cross link on Captain’s Quarters is a good start.
Hm. Up five hours or so. Two comments.
Moonbat filters are obviously engaged, keeping them from seeing this post, thereby keeping their happy little world where everything is Bush’s fault intact.
‘Cause, y’know, the world would have been perfect right now if Al Gore/John Kerry had been elected. They’re psychic like that.
The debate on this issue is to the timing of the block. Apparently red cross people are saying that the block occurred Saturday, which somehow makes it Bush’s fault again.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/8/122829/2605
Among the most brilliant theories from KOS readers faced with the truth:
Could be reporter screw up, could be Red Cross in cahoots with Bush.
Could be you’re in denial.
National Guard is responsible in the case of LA....and/or FEMA...not the state.
Oddly enough, the Louisiana National Guard is run by Louisiana.
now that I find that Red Cross Chairman Bonnie McElveen-Hunter is a big Republican donor, I’m inclined to doubt even the veracity of that report.
la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you-la-la-la
this is off topic but...I am just curious
There is an AM radio show that I listen to up here in Michigan that deals with politics, and they were talking about how Michael Moore had on his website this morning plans to make a F9/11 type movie about Hurricane Katrina. When I got home from work I rushed to this site to see if there was any news on this and well there wasn’t, next I had to suffer and go to Moore’s site, and there didn’t seem to be any news on there either. Has anyone else heard about him making a movie about Katrina? The radio program is a serious political news program so I don’t think they would be making stuff up if it wasn’t true.
Hagis, which part of Michigan do you live in and what AM station is that? Is it part of the Michigan Radio Network? I know they’ve lost a few affiliates lately. By the way, Joey Harrington sucks…
I live in Kalamazoo, it was on WKMI. I don’t listen to the show that much, but it might have been Joey Harrington? does he co-host the show with some chick?
oh, and I didn’t know that you were talking about Joey Harrington from the Lions, I thought you were talking about some radio host.
Posted by Hagis on 09/08 at 04:13 PM (Link to this comment)
this is off topic but...I am just curious
There is an AM radio show that I listen to up here in Michigan that deals with politics, and they were talking about how Michael Moore had on his website this morning plans to make a F9/11 type movie about Hurricane Katrina.
Yesterday....
Posted by iggy21 on 09/07 at 12:04 PM (Link to this comment)
Curious thought. Michael Moore made a lot of money of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by blaiming Bush. We already know that Hurricane Katrina turned into a national disastor and that Moore is already blaiming Bush.
qoutes didnt work… lets try this again:
Posted by Hagis on 09/08 at 04:13 PM (Link to this comment)
this is off topic but...I am just curious
There is an AM radio show that I listen to up here in Michigan that deals with politics, and they were talking about how Michael Moore had on his website this morning plans to make a F9/11 type movie about Hurricane Katrina.
Yesterday....
Posted by iggy21 on 09/07 at 12:04 PM (Link to this comment)
Curious thought. Michael Moore made a lot of money of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by blaiming Bush. We already know that Hurricane Katrina turned into a national disastor and that Moore is already blaiming Bush.
Michael Moore:
Today’s news that “debit cards worth 2,000 dollars” were being handed to each homeless hurricane evacuee. A friend of mine, who’s in-laws live in Jefferson Parish, told me that they went to the FEMA center today to get their debit cards and they said that not only weren’t there any debit cards, the FEMA people there didn’t know anything about it.
Day 11, and Moore continues to allow his friend’s family to go on searching for the right line to claim their $2,000. Sad. Makes a lovely Bush slam though.
Gotta love how Moore has basically outed himself as the giant, flabby adult version of that little kid that would come out of his house, tell improbable stories about his friend Billy, and end with “Okaybye” and hurry away back into his house.
“So, this one time, my friend Billy, he lost his house in a storm, an’ then, he heard President Bush was giving $2,000 debit cards to people rendered homeless by the storm, an’ then, Billy and his family went to get one of the cards, an’ then, the FEMA people said there were no cards, an’ then Billy died because of Bush. Okaybye.” *slam*
It’s no surprise that those baying for Bush blood are having an easy ride. Hidden amongst the furore of global news reporting on the hurricane disaster, I discovered that Barbara Bush implied that New Orleans residents are ‘better off’ in the squalid conditions of the temporary shelter of the Houston astrodome:
“What I’m hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas,” Barbara Bush said in an interview on Monday with the radio program “Marketplace.” “Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality.”
“And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway,” she said, “so this is working very well for them.”
The implication that the horrific events of the past few days ‘work well’ for the majority of the residents of New Orleans cannot be denied as a bit of a faux pas on Babs behalf.
But it can be beaten, and who better to rise to the task than POTUS himself, who, in a photo op with a few choice residents shared an amusing anecdote about the fact that Trent Lott had lost a house (one of many) in the hurricane and is looking forward to sitting on the porch with Lott in his new property, which by the way, Bush has pledged to help create. The irony of the President, amid a flurry of global criticism about his response to the disaster, pledging to rebuild the house of a senator whose past words could be described as ‘klan friendly’ in the middle of a disaster in which the majority of victims are poor blacks, would be funny, if it weren’t so tragic.
so this is working very well for them
The implication that the horrific events of the past few days ‘work well’ for the majority of the residents of New Orleans cannot be denied as a bit of a faux pas on Babs behalf.
After Barbara Bush went on and on about the hospitality they received in Houson, how the hell could anyone come to such an idiotic conclusion about what ”this” referred to?
If you want to be pedantic about what I said, rather than putting it in the correct context, that which would be blindingly obvious to a 5 year old then I will amend my comment:
the result ofthe horrific events of the past few days
If you want to be pedantic about what I said, rather than putting it in the correct context, that which would be blindingly obvious to a 5 year old
What makes you think you have the correct context? And what makes you think that a context which could be obvious to a 5 year old could a valid one? And why would a comment made by someone who is not in the current administration matter anyhow, except as an ad hoc personal attack on the President you obviously despise?
I don’t know why I’m even bothering, you read what you read and see what you see, even if it’s not anything resembling context or truth. Good luck in therapy.
If you want to be pedantic about what I said, rather than putting it in the correct context, that which would be blindingly obvious to a 5 year old then I will amend my comment:
the result of the horrific events of the past few days
A 5-year-old would recognize that Barbara Bush is not capable of having the insensitivity you attribute to her, and if you want to prove otherwise, you better have a pretty damn pedantic argument.
What makes you think you have the correct context?
Well, it seems pretty clear to me. But hey, I might have got the context wrong. But if i’d just lost my home and most my possessions and were sitting in a huge dome amongst thousands of other people with an uncertain future, i’d probably want to give Barbara a slap for saying that, regardless of the proper context.
And what makes you think that a context which could be obvious to a 5 year old could a valid one?
Having made the comment myself, I think I have the authority to question its context. If you think i’m wrong, fair enough, i’d love to hear why.
And why would a comment made by someone who is not in the current administration matter anyhow, except as an ad hoc personal attack on the President you obviously despise?
Barbara Bush is not in the current administration. But she is the presidents mother and despite no role in the administration still is a figure in the public eye. So I guess her comments probably do have a reflection on the administration somewhere along the line, considering her son is in charge of the country.
And no, I don’t despise the president. I hardly think he’s going to go down in history as a leader in public relations, but I don’t despise him. And what if I did anyway? Does that make my opinions worthless?
I don’t know why I’m even bothering
No, neither do I. In the world where Bush has reached god-like status and is completely infallible, my detractive comments have obviously invalidated me as a human being.
Good luck in therapy.
Thanks for the regards, but I hope you’re not my shrink.
And what if I did anyway? Does that make my opinions worthless?
Yes.
Just to be clear, if you despise George Bush, your translation of Barbara Bush’s pronouns is worthless.
Just to be clear, if you despise George Bush, your translation of Barbara Bush’s pronouns is worthless.
Really? Well, returning briefly to that analogy: if I despised Bush, i’d probably want to slap Barbara slightly harder, than if I voted Republican. But i’d probably be pretty offended either way.
Unfortunately for you, I don’t despise the man. OK, I have my reservations, but ‘despise’ is a very strong word, unless you live in black & white. And as far as ‘the insensitivity I have attributed to her’, I didn’t attribute any more insensitivity to her than her words deserved.
Ok, you’re right. Grandma Bush is mean to poor people. Now, explain why it’s relevant to the world today.
Its not particularly relevant to the world today, I just thought it was pretty funny (albeit in a dark, shaking head in hands way, considering the tragic circumstances that surround these public blunders).
Convince me that everything that is said in these forums IS relevant to the world today, no infact, convince me that everything YOU have said in these rooms is relevant to the world today. Then i’ll eat my hat, and gladly sod off.
Convince me that everything that is said in these forums IS relevant to the world today
I’m not talking about everyone else. I’m talking about the subject you brought up as an example of how easy it is to put down George Bush.
A 5 year old might think that only because they would have not taken any classes in the english language. Words like this, that, he, she, it, etc apply to the last term that is applicable.
Example 1:
Bobby hit Timmy. He cried.
He applies to Timmy, because that was the last word used that “he” could refer to.
Example 2 (getting trickier):
“Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them.”
Now, taking tense into mind (and that ‘this’ is present tense) we can see that the last thing that ‘this’ could apply to was “the hospitality”
and despite no role in the administration still is a figure in the public eye
So is Elizabeth Dole. So is Jesse Jackson. So is Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey. This has no relevance. You are simply trying to make a personal attack on the President because the person whose comments you interpreted as being insensitive happen to be from a relative of his. Anyone remember Billy Carter?
i’d probably want to give Barbara a slap for saying that
What if it had been Theresa Heinz-Kerry who said those words? Would the context be different? Would you want to slap her too? My general feeling is that you will read whatever context you desire into any comments made based on your personal bias. Which is typical of most people.
No, neither do I. In the world where Bush has reached god-like status
Amongst whom? Certainly not Christians, that would be mortally against their belief system.
and is completely infallible,
No one is infallible, and no clear thinking person believes that any person is. If this was an attempt as sarcasm, it failed.
{quote]
my detractive comments have obviously invalidated me as a human being.
No, your ad hominem attack against the President by way of comments his mother made invalidate you as a clear thinking person. Your obvious foibles make you quite human.
And regarding said comments, do you believe that all comments any parent makes reflect on their children? To that I would have to say ‘pffffbbbbt.’
But hey, I might have got the context wrong. But if i’d just lost my home and most my possessions and were sitting in a huge dome amongst thousands of other people with an uncertain future, i’d probably want to give Barbara a slap for saying that, regardless of the proper context.
Let me get this straight, you’re saying you’d want to physically assault someone just because the way you interpreted what that person said? No, wait, I’m sorry. Not just “someone,” but the mother of our innocent child President! For God’s sake, she lost her beloved son to the vile clutches of the greedy right wing! She’s clearly the victim here. Have some respect, man!
Seriously, while we’re playing the “what if” game:
<what if>
If I’d just lost my home and most of my possessions, and was sitting amongst thousands of other people with an uncertain future, I sure as hell wouldn’t give a damn what Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, Betty Rubble, or anyone else said. I’d be more concerned with initiating the legitimate rebuilding my life than I would about splitting hairs over grammatical semantics. Words are cheap, but they won’t feed, clothe or shelter me in a time of need. It’s what I can do to rise out of the unfortunate circumstances that matters. I’m only as helpless as I allow myself to be. And every branch of the government can pucker up and collectively kiss my ass if they think they’ll sway me politically with all of their self-congratulatory back-patting and finger-pointing.
</what>
Okay, so the words of Barbara Bush are not going to set in motion a catastrophic series of events that will result in the fire-laden world armageddon that the great horned Bush/Satan has been obviously wishing for all along, and I will clap and with glee with my new far left Bush hating friends, that I have just been proved right.
Was this ever my argument?
I’ll quote myself for once.
It’s no surprise that those baying for Bush blood are having an easy ride.
There it is. My first sentence. We can argue all day about how much I hate Bush and how this was obviously a personal attack on the president, but my point is there are many who are attacking the president, particularly at the moment. He invites attack! I don’t think that the fact that Bush shared a public musing about rebuilding a rich senators house amid this crisis is tantamount to revealing he has a ‘666’ tattoo on his left buttock. It’s just a bit silly that’s all.
I’m not American, so my opinions of your president are not that passionate. My post wasn’t intended to convey a particular opinion of the president, only to suggest that those who criticize him from time to time are not mentally deficient deluded loons as you seem to think.
No one is infallible, and no clear thinking person believes that any person is. If this was an attempt as sarcasm, it failed.
Yes, you’re right. I’ve spent a lot of time on this site. Probably more than I should or would have liked to, but throughout this time I have never seen a criticism levelled at Bush, without the usual typecast knee-jerk response: Bush hater, good luck in therapy, bla bla.
What is better, to never stray from the belief that George Bush carries a pitch-fork to work every day, or the belief that our days are given light by the sun that shines out of George Bush’s bottom? Personally I believe it is better to take an objective view and comment on the facts. In this instance, Bush had a bit of a duhh moment which even aroused the odd wince from the republicans around him, hence the criticism.
No, wait, I’m sorry. Not just “someone,” but the mother of our innocent child President! For God’s sake, she lost her beloved son to the vile clutches of the greedy right wing!
Oh, Epoch, the wit. Pandering to my deep seated hatred for Republicans and Bush supporters everywhere, that searing hatred that’s clear for everyone to see. I think tht’s 2 on the scoreboard for failed sarcasm.
Now, taking tense into mind (and that ‘this’ is present tense) we can see that the last thing that ‘this’ could apply to was “the hospitality”
My English is not perfect, but one thing I understand about English, is that it is a complex language and words can often be interpreted to mean a whole lot of things, despite their intended meaning, which is why clarification is often needed. ‘This’ is indeed, a word used to describe the present tense. ‘This’ however, is also a vague word unless followed by a clarifying sentence or action that describes what ‘this’ means.
By using the word ‘this’, we can deduce that Barbara meant the present tense but not necessarily ‘the hospitality’. She could have been describing ‘the present state’ in all its entirity. This may not have been her intention, but unfortunately, this is how, in many cases ‘this’ will be interpreted. Therefore implying that ‘the present state’ is beneficial for the poorer residents of New Orleans, not specifically ‘the hospitality’. It just seems like a stupid thing to say, whatever the meaning.
He invites attack!
… by speaking through Barbara Bush? Despite your defense of imaginary accusations regarding armageddon, I still don’t see how you’re going to use your interpretation of Barbara Bush’s pronouns to attack George Bush.
My English is not perfect, but one thing I understand about English, is that it is a complex language and words can often be interpreted to mean a whole lot of things, despite their intended meaning, which is why clarification is often needed.
Your misinterpretation of Barbara Bush’s words is not the fault of the complexity of the language. By the way, are you going to stick with the story that a 5-year-old could figure it out, or would you prefer to go with the complexity scenario from now on?
I have never seen a criticism levelled at Bush, without the usual typecast knee-jerk response: Bush hater, good luck in therapy, bla bla.
Never? Not once? It’s hard to believe you actually took offense to someone saying you only see what you want to see. Anyway, have you ever stopped to consider that people might call you a Bush-hater because the logic you use often requires hatred in order to be valid? For example, a person without hate would look at Barabara Bush’s life and demeanor over her years and know that it’s unlikely she would ever be insensitive to poor people. For you, a 5-year-old could see what she meant. Now quit acting like all the mean right-wing people are just picking on you. If you’re being accused of something again and again and again, there are two possibilities. Either you’re right, and there’s a unified effort whereby everyone here has agreed to answer you with the same knee-jerk response OR the accusation is true, and thinking it’s a knee-jerk response is just the way it looks from where you’re sitting.
Oh, Epoch, the wit. Pandering to my deep seated hatred for Republicans and Bush supporters everywhere, that searing hatred that’s clear for everyone to see. I think tht’s 2 on the scoreboard for failed sarcasm.
Actually I don’t care whether or not you like Bush. I don’t even like him half of the time, and the other half I completely ignore him. If I felt your opinions were based on hatred I would have dismissed them altogether.
Only my initial question was directed at you. I want to know why you feel you’re entitled to hit someone just because of the way you interpreted something he/she said. My cynicism was aimed at the far left-wing mantra that the mother of the victim is the victim, and as such that mother is thus beyond reproach.
Do I think Barbara Bush made a faux pas? No. I think she’s being punished because of people’s ignorance of the English language (just like the D.C. mayor’s office employee being fired because someone didn’t know the meaning of “niggardly”). Do I think she could have phrased what she said better? Absolutely. As a former First Lady, she has to constantly walk on eggshells lest she draw undue criticism. Do I think this reflects anything on her son’s administration in any way? Nope, nada, nuh-uh.
"My cynicism was aimed at the far left-wing mantra that the mother of the victim is the victim, and as such that mother is thus beyond reproach.”
I should probably rephrase that to avoid any possible confusion:
My cynicism was aimed at the far-left mantra of “the mother is beyond reproach simply because of her biological relationship to the victim--and is thus the victim, herself, because of said relationship.”
My English is not perfect, but one thing I understand about English, is that it is a complex language and words can often be interpreted to mean a whole lot of things, despite their intended meaning, which is why clarification is often needed. ‘This’ is indeed, a word used to describe the present tense. ‘This’ however, is also a vague word unless followed by a clarifying sentence or action that describes what ‘this’ means.
By using the word ‘this’, we can deduce that Barbara meant the present tense but not necessarily ‘the hospitality’. She could have been describing ‘the present state’ in all its entirity. This may not have been her intention, but unfortunately, this is how, in many cases ‘this’ will be interpreted. Therefore implying that ‘the present state’ is beneficial for the poorer residents of New Orleans, not specifically ‘the hospitality’. It just seems like a stupid thing to say, whatever the meaning.
Ask yourself this, free. If Mrs. Bush thought the people were better off living in the Astrodome than in the squalor of their hometown, why would she also pronounce it “scary” that they want to stay in Texas? Those two don’t line up.
I don’t think it’s too hard to look at those comments, and conclude very reasonably that, given the hospitality they’ve received, if they have to be in such a bad way, Texas isn’t such a bad place to have to cope with it. That lines up with her comments on hospitality, it lines up with their expressed desire to stay in the state, and it lines up with her concern that so many feel that way (because suddenly having an extra half-million people puts a strain on one’s state resources). Saying the hurricane was good for them doesn’t line up with any of those other premises.
fr3estyle05:
This may not have been her intention
Any 5-year-old could see that you’re accusing Barabara Bush of intentionally creating hurricanes.[/fr3estyle05 logic off]
what barbara bush said was just dumb. you can argue semantics and whatever until the cows come home but it was a stupid remark. i’m a bush supporter although i am a libertarian. i live in philadelphia which is predominantly black like new orleans was and if something like katrina happened here you would have the same results. everyone with half a brain and a dollar would have gotten out of town and the public assistance dependant people would be left to live in the wachovia spectrum. now if babs was talking about poor white people it would be a different response...still stupid but it wouldnt have mattered as much. if these were poor white trash people from arkansas suffering the left would not be as upset with the treatment because the poor black people are like the lefts “pets” they cant take care of themselves so they must be provided for and the mean white men who run things are just evil and bad and have no compassion for anything. i watched “democracy now” a few days ago and they had a film crew down in new orleans and they were talking to white people about the situation and they were pretending that their cameras were off. there was a group of 40 something white guys who were laughing and saying that new orleans would be alot better after they fix it up if the public dependant blacks arent allowed back. it actually makes sense. what do these people bring to the table of life? and before i’m called a racist i’m all for black people who actually support themselves. i wish all black people were doctors and lawyers and scientists solving problems for humanity and advancing humanity but there are large, large groups of these people who just dont do anything but sit around and expect to get waited on. on the same show they had a white teen whos face they showed as he probably signed the waiver but he didnt say anything wrong...he just said he would never go into the 9th parrish or whatever they called it as thats where all the trouble was. its like in philly if you’re white you dont go into areas of north and west and especially south west philly or you will be robbed, beaten or killed. thats not racism thats a fact. what are these peoples function in our society? what are we going to do with them? millions and millions of dollars are thrown at them and nothing changes. i just dont see how america can move forward. i think that instead of social programs that these people should just be given cash and see how they make out with it. reperations should be given to these people because nothing else seems to work. the left needs to stop treating them as pets but as real human beings who have brains and can take care of themselves.
what barbara bush said was just dumb. you can argue semantics and whatever until the cows come home but it was a stupid remark.
Semantics is taking an ambiguous remark and manipulating the meaning by using the one that best suits your needs. Personally, I’m doing my best to argue against such semantics.
new orleans would be alot better after they fix it up if the public dependant blacks arent allowed back. it actually makes sense.
Now that’s racist. If it weren’t, it would have said “public dependant people regardless of race.”
and before i’m called a racist
Too late.
wow ronnie you would make michael moore proud.
wow mlynn2600 you didn’t actually say how.
… by speaking through Barbara Bush?
No. If I was stating that George Bush was inviting attack through his mother, I wouldn’t have included the example that followed. That example came straight from the horses mouth.
I still don’t see how you’re going to use your interpretation of Barbara Bush’s pronouns to attack George Bush.
I’m not. If you read under the 6th line of my original post, you’ll see that I used George Bush’s pronouns to attack George Bush.
Your misinterpretation of Barbara Bush’s words is not the fault of the complexity of the language. By the way, are you going to stick with the story that a 5-year-old could figure it out, or would you prefer to go with the complexity scenario from now on?
I’m not denying that it’s a misinterpretation. I’m sure she meant well. The point is many people will misinterpret it, precisely because it is open to interpretation. The way in which she said it was open to interpretation and the timing was bad. I’m not saying it was a heartless and evil thing to say, just a little short-sighted and badly worded. I’m not going to argue what the meaning/ correct interpretation is. Only the person who said it really knows the answer to that question.
My question to you ronnie is: do you deny or accept that whatever the true interpretation, the turn of phrase was inappropriate, open to interpretation and likely to cause offence.
Only the person who said it really knows the answer to that question.
Or someone who asks themselves the questions I posed earlier and applies a modicum of logic to the situation. Some of these “possible interpretations” only apply if you assume some of the worst qualities of humanity when looking at a person.
If it weren’t, it would have said “public dependant people regardless of race.”
And if I were Barbara Bush, I would have said “Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality”. And left it at that
And if I were Barbara Bush, I would have said “Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality”. And left it at that
ISN’T THAT WHAT SHE SAID IN THE SENTENCE RIGHT BEFORE IT?
I can understand your disdain with state dependant people, but ronnie has a point.
and before i’m called a racist i’m all for black people who actually support themselves.
Quotes like this make me wonder if your statement is a critique of state dependant people, or just black people.
ISN’T THAT WHAT SHE SAID IN THE SENTENCE RIGHT BEFORE IT?
Yes ronnie, she did. That is presumably why I said “and left it at that”. In other words, said the first part and left out the second part.
My question to you ronnie is: do you deny or accept that whatever the true interpretation, the turn of phrase was inappropriate, open to interpretation and likely to cause offence.
Of course I deny it. It’s absurd to be offended by your own translation of something. I mean what’s next? You going to be offended because you think “bonjour” means “go to hell?”
Of course I deny it. It’s absurd to be offended by your own translation of something. I mean what’s next? You going to be offended because you think “bonjour” means “go to hell?”
So, I guess that’s my interpretation alone. Yep, my sole interpretation, obviously shared by no-one. Rather than provide a myriad of news links, this one quote sums it up:
White House spokesman Scott McClellan scrambled to clean up the former First Lady’s statement.
Wow, a White House PR clean-up operation, just for me? And apart from that, i’m not offended. I never said I was. Even if I was one of the unfortunate people involved personally I wouldn’t be all too bothered about what Barbara had to say, or any other politician for that matter. My point was (as I have continually stated) is that it was liable to cause offence and a bit stupid/silly/dumb (i’ve used all these words before, numerous times but you still don’t seem to get it).
Anyway, lets forget what Babs Bush said for a moment. What about Bush’s little Trent Lott relocation program that seems to have done so well to avoid the topic of conversation so far?
So, I guess that’s my interpretation alone. Yep, my sole interpretation, obviously shared by no-one.
I really dont give a damn if 1 person or 1 billion persons think “bonjour” means “go to hell.” It doesn’t, and anyone who’s offended by it can bonjour.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan scrambled to clean up the former First Lady’s statement.
Gee, a biased interpretation of Scott McClellan to justify a biased interpretation of Barabara Bush. Is this getting complicated or what?
Anyway, lets forget what Babs Bush said for a moment. What about Bush’s little Trent Lott relocation program that seems to have done so well to avoid the topic of conversation so far?
I have no idea how Bush’s little Trent Lott relocation program did so well at avoiding the topic of conversation so far. You’ll have to make that connection for me.
RSS (Subscribe)
but...but...but...Halliburton, and er, ah, global warming and uh...HALLIBURTON!!!!