The State Propoganda Machine At it in New Orleans

Discussion in 'Serious Chat' started by Link04, Sep 8, 2005.

  1. Link04

    Link04 Ambient

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you've been keeping up with the smorgasboard of Katrina news, you've no doubt heard the media and/or the government proclaim New Orleans in a state of anarchy, due to the looting and violence taking place. Anyone critical of the government in general should realize straight away that this is a simple ploy to legitimize its existence, even despite its horrible failures to the people it lords over. To an anarchist such as me, the claim comes with the bitter taste of an attempt to demonize anything opposing state rule. Following is an article from one of the sites I frequent going into further depth about the the incorrect useage of the media's latest catch-phrase to describe the situation in New Orleans.

    http://www.strike-the-root.com/52/davis/davis4.html
     
  2. Dean

    Dean LPA Super Member LPA Addict

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    18,858
    Likes Received:
    0
    The US government brought it upon themselves in the first place, I guess.
     
  3. Neil

    Neil Super Duper Member LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    4,937
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sorry, but I was browsing and I thought I'd say my speech about 'anarchists'.

    Anarchy is a state of non govern and is ruleless. Now do you really think that people who call themselves anarachists would survive in a Mad-Max like society? I don't think so.

    Sorry Link, not trying to start anything there, just giving my anarchy speech :p
     
  4. Derek

    Derek LPAssociation.com Administrator LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2002
    Messages:
    40,016
    Likes Received:
    13
    Alright...seriously? Anyone who thinks that the government didn't do much for this whole thing and are full of shit need to read the following statement from my friend's blog. This WHOLE issue has to deal with Mayor Nagin's stupidity and you shall see why (mind the censors as this was featured on another forum with the filter in place):

    I'm just SICK of people slamming the government and dubya when they are certainly doing a lot more then that dickward Ray Nagin has done. Yeah Bush aint perfect, but shit...
     
  5. JJ

    JJ [i cant spoll preply]: LPA Super VIP

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Messages:
    9,659
    Likes Received:
    0
    i think that too
     
  6. Ant

    Ant Ambient

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where have you been all my life? :lol:
     
  7. Link04

    Link04 Ambient

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sorry, but I was browsing and I thought I'd say my speech about 'anarchists'.

    Anarchy is a state of non govern and is ruleless. Now do you really think that people who call themselves anarachists would survive in a Mad-Max like society? I don't think so.

    Sorry Link, not trying to start anything there, just giving my anarchy speech :p [/b][/quote]
    I'm not quite sure what you imply by "Mad-Max." Could you be more clear? I'd be happy to discuss what I know with you.

    Derek, this was a state failure on every level, I'm not just talking about Federal. And, comparitively, they've all done a ton less than private organizations have done.
     
  8. Neil

    Neil Super Duper Member LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    4,937
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not quite sure what you imply by "Mad-Max." Could you be more clear? I'd be happy to discuss what I know with you.

    Derek, this was a state failure on every level, I'm not just talking about Federal. And, comparitively, they've all done a ton less than private organizations have done. [/b][/quote]
    The movie, Mad Max with Mel Gibson

    Basically it's a world without rules.


    http://www.madmaxthemovie.com/
     
  9. iamrighthereandnow

    iamrighthereandnow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    i am anarchist also, so i'll stick my head in here.

    the state brainwashes people into thinking anarchy is chaos= simply not true. because if we were human beings who think for themselves- not a herd of sheep, not a humanity of slaves who believe themselves to be free and plead for the wolves to take care of them.- if we truly wanted freedom for ourselves and wanted to end the misery our complacency, our blind believe in state run by politicians who are run by interests of corporations and elites etc - we'd get rid of the state and corrupted system we live in.

    before you'd like to define anarchy by what the establishment that only cares about you as a cog in its machine and pretends to care about you only by brainwash and constant hypnotizing by corporate media that lies to you so about the world you live in, well before you join the train of idea that has been fed to you by the machine about anarchy , i'll link a site and post few articles, make up your own mind on reality of what anarchy is and not on what gov would like you to synonymize it with

    http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secAcon.html

    this is actually what one of the anarchistic emcees said, his name is Lynx and you can check his site that has a lot of info on what anarchy is too in library section
    http://www.circlealpha.com/

    there's a difference between "government" and the State. every society has a system of governance - including anarchist societies - but nation-states didn't exist until the treaty of westphalia in 1648. that's 357 years ago. humans have been on the planet for about 10,000 years. so yeah, "government" - or at least governance - is inevitable and not particularly problamatic as long as it's directly democratic and operates from the bottom up, but the state is not only not inevitable but actually a very recent development. as far as whose interests the state serves, james madison (one of the framers of the US constitution) argued in the federalist papers (a series of articles published to convince people to ratify the constitution) that the State has two primary roles: 1 - to slow down the proccess of social change and keep the "mob" from acting to implement reform, and 2 - "to protect property from the majority," that is to keep "we the people" from redistributing the wealth.

    that said, it's important to note that anarchism must accordingly be much more then just an effort to abolish nation-states since stateless systems like feudalism can be pretty nasty too. the issue has got to be the abolition of oppressive top-down systems and the creation of an egalitarian bottom-up system of governance. so it's at least as much creative as destructive.

    anarchism is what you get when you actually implement democracy in both the economic and political spheres - real, local, direct democracy, not the pseudo-representative puppetshow that passes for democracy in america and europe. capitalism, incidentally, is inherently anti-democratic, (and so is communism for that matter). both take control of the economic system out of the hands of the working majority and use it as tool for a ruling elite minority to control society. it is not rooted in society, it is a parasite that sucks the life out of poor and working class communities to feed the owning elite. go into any ghetto or working-class neighborhood in any country in the world and tell the people there that their poverty makes them free and see how they react...


    about the constant association of anarchy in New Orleans when it has nothing to do with actual anarchy, read on here

    Anarchy in New Orleans?

    “Anarchy Disrupts US Storm Relief”claims the BBC. “Scenes of Anarchy in Super dome” declares CNN. “Anarchy in the streets”. But what's really going on in New Orleans? Whether or not the hurricane itself is the result of human actions is questionable, but what is clear is that the chaos and death in the Big Easy are anything but the result of anarchy.

    by Shevek

    Despite the cowboy rhetoric, from the day we are born we are conditioned through schooling, through the family, and through observations of existing social structures to be dependent on hierarchical relations. We quickly excel at taking orders and then either processing them or relaying them to others without question or thought. Even when we do 'learn', we mainly act as a receptacle for information, focusing on absorbing facts and formulas, rather than learning through practice, free to trial and error, how to make decisions and how to think for ourselves. Our free thought processes and creativity (with the exceptions of specific kinds that serve limited roles) become highly underdeveloped, even further trapping us in the master/slave character. This social conditioning is by no means an accident, but rather a necessary component of our smooth functioning later in life when we begin to sell our labor.

    Due to the highly bureaucratic and centralized nature of our existing economic and political systems, and the extreme specialization of knowledge, we quickly become alienated from our surroundings, institutions that exist on an abstract, rather than human-social level. Like radio or television dramas, politics and current events are absorbed packaged as a commodity requiring little to no thought. Most of us lack even a basic working knowledge of the means through which we live, through which our society is organized. Not allowed to ask why, we no longer care how.

    “Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem invincible” - George Orwell

    The nature of government forms a praxis, both creating and playing off of our subordination and alienation. The existing abstract social relations are presented as invincible and eternal. The power of the policeman is benevolent, but complete. Existing legal mores and economic relations become internalized and spit back up as 'human nature' or 'higher morality'. The sharp authoritarian and anti-social nature is so omnipresent that it becomes invisible, beyond comment or question.

    Katrina brought that all crashing down.

    In times of crisis the seemingly peaceful social relations are violently exposed in their true light. While the rich quickly leave to their second homes, the poor were are left behind. Some reluctantly accepted help from the state and where ushered into the Superdome, not knowing what else to do. Others, unable to go, or unwilling to leave behind their only possessions remained, choosing to brave out the storm.

    The role of government is clear. News reports the evening of the storm were filled with stories of police chiefs lamenting that they 'had' to focus their attention on battling looters rather than saving those in need. While thousands sat starving, stranded on their roofs, armed patrols marched and floated down the streets engaging in battles with people appropriating goods that could no longer be sold. Soon the media began reported that the National Guard was too thinly stretched fighting imperial wars overseas to provide relief here at home.

    As help poured in from around the world - donations of medical aid and boats to rescue survivors, offers of housing around the country, technical help so survivors could contact their loved ones - motivated by nothing other than a common humanity, those who had put their faith in the state and had gone to its shelters quickly learned that not only where they not supplied food, water, or dry clothes, but they were not even free to leave. All relationships with the state, even those seemingly based on support, quickly become dependent.

    Inside the Superdome, dead bodies began to pile up as the National Guard stood by helpless. Quickly the conditions inside became intolerable. A people, conditioned not to think for themselves and not to act for themselves, began realizing that the social abstraction they put their faith didn't care about them, and was unable to assist them. The gun battles that began to erupt around the stadium, however irrational, show the frustration and fear of a caged animal forced to walk, after being released for the first time.

    Likely, New Orleans will be closed off, and all traffic to it blockaded while specialists begin to rebuild the city. Because of their faith in bureaucratic abstractions, rather than in themselves and their community, thousands have likely lost their lives to a devastating storm. Unable and unwilling to act for themselves, left to die while offers of support from ordinary people are turned down by a government focused on “maintaining order”, the harsh outcome of our hierarchical relations is only too clear.

    Rather than 'anarchic' chaos or disorder, the violence and ruin on the streets of the Big Easy are the only possible endgame of the debilitating and alienating social conditioning and economic relations of a bureaucratic capitalist state. Disasters like this can only be met when ordinary people begin to work together on a human level, to the best of their abilities helping each help each other get through, instead of relying on highly bureaucratic and irrational social abstractions to save them. Then there will actually be anarchy in New Orleans

    anarchy is not about living without rules, their rules of freedom and not rules of slavery that we are living under right now.
     
  10. iamrighthereandnow

    iamrighthereandnow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    to this i have this to post:

    firstly

    September 7, 2005 -- Bush does not understand why the people of Louisiana do not want to be scattered en masse as evacuees because he flunked history class. With FEMA scattering evacuees across the country, the dispersed unique population of Louisiana is now being told they may not be able to return to their homes in New Orleans and Acadiana in the foreseeable future. Obviously, history is not one of the strong suits of Bush and his cabal of liars and thieves. Three distinct groups in the affected areas of Louisiana have had a sorrowful experience with forced removals and harassment. First for the Acadians or "Cajuns." The ancestors of the Acadians/Cajuns were originally expelled from their native Nova Scotia by the British. The Acadians had settled in Nova Scotia in the 1600s. In the mid-1700s, the Acadians were expelled by the British from their homes and they re-settled in Louisiana. The Acadians of Louisiana are direct descendants from these people who were forced to abandon their homes by an elitist group of British and their colonial allies (the Bush and Blair love mates must all be too familiar to the Cajuns). The Cajuns have kept many of their French traditions and culture, which is what makes Louisiana so unique. The right-wing is attacking people like Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco and New Orleans Ray Nagin. Their French last names are indicative of the strong French Acadian influence in Louisiana. That influence is also apparent in the political names Landrieu, Breaux, Broussard, Morial, and Barthelomew. The other two Louisiana groups displaced by Bush's incompetence are African Americans and Native Americans.



    Acadiana: Bush and his cabal have no sense of history in their blaming the state, parishes, and cities of Louisiana.

    Along with their fellow Cajun Louisianans, the African Americans and Native Americans also have had their share of experience with forced resettlements, the African Americans first being sold into slavery and then emancipated and forced to work as sharecroppers and migrant laborers and the Native Americans being forced from their tribal lands onto squalid reservations. Oh yes, but Barbara Bush's ancestor was one of the people who trounced on the rights of Cajuns, African Americans, and Native Americans -- President Franklin Pierce, a particularly nasty pro-slavery and jingoistic American president. There's a very nasty gene pool that has nested in Dubya Bush.

    The attacks by the vicious right-wing against the people of Louisiana is nothing more than their signature racism and xenophobia. Bashing the French is nothing new with them nor is their racist comments about African Americans. We must take our nation back from this filth who claim to be "Christian."


    secondly

    Locals believe Levees were Intentionally blown
    Evidence suggests there were "cracks" in levees that were intentionally ignored, questions over how they failed.

    Steve Watson | September 9 2005

    Could the levees in New Orleans have been INTENTIONALLY blown out in order to save sections of the city deemed to be more important?

    The locals certainly seem to think so, yet, as usual, the mainstream media is barely picking up on this wave of opinion, so it is left to us once again to bring the issue into the open.

    When Katrina hit, it drifted 15 miles to the east of where forecasters said it would strike. Therefore it wasn't quite the monster described. The storm passed through with relatively minor damage, it was the the storm surge from the Gulf that caused Lake Pontchartrain to rise three feet and the subsequent flooding.



    Katrina hit early on Monday 29th August, the levees broke in three places - along the Industrial Canal, the 17th Street Canal, and the London Street Canal. (Click here for a Map )

    The main storm surge from Hurricane Katrina washed into Lake Pontchartrain at around 7AM on August 29th when the counterclockwise motion of Katrina was pushing water from the Gulf of Mexico into the lake.

    Some are questioning the timeline of the levee failures, suggesting that there was a 21 hour discrepancy between the storm surge and the collapse of the levees . This is not the case. The first levee broke just a few hours after the hurricane hit on the same morning.

    This confusion may have arisen due to the fact that Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff has said that the levees broke overnight between Monday-Tuesday, and that he was not informed of this til midday Tuesday.


    The breach of the 17th Street Canal levee resulted in the failure of a crucial pumping station nearby, according to a statement made by New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin.

    However, it seems that this exact scenario was expected and ignored. In an interview with New Orleans radio station local radio station WWL-AM, Nagin revealed how irate he was that this had been allowed to happen:

    Nagin: You know what really upsets me, Garland? We told everybody the importance of the 17th Street Canal issue. We said, "Please, please take care of this. We don't care what you do. Figure it out."
    WWL: Who'd you say that to?
    Nagin: Everybody: the governor, Homeland Security, FEMA. You name it, we said it. And they allowed that pumping station next to Pumping Station 6 to go under water. Our sewage and water board people ... stayed there and endangered their lives. And what happened when that pumping station went down, the water started flowing again in the city, and it starting getting to levels that probably killed more people. In addition to that, we had water flowing through the pipes in the city. That's a power station over there. So there's no water flowing anywhere on the east bank of Orleans Parish. So our critical water supply was destroyed because of lack of action.




    It has emerged though that some kind of work was carried out on the 17th Street Canal levee. Reports have suggested that the funding was not there to complete the job, but some work had been done:

    "The Senate was seeking to restore some of the SELA funding cuts for 2006. But now it's too late. One project that a contractor had been racing to finish this summer was a bridge and levee job right at the 17th Street Canal, site of the main breach on Monday."

    Of course we know that it was the White House that slashed funding for such projects in order to pump more money into the war in Iraq.

    According to the New York Times, Dr. Shea Penland of the Pontchartrain Institute was surprised because the break was "along a section that was just upgraded. It did not have an earthen levee, it had a vertical concrete wall several feet thick."

    It also seems that the broken section of the Industrial Canal levee was having "construction" work done on it recently.

    New York Times science reporter Dr. Andrew Revkin has stated of the 17th Street Canal that "officials and [Army Corps] engineers said that after they had found the widening gap in the concrete wall on the eastern side of the canal, they had no quick-response plan to repair it."

    Lt. Gen. Carl A. Strock, commander of the corps, said "plugging the gap was a lower priority." The corps is directed by FEMA. "It is FEMA who is really calling the shots and setting priorities here,"

    Alfred C. Naomi, a senior project manager for the corps, was quoted in the same article as saying "there were still no clear hints why the main breach in the flood barriers occurred along the 17th Street Canal, normally a conduit for vast streams of water pumped out of the perpetually waterlogged city each day and which did not take the main force of the waves roiling the lake. He said that a low spot marked on survey charts of the levees near the spot that ruptured was unrelated and that the depression was where a new bridge crossed the narrow canal near the lakefront."





    This would refute the speculation that a dip in the retaining levee or walls might have allowed water to slop over and start the collapse. So we have an unexplained crack in several feet of concrete. FEMA decided not to plug it and let the water flow until a US city was flooded and thousands had drowned.

    Dynamite? History repeating itself?

    Many locals have come forward to suggest that the levees were breached on purpose by the authorities. Resident Andrea Garland, now re-located to Texas, wrote in her blog:

    "Also heard that part of the reason our house flooded is they dynamited part of the levee after the first section broke - they did this to prevent Uptown (the rich part of town) from being flooded. Apparently they used too much dynamite, thus flooding part of the Bywater. So now I know who is responsible for flooding my house - not Katrina, but our government."

    This scenario is not so crazy as it sounds, in fact this exact thing has happened before in the same city. In 1927, the Mississippi River broke its banks in 145 places, depositing water at depths of up to 30ft over 27,000 square miles of land.

    The disaster changed American society, shifting hundreds of thousands of delta-dwelling blacks into northern cities and cementing the divisions and suspicions that benign neglect has ensured remain today. New Orleans’ (mainly white) business class pressurized the state to dynamite a levee upstream, releasing water into (mainly black) areas of the delta. Black workers were forced to work on flood relief at gunpoint, like slaves.


    Two parishes, St. Bernard and Plaquemines, which had a combined population of 10,000, were destroyed. Just before Katrina, these parishes had about 10 times the 1927 population. Both parishes are now under many feet of water.



    This information is covered in depth in a book by John M. Barry entitled Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and how it Changed America, 1997 which has incidentally become heavily in demand after Katrina.

    Furthermore, levees were also intentionally broke after Hurricane Betsy struck New Orleans in 1965, admittedly with less of an impact. The tactic of breaking the dikes is not uncommon, as this CNN report on China's flood plains highlights.

    Engineers have now punched holes in several levees in parts of New Orleans where flood levels were higher than the water in drainage canals leading to Pontchartrain, in order to let water flow out.

    Did the authorities decide to sacrifice the poor folks and blow the levees in order to save the French Quarter of New Orleans which houses the richer residents, the lucrative historical buildings and thousands of businesses?

    Explosions?

    There were reports of many explosions heard in New Orleans, officials say they were transformers blowing up. Total Information Analysis has reported a claim by intelligence expert Tom Heneghen that 25 earwitnesses cited explosions immediately before the levee breach.

    Similar reports are now appearing in many web blogs:

    "He also mentioned that right before the mass flood there was a loud sound like an explosion." - News from St. Bernard

    "I'll tell you the worst thing I've heard and I heard it from my mother. She said she heard several blasts - big booms - right before the levees broke. Several blasts and then all the water came pouring in." - aangirfan

    Although these are obviously not authoritative sources of information, it is interesting to note how many local people are reporting this. So interesting in fact that the mainstream has picked up on it in places.

    The Washington Post reported on the comments of a retired school teacher:

    "Mullen has a schoolteacher's kindly demeanor, so it was jarring to hear him say he suspected that the levee breaks had somehow been engineered to keep the wealthy French Quarter and Garden District dry at the expense of poor black neighborhoods like the Lower Ninth Ward -- a suspicion I heard from many other black survivors."

    The Globe and Mail is also carrying a similar story.

    ABC World News Tonight carried a report which contained an interview with a local, who described how a floating barge had rammed the levee. The man seemed convinced that the levee was purposefully broken. A transcript of which has appeared on the net:

    David Muir: “Was it solely the water that broke the levee? Or was it the force of this barge that now sits where homes once did? Joe Edwards says neither. People are so bitter, so disenfranchised in this neighborhood, they actually think the city did it, blowing up the levee to save richer neighborhoods, like the French Quarter.”
    Muir to Edwards as they stand on a bridge: “So you're convinced-”
    Edwards: “I knows it happened.”
    Muir: “-that they broke the levee on purpose?”
    Edwards: “They blew it.”
    Muir: “New Orleans’ Mayor says there's no credence to this.”
    Mayor Ray Nagin: “That storm was so powerful and it pushed so much water -- there's no way anyone could have calculated -- would dynamite the levee to have the kind of impact to save the French Quarter.”
    Muir concluded: “An LSU expert who looked at the video today, says that while the barge may have caused it, it was most likely the sheer force of the water that brought the levee, along the lower 9th ward, down.”

    The mysterious barge story has also been reported by many other local residents. "The evacuees who witnessed the barge striking the levee also want to know why the major media is not covering this story."



    The London Observer carried an intriguing story of a man named Correll Williams, a 19-year-old meat cutter. The article states that:

    "Williams only left his apartment after the authorities took the decision to flood his district in an apparent attempt to sluice out some of the water that had submerged a neighbouring district. Like hundreds of others he had heard the news of the decision to flood his district on the radio. The authorities had given people in the district until 5pm on Tuesday to get out - after that they would open the floodgates."

    So it's clear that barriers WERE being broken in an attempt to protect areas of the city.

    Some final intriguing footage reveals a journalist questioning former President Bill Clinton as to why many locals feel that the levees were purposefully broken.


    thirdly

    How the Free Market Killed New Orleans

    By Michael Parenti

    The free market played a crucial role in the destruction of New Orleans and the death of thousands of its residents. Armed with advanced warning that a momentous (force 5) hurricane was going to hit that city and surrounding areas, what did officials do? They played the free market.

    They announced that everyone should evacuate. Everyone was expected to devise their own way out of the disaster area by private means, just as the free market dictates, just like people do when disaster hits free-market Third World countries.

    It is a beautiful thing this free market in which every individual pursues his or her own personal interests and thereby effects an optimal outcome for the entire society. This is the way the invisible hand works its wonders.

    There would be none of the collectivistic regimented evacuation as occurred in Cuba. When an especially powerful hurricane hit that island last year, the Castro government, abetted by neighborhood citizen committees and local Communist party cadres, evacuated 1.3 million people, more than 10 percent of the country's population, with not a single life lost, a heartening feat that went largely unmentioned in the U.S. press.

    On Day One of the disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina, it was already clear that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of American lives had been lost in New Orleans. Many people had "refused" to evacuate, media reporters explained, because they were just plain "stubborn."

    It was not until Day Three that the relatively affluent telecasters began to realize that tens of thousands of people had failed to flee because they had nowhere to go and no means of getting there. With hardly any cash at hand or no motor vehicle to call their own, they had to sit tight and hope for the best. In the end, the free market did not work so well for them.

    Many of these people were low-income African Americans, along with fewer numbers of poor whites. It should be remembered that most of them had jobs before Katrina's lethal visit. That's what most poor people do in this country: they work, usually quite hard at dismally paying jobs, sometimes more than one job at a time. They are poor not because they're lazy but because they have a hard time surviving on poverty wages while burdened by high prices, high rents, and regressive taxes.

    The free market played a role in other ways. Bush's agenda is to cut government services to the bone and make people rely on the private sector for the things they might need. So he sliced $71.2 million from the budget of the New Orleans Corps of Engineers, a 44 percent reduction. Plans to fortify New Orleans levees and upgrade the system of pumping out water had to be shelved.

    Bush took to the airways and said that no one could have foreseen this disaster. Just another lie tumbling from his lips. All sorts of people had been predicting disaster for New Orleans, pointing to the need to strengthen the levees and the pumps, and fortify the coastlands.

    In their campaign to starve out the public sector, the Bushite reactionaries also allowed developers to drain vast areas of wetlands. Again, that old invisible hand of the free market would take care of things. The developers, pursuing their own private profit, would devise outcomes that would benefit us all.

    But wetlands served as a natural absorbent and barrier between New Orleans and the storms riding in from across the sea. And for some years now, the wetlands have been disappearing at a frightening pace on the Gulf? coast. All this was of no concern to the reactionaries in the White House.

    As for the rescue operation, the free-marketeers like to say that relief to the more unfortunate among us should be left to private charity. It was a favorite preachment of President Ronald Reagan that "private charity can do the job." And for the first few days that indeed seemed to be the policy with the disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina.

    The federal government was nowhere in sight but the Red Cross went into action. Its message: "Don't send food or blankets; send money." Meanwhile Pat Robertson and the Christian Broadcasting Network---taking a moment off from God's work of pushing John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court---called for donations and announced "Operation Blessing" which consisted of a highly-publicized but totally inadequate shipment of canned goods and bibles.

    By Day Three even the myopic media began to realize the immense failure of the rescue operation. People were dying because relief had not arrived. The authorities seemed more concerned with the looting than with rescuing people. It was property before people, just like the free marketeers always want.

    But questions arose that the free market did not seem capable of answering: Who was in charge of the rescue operation? Why so few helicopters and just a scattering of Coast Guard rescuers? Why did it take helicopters five hours to get six people out of one hospital? When would the rescue operation gather some steam? Where were the feds? The state troopers? The National Guard? Where were the buses and trucks? the shelters and portable toilets? The medical supplies and water?

    Where was Homeland Security? What has Homeland Security done with the $33.8 billions allocated to it in fiscal 2005? Even ABC-TV evening news (September 1, 2005) quoted local officials as saying that "the federal government's response has been a national disgrace."

    In a moment of delicious (and perhaps mischievous) irony, offers of foreign aid were tendered by France, Germany and several other nations. Russia offered to send two plane loads of food and other materials for the victims. Predictably, all these proposals were quickly refused by the White House. America the Beautiful and Powerful, America the Supreme Rescuer and World Leader, America the Purveyor of Global Prosperity could not accept foreign aid from others. That would be a most deflating and insulting role reversal. Were the French looking for another punch in the nose?

    Besides, to have accepted foreign aid would have been to admit the truth---that the Bushite reactionaries had neither the desire nor the decency to provide for ordinary citizens, not even those in the most extreme straits. Next thing you know, people would start thinking that George W. Bush was really nothing more than a fulltime agent of Corporate America.

    and shortly as the ending:

    -- the Bush Administration cut New Orleans flood control funding by 44%
    -- Bush administration supported policies of turning wetlands to developers. Four environmental groups conducted a study in 2004 which concluded that without wetlands protection New Orleans could be devastated by an "ordinary" hurricane.
    -- At the G-8 meeting this year in Scotland, Bush successfully stymied any common action on global warming. Scientists, meanwhile, have continued to accumulate impressive data on the rising temperature of the oceans, which has produced more severe hurricanes.
     
  11. Ant

    Ant Ambient

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly what is your point? Even if New Orleans had flood control funding not cut, what would that do right now? You think them having money in their budget would have actually made a difference? Even if it would have (which it wouldn't... you can't make that big of a difference in a year), then what's your point? You can look at it in retrospect and say they didn't do this and that, but I'm sure if they knew what was going to happen as we do now that he wouldn't have cut their budget (although, again, I doubt it would've made a single difference, except for years in the future).
     
  12. iamrighthereandnow

    iamrighthereandnow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    my point was to refute derecs post, go bak 2 his post.

    in a year? what do you mean by that? bush is in the office for much longer, it was undercut by clinton already and to undercut it further is indeed nonsence. they were asking for repairs and money for the levees for ages, did the governemnt invest? no it'd rather invest in Iraq=meaning war machine.

    bush's defenders want to have it both ways since 9/11 there has been unprecedented powers granted to the executive branch-white house, massive spending deficits and unprecedented intrusions into american's civil liberties and entire goverment umbrella agency created-all in the name of protecting americans from calamity. ragardless of whether it occured by nature or terrorist action the other devastation on the gulf coast/southern states has revealed the bush administration to be a sham. ragardless of how this happened our 'homeland' has been shown to the entire world to be as secure as the bill of rights at the republican national convention. our emergency prepardness has been woefully mismanaged by the bush administration. 5 of 8 of the top leadership in fema have no emergency prepardness in their backround whatsover. the fema's director, was not only fired from his last job but it's also coming out that his 'resume' is filled with fabrications/'brownie, you're doing a heck of a job' said Bush......how can a man that can't even recognize the problem, a man who's policies demolished once credible government agency (Fema), now be expected to be capable to fix the problem. he ran on a platform of security and has delivered us into unwinnable quagmire in Iraq and inexusable unprepardness here at home? (Bush). Bush loyalists can play ostrich all they wish but reality and the public record will have the final world.

    funny how republicans are now so fond of the term 'blame game' now,as if accountibility and responsibility for the deaths of so many following Katrina is some trivial matter.

    in a wake of Katrina, the only well executed 'first response' was their standard playbook of lies and distortions..........'I don't think anybody would predict the levees could break (they did predict that many times)........The governor never asked us to declare martial law or for federal aid before the storm struck (she did), more of the same from administration who's entire house of cards is built on foundation of intentional deceit and unwillingness to take responsibility for anything.
     
  13. Ant

    Ant Ambient

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tell me -- do you honestly believe that all of the money was going to repair the levee? The money they ended up getting (after the 40% cutback) was said to be for the levee... and they didn't use it on the levee! The New Orleans government is known for being corrupt and mismanaging their money -- I don't think that they would have used a cent of any extra money they got for improving upon the levee. Even if they had got the money there wouldn't have been enough time to use it. You can blame something like that in hindsight all you want, but that's exactly what it is -- hindsight.

    I'm a "Bush defend" sometimes... sometimes I'm not. It seems to me like 99.9% of the people here, however, are "Bush haters" -- no matter what he does, it's always bad, no matter what.

    Here's a newsflash: our "emergency prepardnes" has never been amazing; our emergency plans have almost always been lacking. No, they haven't been horrible, but they've never been good, either. You can't tell me that a democrat (or whatever political party it is that you're from) would have done a better job without making things up -- because we don't know, and we never will know. Personally, I think it would have been roughly the same even if we still had Clinton in office, or if any other president we've had were president instead of Bush. Maybe a little worse, maybe a little better, but not by much either way.

    And, for the record, I am not a "Bush loyalist". He wasn't my first choice as President, but I will defend him if I see the accusations being made against him are asinine, just as I see your accusations. There will always be weak links in a President's office, and there will always be people getting jobs they shouldn't -- look at Warren G. Harding's administration. It was rocked by numerous scandals because of the people he put in office, yet most historians still consider him a great President.

    And, again, for the record, I am an independent, not a Republican (or Democrat). I've thought there were better candidates than the Republican and Democrat nods the last two ellections -- Wesley Clark in the last election, and John McCain two elections ago. Please don't imply something about me if you don't know it.

    You can keep saying the Republicans are the ones playing the "blame game", but they're not the only ones -- just read your own posts! BOTH major parties are playing the "blame game". And Bush has admitted the government's problems with the current Katrina situation numerous times -- look it up. It's not an "unwillingness to take responsibility for anything". Now it's time for the local government to admit their own problems with handling the situation. Never once did the govenor or mayor ask for assistance in public transportation -- never once! How can you govern a poverty stricken city and not immediately think of such?

    There's always going to be people who find fault with the current government, no matter what. No one is ever going to make everyone else in the country (or world) satisfied -- it's a fact of life. The Republicans will always bitch about the Democrats, and the Democrats will always bitch about the Republicans. Try to be bi-partisian when you're thinking about things... seems like few people on this message board do (no offense to anyone, just something I've noticed).
     
  14. iamrighthereandnow

    iamrighthereandnow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    from what i see on this forum, more of you seem to be defending bush. i say the same, hitler built great road works - that are of good quality even today, but if you predominantly will do bad, then the critique will be bad, simple as that. you can feel good for defending a guy like him when people say what he does bad, but i wonder if you feel as good as those people who had become poorer due to his policies, for the victims of iraqi war etc and ad nauseum.

    i'm from neither party, i'm anti-establishment as i have already said in this thread i am an anarchist, for me whether its Clinton or Bush, names change, parties change, the agenda is always the same. blair represents labour party which is left, i don't find him dragging UK into illegal war and copying Bush's techniques any more then I like what Bush is doing.


    the other administrations then Bush's have many disgusting deeds to their name, but right now you have Bush in the office who does what he does. or better said does what he's told to do. i do not stand for police state, i do not stand for war criminal in the office and however you may try to defend him, you should know that the iraq war is provably illegal and as such bush and blair are war criminals, that they're still allowed to be heads of the two most powerful countries tells you something.

    to summarise, whatever administration and whatever president is in the key world nations doesn't matter, they serve the same agenda of new world order, with its countdown to police state and i disagree with that under whoever's name its is.

    i don't believe in hiearchy and i don't believe in governments so whom do you think i'd vote for? anarchists don't vote or cast a protest vote or some to avoid bigger evil will vote for a candidate with less devastating outcomes, personally i don't vote. i posted links and articles as to that before my post concerning derek's post to what anarchy is and what it stands for.
     
  15. iamrighthereandnow

    iamrighthereandnow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    i'll also post you some articles that may address your first question of your last post Ant, i am posting long posts i know, but i am not here terribly often.


    Locals believe Levees were Intentionally blown
    Evidence suggests there were "cracks" in levees that were intentionally ignored, questions over how they failed.

    Steve Watson | September 9 2005

    Could the levees in New Orleans have been INTENTIONALLY blown out in order to save sections of the city deemed to be more important?

    The locals certainly seem to think so, yet, as usual, the mainstream media is barely picking up on this wave of opinion, so it is left to us once again to bring the issue into the open.

    When Katrina hit, it drifted 15 miles to the east of where forecasters said it would strike. Therefore it wasn't quite the monster described. The storm passed through with relatively minor damage, it was the the storm surge from the Gulf that caused Lake Pontchartrain to rise three feet and the subsequent flooding.



    Katrina hit early on Monday 29th August, the levees broke in three places - along the Industrial Canal, the 17th Street Canal, and the London Street Canal. (Click here for a Map )

    The main storm surge from Hurricane Katrina washed into Lake Pontchartrain at around 7AM on August 29th when the counterclockwise motion of Katrina was pushing water from the Gulf of Mexico into the lake.

    Some are questioning the timeline of the levee failures, suggesting that there was a 21 hour discrepancy between the storm surge and the collapse of the levees . This is not the case. The first levee broke just a few hours after the hurricane hit on the same morning.

    This confusion may have arisen due to the fact that Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff has said that the levees broke overnight between Monday-Tuesday, and that he was not informed of this til midday Tuesday.


    The breach of the 17th Street Canal levee resulted in the failure of a crucial pumping station nearby, according to a statement made by New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin.

    However, it seems that this exact scenario was expected and ignored. In an interview with New Orleans radio station local radio station WWL-AM, Nagin revealed how irate he was that this had been allowed to happen:

    Nagin: You know what really upsets me, Garland? We told everybody the importance of the 17th Street Canal issue. We said, "Please, please take care of this. We don't care what you do. Figure it out."
    WWL: Who'd you say that to?
    Nagin: Everybody: the governor, Homeland Security, FEMA. You name it, we said it. And they allowed that pumping station next to Pumping Station 6 to go under water. Our sewage and water board people ... stayed there and endangered their lives. And what happened when that pumping station went down, the water started flowing again in the city, and it starting getting to levels that probably killed more people. In addition to that, we had water flowing through the pipes in the city. That's a power station over there. So there's no water flowing anywhere on the east bank of Orleans Parish. So our critical water supply was destroyed because of lack of action.




    It has emerged though that some kind of work was carried out on the 17th Street Canal levee. Reports have suggested that the funding was not there to complete the job, but some work had been done:

    "The Senate was seeking to restore some of the SELA funding cuts for 2006. But now it's too late. One project that a contractor had been racing to finish this summer was a bridge and levee job right at the 17th Street Canal, site of the main breach on Monday."

    Of course we know that it was the White House that slashed funding for such projects in order to pump more money into the war in Iraq.

    According to the New York Times, Dr. Shea Penland of the Pontchartrain Institute was surprised because the break was "along a section that was just upgraded. It did not have an earthen levee, it had a vertical concrete wall several feet thick."

    It also seems that the broken section of the Industrial Canal levee was having "construction" work done on it recently.

    New York Times science reporter Dr. Andrew Revkin has stated of the 17th Street Canal that "officials and [Army Corps] engineers said that after they had found the widening gap in the concrete wall on the eastern side of the canal, they had no quick-response plan to repair it."

    Lt. Gen. Carl A. Strock, commander of the corps, said "plugging the gap was a lower priority." The corps is directed by FEMA. "It is FEMA who is really calling the shots and setting priorities here,"

    Alfred C. Naomi, a senior project manager for the corps, was quoted in the same article as saying "there were still no clear hints why the main breach in the flood barriers occurred along the 17th Street Canal, normally a conduit for vast streams of water pumped out of the perpetually waterlogged city each day and which did not take the main force of the waves roiling the lake. He said that a low spot marked on survey charts of the levees near the spot that ruptured was unrelated and that the depression was where a new bridge crossed the narrow canal near the lakefront."





    This would refute the speculation that a dip in the retaining levee or walls might have allowed water to slop over and start the collapse. So we have an unexplained crack in several feet of concrete. FEMA decided not to plug it and let the water flow until a US city was flooded and thousands had drowned.

    Dynamite? History repeating itself?

    Many locals have come forward to suggest that the levees were breached on purpose by the authorities. Resident Andrea Garland, now re-located to Texas, wrote in her blog:

    "Also heard that part of the reason our house flooded is they dynamited part of the levee after the first section broke - they did this to prevent Uptown (the rich part of town) from being flooded. Apparently they used too much dynamite, thus flooding part of the Bywater. So now I know who is responsible for flooding my house - not Katrina, but our government."

    This scenario is not so crazy as it sounds, in fact this exact thing has happened before in the same city. In 1927, the Mississippi River broke its banks in 145 places, depositing water at depths of up to 30ft over 27,000 square miles of land.

    The disaster changed American society, shifting hundreds of thousands of delta-dwelling blacks into northern cities and cementing the divisions and suspicions that benign neglect has ensured remain today. New Orleans’ (mainly white) business class pressurized the state to dynamite a levee upstream, releasing water into (mainly black) areas of the delta. Black workers were forced to work on flood relief at gunpoint, like slaves.


    Two parishes, St. Bernard and Plaquemines, which had a combined population of 10,000, were destroyed. Just before Katrina, these parishes had about 10 times the 1927 population. Both parishes are now under many feet of water.



    This information is covered in depth in a book by John M. Barry entitled Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and how it Changed America, 1997 which has incidentally become heavily in demand after Katrina.

    Furthermore, levees were also intentionally broke after Hurricane Betsy struck New Orleans in 1965, admittedly with less of an impact. The tactic of breaking the dikes is not uncommon, as this CNN report on China's flood plains highlights.

    Engineers have now punched holes in several levees in parts of New Orleans where flood levels were higher than the water in drainage canals leading to Pontchartrain, in order to let water flow out.

    Did the authorities decide to sacrifice the poor folks and blow the levees in order to save the French Quarter of New Orleans which houses the richer residents, the lucrative historical buildings and thousands of businesses?

    Explosions?

    There were reports of many explosions heard in New Orleans, officials say they were transformers blowing up. Total Information Analysis has reported a claim by intelligence expert Tom Heneghen that 25 earwitnesses cited explosions immediately before the levee breach.

    Similar reports are now appearing in many web blogs:

    "He also mentioned that right before the mass flood there was a loud sound like an explosion." - News from St. Bernard

    "I'll tell you the worst thing I've heard and I heard it from my mother. She said she heard several blasts - big booms - right before the levees broke. Several blasts and then all the water came pouring in." - aangirfan

    Although these are obviously not authoritative sources of information, it is interesting to note how many local people are reporting this. So interesting in fact that the mainstream has picked up on it in places.

    The Washington Post reported on the comments of a retired school teacher:

    "Mullen has a schoolteacher's kindly demeanor, so it was jarring to hear him say he suspected that the levee breaks had somehow been engineered to keep the wealthy French Quarter and Garden District dry at the expense of poor black neighborhoods like the Lower Ninth Ward -- a suspicion I heard from many other black survivors."

    The Globe and Mail is also carrying a similar story.

    ABC World News Tonight carried a report which contained an interview with a local, who described how a floating barge had rammed the levee. The man seemed convinced that the levee was purposefully broken. A transcript of which has appeared on the net:

    David Muir: “Was it solely the water that broke the levee? Or was it the force of this barge that now sits where homes once did? Joe Edwards says neither. People are so bitter, so disenfranchised in this neighborhood, they actually think the city did it, blowing up the levee to save richer neighborhoods, like the French Quarter.”
    Muir to Edwards as they stand on a bridge: “So you're convinced-”
    Edwards: “I knows it happened.”
    Muir: “-that they broke the levee on purpose?”
    Edwards: “They blew it.”
    Muir: “New Orleans’ Mayor says there's no credence to this.”
    Mayor Ray Nagin: “That storm was so powerful and it pushed so much water -- there's no way anyone could have calculated -- would dynamite the levee to have the kind of impact to save the French Quarter.”
    Muir concluded: “An LSU expert who looked at the video today, says that while the barge may have caused it, it was most likely the sheer force of the water that brought the levee, along the lower 9th ward, down.”

    The mysterious barge story has also been reported by many other local residents. "The evacuees who witnessed the barge striking the levee also want to know why the major media is not covering this story."



    The London Observer carried an intriguing story of a man named Correll Williams, a 19-year-old meat cutter. The article states that:

    "Williams only left his apartment after the authorities took the decision to flood his district in an apparent attempt to sluice out some of the water that had submerged a neighbouring district. Like hundreds of others he had heard the news of the decision to flood his district on the radio. The authorities had given people in the district until 5pm on Tuesday to get out - after that they would open the floodgates."

    So it's clear that barriers WERE being broken in an attempt to protect areas of the city




    Can Hurricanes Be
    Used As Weapons Of
    Mass Destruction?
    If Not, Why Did The UN Outlaw Such Practices?
    By Michael Shore (Israel)
    9-5-5

    What the masses of human beings all over the world have not been told is that it is possible to control and manipulate weather with a technology called 'scalar energy'. These energy weapons have other major capabilities that are even more dangerous than atomic weapons. Scalar Weapons could literally destroy the world and it is of the utmost urgency that human beings all over the world must be told of the existence of this devastating technology.

    If none of this is true, where is there a law on the books of the United Nations, which prohibits one Nation from using environmental and weather manipulation weapons and technology against another Nation?

    Nikola Tesla, one of the most incredible inventors of all time, developed this 'scalar technology' in the early 1900's. He created one device, about this size of a pack of cigarettes, which nearly brought down a New York highrise before he reportedly smashed it with a hammer to stop the vibrational
    energy which was beginning to shatter the building.

    In fact, many major technologies currently being used today were invented by Tesla including alternating current, light bulbs, robotics etc. etc. Tesla also invented an advanced technology to provide Free Energy to the entire planet, anywhere, and mainly for this reason the "powers that be" eliminated Tesla's name from history books.

    It's not difficult to understand how 'they' wouldn't permit Free Energy to power the planet. Can you imagine a world, where OIL, HYDRO ELECTRIC ENERGY AND NUCLEAR ENERGY would be obsolete and no longer necessary as a major energy source?

    Tesla wanted to give his free energy technology to the world, and for this reason all his funding was cut off by JP Morgan, Westinghouse and others, and he was never permitted to be recognized for his monumental achievements. The New World Order prefers that no one know that Tesla ever existed, so they can withhold this incredible technology from the People.

    After Tesla died, the U.S.and Russia raced to confiscate all of Tesla's papers. Within his writings and drawings was the secret of energy technology...unlimited power which could clearly be used to dominate the world if it wound up in the wrong hands.

    This amazing technology can also be used to heal people from many diseases, simply and for pennies. (So can such energy theoretically be used to induce disease in masses of people.) The current ultra-billion dollar medical-pharmaceutical industry would not be thrilled about Tesla's technology being used to replace their primitive but fantastically-profitable industries. So, human beings are forced to continue to suffer from diseases that can be easily and successfully treated using Tesla's technology. Sounds too good to be true? It's not.

    Scalar technology can also be used in an EVIL WAY and has the potential to cause huge amounts of damage by using weather as a Weapon of Mass Destruction. This technology exists now. {see links below}. In fact, some government officials have tried in vain to get a law on the books that says that Scalar Weapons cannot be used by any Nation to manipulate weather to be used as a "weapon" Unfortunately, the US, Russia and Japan - and possibly other nations - have been pursuing the use of
    advanced energy technology to control the weather.

    Can this energy weapon be used to 'steer' hurricanes? Someone should seriously check it out. The US Air Force official policy is to completely control the weather by 2025. And the evidence points
    to substantial progress already having been made.

    Read the following links about using weather as a weapon of war...

    http://cuttingedge.org/articles/weather.cfm

    http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/scalar_wars.htm

    http://www.freedomdomain.com/weather.html

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html

    SCALAR WEAPONS CAN ALSO BE USED TO MAKE EARTHQUAKES

    http://www.cheniere.org/books/ferdelance/s71.htm

    SEE THIS WEATHER VIDEO

    http://www.cheniere.org/video/sovietweathervideo.html

    The United Nations has a law on their books prohibiting this
    environmental warfare technology from being used against humanity,
    which is further proof this technology really exists. Read this link:
    http://cuttingedge.org/news/n1196a.html#guided

    The possibility of weather manipulation is so hard for most people to believe, so they may say "show me some proof of the possibility that there is a means to control the weather". Here is one potential U.S. site in Gakona, Alaska that could possibly do that. They would never admit this, but it is interesting that the following is one of the FAQ that they post on their web site. They say one could take a tour of the site, but who is even interested to go to some remote area of Alaska and take such a tour? Who even knows that such a place exists???

    The craziest thing is that it would only cost several millions of dollars to build such a site that could manipulate weather. The pictures are fields of electromagnetic antennas. They were expected to have 33 ACRES OF ANTENNAS when complete. That's a large amount of antennas. Wonder what they're REALLY doing there? There are probably other sites around the globe too.

    <http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/cam.fcgi>http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/cam.fcgi

    Here's the FAQ that appears on their web site in the link above.

    FAQ

    "Is HAARP capable of affecting the weather?"

    {Just having such a question points to the possibility that this technology and what they're doing could affect the weather!}

    Their answer:

    "The HAARP facility will not affect the weather. Transmitted energy in the frequency ranges that will be used by HAARP is subject to negligible absorption in either the troposphere or the stratosphere - the two levels of the atmosphere that produce the earth's weather. Electromagnetic interactions only occur in the near-vacuum of the rarefied region above about 70 km known as the ionosphere."

    "The ionosphere is created and continuously replenished as the sun's radiation interacts with the highest levels of the Earth's atmosphere. The downward coupling from the ionosphere to the stratosphere/troposphere is extremely weak, and no association between natural ionospheric variability and surface weather and climate has been found, even at the extraordinarily high levels of ionospheric turbulence that the sun can produce during a geomagnetic storm. If the ionospheric storms caused by the sun itself don't affect the surface weather, there is no chance that HAARP can do so either."

    Did they really answer the question and say NO, HAARP could NEVER be used to manipulate weather and that anyone saying this is completely wrong? Everyone knows we can trust the government to tell the truth, right? Yeah, sure we can.

    PEACE

    Michael Shore
     
  16. Link04

    Link04 Ambient

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    The movie, Mad Max with Mel Gibson

    Basically it's a world without rules.


    http://www.madmaxthemovie.com/ [/b][/quote]
    ..alright, so why wouldn't people survive without rules? You never quite explained why.
     
  17. Ant

    Ant Ambient

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course I'm defending Bush more often than not... sorry if I don't partake in the Bush-bashing to appease you, I guess?

    But, I should say, you're 100% right. I've "defended" Bush more than I've bashed him here. That's because everyone here who bashes him takes it too far. I've already stated I don't agree with everything he's done, nor do I disagree with everything he's done. But the whole thing with this messageboard (I mean this as no disrespect to anyone here) is that everyone's filled with teen angst and this "Oh, let's rebel against authority" attitude. There's nothing wrong with that, but some people just take things too far when they say Bush is the only person at fault for New Orleans.

    I don't know how many times I've had to say this: I have never said Bush isn't at fault. I have said that he's not the only one at fault, and to assume such a thing is asinine. And, comparing Bush with Hitler and Stalin is also asinine. You can keep up with the conspiracy theories and how history will look down upon Bush (actually, I should probably rephrase that by saying 'how history will compare Bush to Hitler and Stalin', as I think Bush may be looked at negatively in history, but only as a sub-standard President), but I won't assume such things.

    I'm not going to get into the anarchy crap again, either... you can believe what you want, but I don't put any stock into that kind of stuff. I have nothing against people who believe that, but I just don't buy into it, and I've already debated the issue with Link a few times and don't feel like pushing it any further.

    As for the nice, long article -- sorry, but I didn't read it. I'm not going to simply read every novel someone says is relevant to a subject just so I can have a conversation.
     
  18. iamrighthereandnow

    iamrighthereandnow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    firstly, i never said you have to appease me, i just said, that i have seen more of people here defending bush then the other way around, i am not here much so i base that on what i have read here in limited way, but if there are people defending bush here, then its not as full of bush bashers as you say.

    i know a lot of history and a lot of what is happening in usa had been happening in pre-war nazi germany, i don't think you can call my observations asinine, when i bother to research the subject matter and read as many 'novels' -as it takes me to make informed observations.

    which conspiracy theory are you talking about i mentioned...? about the manipulation of weather....if you looked you'd have seen that its in UN legistlation, UN are hardly going to legistlate conspiracy theory, are they?i'd also like to remind you that with public disclosure of documents many 'conspiracy theories' of the days passed are now in history as events that happened. if you talking abou me mentioning new world order, then that its not conspiracy theory either, a lot of that is provable if one bothers to look into legal documents and do relevant research, luckily most people are lazy and will think about it the way they had been thought - repeat words without one's own conviction.


    Bush is not the only person at fault, all the hiearchy capitalist structure had failed and the inherent racism of the system and its disregard for the poor and human life. this topic is also on subject of 'all that crap' of anarchy. anarchy is not only belief held by teenagers and its not about rebelion against authority, the authority that we have is unnatural and parasitic and the structure of the society dysfunctional. that anarchist look for a society that works from bottom up, is built on humanistic principles has not as much to do with being a rebel without a clue, but common sense and humanistic values.

    you don't have to read anything to have conversations but if you ask questions then i provided some answers and some information, its indeed up to every person to get as much or as little information in as they like.
     
  19. Ant

    Ant Ambient

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wasn't planning on responding anymore to this topic as you can probably have guessed from my last post, but I'll at least address this issue before I go:

    Are you being serious, or sarcastic? I hope you're not serious, because I'd say at least every 9 out of 10 people here hate Bush. Just search for "Bush" on this board.
     
  20. iamrighthereandnow

    iamrighthereandnow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    i have explained already that i am not on this board very often, i have been here for last three days, but that's not my habit, neither it will become i don't think. even if there's one in ten defending Bush as you say, to me that's something, i live between UK and USA as my fiance is american and Europe had been more left then the liberals of usa even, and me being on the far left, i have to say even to encounter one in ten people who still would defend Bush, is a rare opportunity.
     

Share This Page