Remember which party took every opportunity to LIE, misrepresent and distort the events of Hurricane Katrina. A sitting President was accused of not caring (enough), blamed for all the corruption and ineptitude that comes naturally to any useless government behemoth like FEMA (they'll perform just as poorly now, with Obama in the Red House) and the worst of it is, the kooks claiming Bush pushed down the plunger and dynamited the levees were not vocally opposed by a single Democrat (to my knowledge).

Democrats invented demagoguery and they'd have to, as facts and logic are rarely on their side. If a theoretical Republican suggested cutting the budget of a school lunch program, the next thing to occur would be nearby Donkeycrats screaming: "LOOK! THE EVIL CONSERVATIVE IS TRYING TO STARVE POOR CHILDREN!" The DEMagogs are all around us, with liberals falling back on race, class envy and victimhood every time their most current schemes fail (because human nature doesn't change).

Max wrote: I am still amazed at how he is actively trying to rebuild the Republican party by insisting that they have a say in legislation that they have no way of stopping.

The answer is because when the programs fail to work, without Rs on board the Ds will get ALL the blame, and rightly so. I WANT the Crats to shut out the Repubes. Take the receipt for the Fail. 2010 is almost here.

The free market argument is bullshit , If you leve things to business you end up with individuals manopalizing things and exploiting things. As far as I understand the expenses with current health service are because of capitalism and the insurance companies working out ways to derive more money from people ,

capitalism is only concerned about money it is not concerned about people and fairness.

getting ill is like a house fire you don't expect it often its not predictable you can never tell if its only a small thing or if its a huge thing, now as everyone has a body surly it makes sence for everyone by dufult to have coverage Tax makes more sence for this kind of thing, If you belive the goverment is waist full with money then you need to work on the governments ways of spending mony and whats going wrong in the goverment , its not that the idesa of tax funded helth car is wrong. If you make it private its out of the peoples controle and the system is motivated to cheet people out of mony its unfixable.

I don't need to look much beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about 'free' healthcare for all or robbing one group of people who worked hard to pay off others who didn't.

Bingo!

You treat the constitution like others (you perhaps also?) treat the bible... your one stop shop for everything. Everything begins and ends with one document and you'll be damned if any further discussion will be had because apparently that document is perfect. (Let's ignore the raft of amendments... they... um... just fine tuning and already perfect document aren't they?)

The Constitution limits government power and says any powers not expressly given to the federal mafia is given to the States. That balance is already long gone. If "you" wish to circumvent those limits, even and especially for "the common good", then you may as well admit you support a benevolent dictatorship where the thugs at the top can do anything they want as long as you FEEL they're doing the right thing, or they appear to be.

The Constiution is not a "living document" nor written on an Etch-a-Sketch. It is, however, simply ignored by the scum in the federal mafia. If an Amendment was needed to outlaw alcohol, why is there no proposed amendment mandating 'free' health care? Because the current shits are anarchists, or monarchists.

No one is saying that the US system is GOOD now at all. But what you DO have is the situation where private health companies are consulted BEFORE you get treatment to see if you will be covered for that treatment. THAT is absolutely insane.

And you're basing this massive dissatifaction on what, exactly? Or is the mythical "46 million" uninsured going to come out of the woodwork again?

Look, here in Australia we have public and private... public health guarantees you all the necessary health care you need, and you pay a levee on that in your taxes (Medicare levee), if you take out Private health care (as most do), then you don't have to pay that levee as you are paying your own way via the private insurer. You don't suddenly stop getting public health, just the hospitals get paid by the private insurer rather than the government. Also, private health care gives you elective benefits and better rooms in hospitals etc. (ie. your own room rather than shared). The deal is, you can get better 'extras' etc. surrounding core health care by being on private, but you never miss out on the necessary care by not being able to afford it... and that's the way it should be.

"But you never miss out on the necessary care by not being able to afford it."

You would be hard pressed to find average Americans dying in the streets due to a lack of health care. Like I wrote, 20 million illegal aliens seem to know where the emergency rooms are, even when the sign is written in English.

From wikipedia:

The health care industry is likely to be the most heavily regulated industry in the United States. A study published by the Cato Institute suggests that this regulation provides benefits in the amount of $170 billion but costs the public up to $340 billion.[159] The study concluded that the majority of the cost differential arises from medical malpractice, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, and facilities regulations. Part of the cost is attributed to regulatory requirements that prevent technicians without medical degrees from performing treatment and diagnostic procedures that carry little risk.

It appears that once again, the soaring costs of medical care can be largely attributed to government interference. (And trial lawyers, but that's another story).


It's perplexing that numbers of people claim religion is evil yet believe that a true source of goodness is a government program which people are forced to enroll in at gunpoint. There's some confusion that this recent Obamunist government intrusion isn't the same as mandatory "universal halth care" but that's where it will end up. The camel's nose is poking into the tent.

I didn't wish harm on you. I wished destitution on you (which doesn't have to physically harm you at all, just take your ego down a few notches). I wished that you ended up with no money and therefore be reliant on the very things that you think shouldn't exist, because apparently you lack a iota of empathy and are incapable of ever seeing how someone could end up poor and without help and need some help to get back on track. Sometimes, for some people such as yourself, the only way to get through that 'it's other people' mentality is for it to affect you directly.

Yes, you wished harm on me, but that's due to your "left wing brainwaves"as the socialist believes that when one person wins, another must automatically lose; that's why the scramble for an "equality of outcomes" is so important. This isn't Dicken's "A Christman Carol" and I'm not Scrooge. And because not everyone agrees with your one-size-fits-all mentality on this or that issue does not mean they they're A) automatically wrong and B) in need of an ego resizing. Don't worry, I've had hard times aplenty.


Seems to me the only thing missing from your plan is personal responsibility. Are smokers or fat folks given less priority care or charged more in Australia? And forgive me in advance for going here, but at what point under the government system does some bureaucrat say, "Your child ain't gonna make it anyway because such-and-such condition has a 20% survival rate" and cut off treatment, or the more expensive treatments. From my point of view, you should at least entertain the idea that giving the government power over life and death when they can't even deliver the mail is a serious risk. They're serving you at their convenience and if they decide to cut you off, you're in a lot more trouble than some insurance company which can be sued.

You're making shit up that has nothing to do with my argument, so here it is again worded slightly different: is it the government's obligation to provide "free" basic everything ALL the time the way they claim to want to do with healthcare?

No, and no one is suggesting that the government should provide everyone with free everything.

There's a whole political system based on the idea that government should provide everyone with free everything, via the abolition of private property. And really, since no one is driving the train, it makes perfect sense for the communist to demand that everyone be fed for "free" all the time. Food is a more immediate and vital basic need than health care, isn't it? Even the healthy must eat to stay they way...so is "free" bread a 'right'?

What we're saying is access to healthcare should not be dictated by your bank balance. I, because I earn a good wage, should not be able to get a heart replacement if I need it, but let someone else die because they couldn't afford the operation. That just isn't right, and nowhere in the bible does it say anything about looking after only those who can afford it. In fact, I'm pretty sure it talks about taking care of the weak and needy.

Things cost money. Either you pay or someone else does. Your argument in a nutshell is that socialized medicine is less expensive, and in some ways---brace yourself---you might be right. As stated, I don't claim to have all the answers, but for America a completely government-run health care system (which is what the taxocrats are after) will be a disaster.

Um... you're several trillion dollars in debt for many, many reasons, not least of which is the trillions of dollars you spend on your damn military. You can't take anything you don't agree with and try to suggest THAT is why you're in debt... sorry, doesn't work.

The military is a tiny slice of the US budget compared to all the "free" social programs. We don't have the money to pay for all of the "free" goodies we have now, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Someone has to pay for all this stuff. Under socialized health care is it "fair" that the healthy guy with no major medical problems gets little return on his health care taxes while the fat smoker spends two years in a hospital bed before expiring?

And in regards to those that would have made it one way or another... not necessarily so at all, although you'd LOVE to think so, because that's the right wing brain.

"Successful people will always be successful with no help from anyone else". I said no such thing, but I will say this: government is the problem more often than not, and per your friend, your government system could just as easily and cheerfully kept him on the dole to suit its own purposes. Apparenlty he made a choice which brought him desired results. Which brings me to another point: some people are beyond helping, they will fk up everything all the time by constantly making the wrong choices no matter how much help you give them. There's no reason to hurt such people more than they hurt themselves, but there's also no reason to let them game the system forever.

Huh? You've given up again... you've obviously got some hardwired words in your brain that are 'bad':
'Socialism' = bad
'Big Government' = bad
without really thinking through what you're saying.

It must be cultural. Americans--the real ones--don't trust authority. Our government was founded by revolution and rebellion against the idea of kings, or ten thousand pint-sized would-be kings holding clipboards.

Saying that a government can turn around and deny care is, well ridiculous when you're comparing it to private companies that do it ROUTINELY. If government does it (please do give me examples where they have... hmmm? I can pull out stupendous amounts of private health examples)

Government consider plans to deny NHS treatment to smokers and obese

Anger over NHS restrictions for osteoporosis treatment

Vulnerable And Frail To Get Substandard Medical Care, Australia

Australia's health care system basically 'broke'

Left-wing socialist ideals have given you a certain perspective not shared by all. Your "culture", like many in the world, believes that the group is more important than the individual.

I'm sayin' that sooner or later, that belief will bite you on the buttocks, because the operators of such systems remain human. Less government = better.

The basis of the idea that every human being is entitled to "free" health care is a made-up "right" based on nothing. Even among the world's major religions' mandates to selflessly help others there is no call to establish gigantic government entities to take care of the public.

It's repugnant to suggest that because one does not fall to his knees in praise of The System, one then must automatically be for suffering or letting others starve.

Government is a necessary evil that creates nothing and can only take by force and shuffle around what already exists. The answers to the health care 'crisis' will be found among the people, not bureaushits.

-----------------------
-----------------------

While sweeping floors is unskilled labour, I think I'd be affected more by having nobody clean the areas around where I lived than if the brain surgeons stopped their work. Without anyone removing rubbish all the time, the rat infestations and associated disease would probably harm and kill more people than brain surgeons save.

Don't underestimate the importance of core workforce like cleaners.

I'm not berating unskilled labor, but doesn't the medical student with half a million dollars in loans and 10 years of college study deserve more financial reward for their efforts? The socialist says, 'No, doctors' labor is a publicly-owned commodity whereas other occupations are not.'

-----------------------

If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.

Canada doesn't do asylum based on illness, that's reserved for other things. We do however bring people back into Canada from around the world who actually need medical care and can't get it in 2nd and 3rd world countries for treatment all the time. That aside, if you show up in Canada and require critical care for some emergency condition. You'll get it. Whether or not you'll have to pay for it(being that you're out of country and a non-payee into the system) is another question altogether different. Healthcare isn't free here either, that's where that 50% tax rate comes in along with country wide equalization payments. Since Canada already deals with Americans, and other foreign nations entering the country for healthcare, I'm sure you can figure out how much of a strain the puts on the system. And yes, there's a special division relating to healthcare fraud from non-Canadian nationals in every province.

Thank you for this information.

>> ^quantumushroom:
You amaze me with your complete lack of looking into ANYTHING QM.
I don't need to look much beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about 'free' healthcare for all or robbing one group of people who worked hard to pay off others who didn't.


Bingo!

You treat the constitution like others (you perhaps also?) treat the bible... your one stop shop for everything. Everything begins and ends with one document and you'll be damned if any further discussion will be had because apparently that document is perfect. (Let's ignore the raft of amendments... they... um... just fine tuning and already perfect document aren't they?)



Have bothered AT ALL to look at other countries that do healthcare a SHITELOAD better than the US? How do you not think it's fair to provide necessary healthcare to everyone in your country? Under what warped logic do you think that only those that can afford it should be able to live, while those that can't die?
How does that work?


Life isn't fair and no amount of government force will make it fair. I wonder if you lefties even know what's going on in America. Socialized medicine practically exists NOW. WTF is Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? S-Chip? You'd have to work pretty hard to not get the care you need, especialy if 20 million Mexican illegals are getting it.

No one is saying that the US system is GOOD now at all. But what you DO have is the situation where private health companies are consulted BEFORE you get treatment to see if you will be covered for that treatment. THAT is absolutely insane. Look, here in Australia we have public and private... public health guarantees you all the necessary health care you need, and you pay a levee on that in your taxes (Medicare levee), if you take out Private health care (as most do), then you don't have to pay that levee as you are paying your own way via the private insurer. You don't suddenly stop getting public health, just the hospitals get paid by the private insurer rather than the government. Also, private health care gives you elective benefits and better rooms in hospitals etc. (ie. your own room rather than shared). The deal is, you can get better 'extras' etc. surrounding core health care by being on private, but you never miss out on the necessary care by not being able to afford it... and that's the way it should be.


And your intro also speaks of being simple minded also:
Doesn't everyone deserves a free home
There is such a thing as government housing, and it's used by people who have fallen on hard times until they can afford something better. The houses are never fantastic, and you wouldn't want to stay in them, but they provide shelter while you try to pick yourself up... Of course you rally against such ideas and think they'll only be populated by the lazy, and how dare they get a roof over their head when you work for all you have...
I don't object to safety nets, but you know and I know that's not what we're talking about here. Also, with the Christianity bashing that goes on here at liberalsift, I wonder where the morality of the left exists on its own merit? Was every atheist born knowing 'the right thing to do'?

Wah? Huh? I don't get the point of this comment at all. If you're going down that religious path of 'well, I have this book that tells me my morals, and what is right and wrong... you must have no morals and not know what's right and wrong because you don't have a book', then sorry, but that's an insanely stupid tree to be barking up. If you truly believe that you would do 'bad things' if you didn't have the fear of god punishing you for breaking his commandments for doing so then you are a 'bad person'. Most of us don't do 'bad things' because we don't want to hurt other people or make life worse off for others, not due to some selfish fear for ourselves.


Um... ok, if you don't think there's a need for 'soup kitchens' and other such ways for people who have become destitute, then I would LOOOOOVE for you to end up jobless sometime and not have any family support, and then you can say there should be nowhere for those without money to be able to find shelter and food.
I'd friggen love it.
Well that's just fucking wonderful. With all the shit you've been through, you'd rather just wish harm on others that disagree with you, eh?

I didn't wish harm on you. I wished destitution on you (which doesn't have to physically harm you at all, just take your ego down a few notches). I wished that you ended up with no money and therefore be reliant on the very things that you think shouldn't exist, because apparently you lack a iota of empathy and are incapable of ever seeing how someone could end up poor and without help and need some help to get back on track. Sometimes, for some people such as yourself, the only way to get through that 'it's other people' mentality is for it to affect you directly.


You're making shit up that has nothing to do with my argument, so here it is again worded slightly different: is it the government's obligation to provide "free" basic everything ALL the time the way they claim to want to do with healthcare?


No, and no one is suggesting that the government should provide everyone with free everything. What we're saying is access to healthcare should not be dictated by your bank balance. I, because I earn a good wage, should not be able to get a heart replacement if I need it, but let someone else die because they couldn't afford the operation. That just isn't right, and nowhere in the bible does it say anything about looking after only those who can afford it. In fact, I'm pretty sure it talks about taking care of the weak and needy.


automobile No, but free/heavily subsidized public transport works wonders for actually being able to get to... oh, I dunno... jobs.
I'm not against local public transportation. In some places it works, in others it's been an expensive disaster. And it's not my point. But if you think people with no car have a right to a "free" bus, so be it.
No, people who have no access to their own transport through not being able to afford it, despite their best efforts, should be able to use public transport to get around. If you deny people the ability to get around, how are they ever going to get to the jobs to make the money to be able to pay for these things themselves?



(plus for kicks a high-paying job that pays the same whether you're a brain surgeon or sweep floors)?
Now you're just being a douche. You've got no concept of how any of this works do you? You think that those at or under the poverty line just LOVE living in government housing and surviving on handouts... hell, why bother working when life is so grand hey?
You're an idiot. People don't want to remain like that, people never want to GET like that, but some people do, some through no real fault of their own (some by their own fault, but so what). The idea is, you give them a hand through those times until they can once again become a constructive member of society. And people WANT to get a good job and be able to buy their own home/car and feel like they've been productive. I don't know anyone who enjoys relying on the handouts. But I sure as fuck know people who HAVE HAD to at one time or another and are bloody glad those things were in place to catch them during the tough times.
And some of these people now work for multinational companies in technical roles and are doing very well for themselves... because they were helped during the rough patches.
It ends up costing LESS in the long run you know.
Yeah, that's why we're several trillion dollars in debt. I have another theory about those success stories: those people might have made it whether there was government aid available or not.

Um... you're several trillion dollars in debt for many, many reasons, not least of which is the trillions of dollars you spend on your damn military. You can't take anything you don't agree with and try to suggest THAT is why you're in debt... sorry, doesn't work.

And in regards to those that would have made it one way or another... not necessarily so at all, although you'd LOVE to think so, because that's the right wing brain. "Successful people will always be successful with no help from anyone else". Which is a load of crap. SOME people pick themselves up completely independently and become successful with no external help, but ALMOST ALL have support from many places. A particular case I'm thinking of (a friend), spent years being horrendously insecure in themselves and doing f-all for his career and being effectively 'a drain' on society as you would say. But now he earns a good wage and is giving back to society through his taxes, so therefore paying back for his time. He needed that time being supported to get out of that rut. If there was no support... well, I don't know what would have happened to him, but it wouldn't have been nice.


Also... it'd be friggen hilarious if you got some illness that cost an enormous amount of money to treat, and your private health care provider decided that it wasn't covered (as they like to do)... then you'll be bleating that there should be public health.
If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.
If you take nothing else away from this: I don't pretend to have all the answers, while Big Government tyrants do. I oppose socialism in general and in particular this health scam the Obamunists are trying to pass as quickly as possible before the people realize what they thought were brownies are really dog turds.
A government big enough to pay for your kid's "free" health care is also big enough to say, "You're over the limit for treatment costs. Back of the line."


Huh? You've given up again... you've obviously got some hardwired words in your brain that are 'bad':
'Socialism' = bad
'Big Government' = bad
without really thinking through what you're saying.

Saying that a government can turn around and deny care is, well ridiculous when you're comparing it to private companies that do it ROUTINELY. If government does it (please do give me examples where they have... hmmm? I can pull out stupendous amounts of private health examples), then they have public outcry from the country to contend with because it's health care that WE are all paying for. If a private company denies treatment then you'd just say 'Well... it's a free market, go with another provider'.

I really think that you've been taught to believe these right wing mantras but, like most right wingers, you haven't thought through the consequences of those actions AT ALL... You run on an endless loop of 'hard work will get you what you need', whereas we run on one that says 'a fair go for everyone'. Your loop ignores how people get started in the first place, how people need help to get up from being poor and uneducated and pull themselves up to be really productive members of your country. You think that anyone who can't afford to go to university or get healthcare or have a car only lacks those things purely through their own laziness. We think that maybe you help people to have the opportunity to become educated and not be sick, and maybe that gives them a better chance to spend time learning a trade and becoming skilled and earning a great wage and getting their family moving on and up rather than staying poor and a drain on society for ever.

Thanks for the promote while I was gone!

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
*promote the best drummer ever and the pictures, emotions in this video

>> ^Dranzerk:
So I use reason and common sense. If that makes a person a internet expert then im a freakin god. The situation you posed still comes down to the same simple fact. They knew a hurricane was coming, they stayed.


And people regularly weather hurricanes. Whether it's a hurricane or typhoon, there are populations who know how to deal with it, except this time was different.

If anything it was an engineering disaster because floodwalls and levees broke below design specifications.

A VOLCANO erupting? Lol. Yeah right. That's about as likely as a meltdown of the financial sector, the levees in New Orleans failing, or someone flying an airplane into a skyscraper!

I was about as speachless myself after watching his 'speech.' Talking down to everyone as if he was trying to explain his party to some 10 year olds. Acting like Katrina wasn't a republican fuckup. And last but absolutely worst, constantly saying the republicans 'went along with' the bad decisions and horrible fiscal spending of the last 8 years.

As long as they attempt to treat the nation like children and pretend they are cool with one of the two black guys in the party leading it and the only Indian guy the parties 'rising star'... it just shows how clueless the republican party in Washington truly is. I mean hell the party leader went so far to say the republicans need a 'hiphop reboot'.. I mean wtf is that? Besides laughable.

You guys can keep talking down to the citizens of this country like we are all children who don't understand anything. Meanwhile Obama keeps talking to us like adults. Lets see how far that gets you 4 years from now.

Seriously... attacking Volcano Monitoring is about as stupid as attacking fruit fly research.. or attacking the money spent to build up levees in Louisiana.



Edit: BTW John Stewart was on his game last night something crazy. His response to the Jindal speech was great, and the 'light baconaize' bit was 'rotflmao' material. Someone upload those!

In case anyone comes looking to fix this, this was a video collage of photographs from McCain and Bush eating cake, and the wreckage left by Katrina that same day, to the sound track of Led Zepplin's "When the Levee Breaks".

To follow on from Diogenes:

1. The relevant section from the case law cited:

Utilizing the language of the ordinance of 1787, the 13th Amendment declares that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. This Amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. [240 U.S. 328, 333] It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc.

That's right, the constitution and the Supreme Court both recognize that individuals have an inherent duty to the state which protects and provides for them.

2. Here's what Rahm is actually proposing:

Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service. They'll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community, where they will learn what to do in the event of biochemical, nuclear or conventional attack; how to assist others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we're hit by a natural disaster. These young people will be available to address their communities' most pressing needs.

3. Here's how Obama interprets the means of national service:

President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

4. If enacted, which seems unlikely, the United States would quickly become a totalitarian state much like:

Brazil
Denmark
Finalnd
Germany
Greece
Switzerland

All of which have compulsory national service.

QM, I really respect your dedication to libertarianism and therefor your opposition to the policies that are likely to be enacted by President Obama. So go ahead and trash his plans and his record all you like, but please, please stop making jokes about Obama's connection to Kenya and his African family's religion.

I respect your respectful tone.

He's an American, and a Christian. Those two things don't really mean a lot to me, since I am not a nationalist and not religious, but your continued comments and jokes that seem to claim otherwise are clearly some sort of veiled racism.

Racism? Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't care about Obama's race, unfortunately others are obsessed with it. I'm happy for Blacks who take pride in Obama's election but as Rev. Lowery's little inauguration jab against Whites proves, the Racial Grievance Indu$try, though temporarily subdued, is alive and well. Like others, I'm waiting to see if those opposing Barry's socialist agenda will be branded racists by the mainstream media, which these days shamelessly shills for Democrats. We both know that answer.

The assumptions in your statements are that a person associated with Kenya has less value than a "pure" American, and that a person who has Muslim relatives has questionable loyalties.

Though it be humor in Barry's case, I question the loyalties of ANY American
politician who swears on a Quran. Islam demands a loyalty that transcends national boundaries, but in the name of conquest, not respect (Christianity went through and grew out of such a mindset centuries ago). Islam is largely incompatible with Western values, so it remains to be seen what happens next as their numbers grow in the States.

Jokes aside, I'm not saying Barry is a Muslim, however I don't rule out the possibility. Though he is a self-professed Christian, the truth of whatever that means to Barack is between him and his God. If his Christianity is the bitter Black marxism of Reverend Wright, I have no more use for it than if BHO was a professed Muslim.

I'll say this anyway: your rights as a non-believer are not secure with Muslims.

Perhaps other people aren't bothered by your little jabs, but it's really starting to get on my nerves. I have high hopes that Obama will be good for this country. But even if I am wrong and Obama turns this country into a socialist toilet like Denmark, France, or Vermont, that has absolutely nothing to do with a dual citizenship he never wanted, or the beliefs of relatives he barely knows.

The dual citizenship ended with BHO turning 21 and at no time did he claim loyalty to Kenya. However there remain serious questions about the legitimacy of what has been presented as Obama's birth certificate (a digital image, easily forged). The real birth certificate has never been made available and Obama won't release it. After 4 years (or, God Forbid, I suspect he'll reveal he was born in Kenya, and was therefore unqualified, by law, to be President.

If Bush can be accused of deliberately letting Blacks drown (due to a hurricane + the Democrats who ran New Orleans for decades, doing nothing to upkeep the levees) by not getting the federal leviathan to act "fast enough", then Barry can take a little ribbing. I'm sorry you were offended personally, but I'm one of 3 or so outspoken non-liberals here at VS and my comments are usually sandwiched by Bush/Israel/conservative/capitalism-hating jibes and rants.

I'm a conservative kidney stone here at liberalsift but that's the way it goes, I choose to visit and most sifters allow me to stay (an occasional gift can of WD-40 for Siftbot helps).

Hopefully there are more laughs than rage, and believe me, a few times I've walked away from this computer ready to kill over mere words. It comes with the territory, Kent.

It's nice and all that they are having this nasty letter contest but, 1800+ people are already dead. She can blame the corps for the levee breaks and as a counter the corps can point fingers at the government.

Both are right and wrong. This problem has been brought up time and again since the 70's. People could have heeded the warnings and left. The local government still had many options to move people that were unable; before it hit.

The blame is squarely on the local and federal governments for not doing their job and to a lesser extent the oversight of the citizens to make sure the government was doing their job--in their best interest.

As for now days... It's still up to the same people and always will be. Both sides are acting childish and all that will give us is Katrina II.

Thanks

In reply to this comment by dbot2006:
re:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Kansas-Joe-Memphis-Minnie-When-The-Levee-Breaks


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ0eZiarvEE

re:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Kansas-Joe-Memphis-Minnie-When-The-Levee-Breaks


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ0eZiarvEE

The Levees.org site:

http://www.levees.org/index