Politicizing hurricane Katrina

[easycruise]

[editorandpublisher.com]

From National Geographic (A well known Leftie publication):

Those two sources don't prove your claim at all! They mention nothing about the delineation between "overtopped" and "breakage". There is a big difference between the two circumstances. You'll have to do better than that for a source for your claim.

 

[Rolfe]

They mention nothing about the delineation between "overtopped" and "breakage". There is a big difference between the two circumstances.

There is very little difference at all. Overtop an earth bank and it will wash away very quickly, inevitably. This is sophistry and hair-splitting.

Rolfe.

 

[easycruise]

It's been pointed out before that distinguishing between overtopping and breaching a levee is hair-splitting.

Pointed out where? Cite your source.

Many of these levees were earth banks, and as soon as an earth bank is overtopped it inevitably starts to be washed away. Even a concrete structure is much more likely to give way under the weight of the water if it's actually been overtopped.

Are you an expert in levees or can you cite an expert on that claim? Or are you just speculating? Washed away how soon? Immediately, or weeks later?

Now I have no personal interest in US politics, but this knee-jerk defence of an incompetent leader simply because he's from a party that posters support isn't a pretty sight.

You have no interest in US politics, but you call Bush incompetent? Interesting.

I mean, what planet is the guy living on?

Never let unsubstantiated speculation get in the way of a good old Bush bashfest, right?

Oh, sorry, should have remembered. Trent Lott's porch.

Must be that non-interest in US politics again. Tell me, if your best friend's house burns down, you wouldn't offer help to rebuild it and then suggest a nice, celebratory drink on the porch or deck when it's finished? Although I surmise that such a thought is alien to such people as the liberal elite who live in rent-controlled apartments in Manhattan.

 

[Mark]

Now I have no personal interest in US politics, but this knee-jerk defence of an incompetent leader simply because he's from a party that posters support isn't a pretty sight.

It isn't any prettier from up close, believe me.

Fortunately, his poll numbers are plummeting so it's really only the die hard, Bush-can-do-no-wrong Republican faithful who are still behind him.

If the election were held today, Woody Woodpecker could probably beat him.

 

[easycruise]

From CNN transcripts....

Aired September 2, 2005 - 21:00 ET
KING: We're back.
Joining us now in Washington is Marty Evans, the President and CEO of the American Red Cross. She traveled with the president today. The Red Cross is not in New Orleans, why?

MARTY EVANS, RED CROSS PRESIDENT AND CEO: Well, Larry, when the storm came our goal was prior to landfall to support the evacuation. It was unsafe to be in the city. We were asked by the city not to be there and the Superdome was made a shelter of last resorts and, quite frankly in retrospect, it was a good idea because otherwise those people would have had no shelter at all.

We have our shelters north of the city. We're prepared as soon as they can be evacuated, we're prepared to receive them in Texas, in other states, but it was not safe to be in the city and it's not been safe to go back into the city. They were also concerned that if we located, relocated back into the city people wouldn't leave and they've got to leave.

...

KING: Marty, how would you respond?

EVANS: Well, Larry, we were asked, directed by the National Guard and the city and the state emergency management not to go into New Orleans because it was not safe. We are not a search and rescue organization. We provide shelter and basic support and so we were depending, we are depending on the state and the agencies to get people to our shelters in safe places.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0509/02/lkl.01.html

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

CNN had the story on September 2nd. Guess they chose not to run with it. The media is pathetic. All blaming the Feds, when the president of the Red Cross tells anybody who asks, "it was the state folks who asked us not to deliver relief."

 

[easycruise]

It isn't any prettier from up close, believe me.

Fortunately, his poll numbers are plummeting so it's really only the die hard, Bush-can-do-no-wrong Republican faithful who are still behind him.

Once again, lefty Bush bashers shoot from the mouth first and check facts later. James Randi would be shaking his head and sighing at the lefties. Facts are that his approval have only dropped one point in the last week. Still at 46% approval. As of TODAY!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

 

[Mark]

Once again, lefty Bush bashers shoot from the mouth first and check facts later. James Randi would be shaking his head and sighing at the lefties. Facts are that his approval have only dropped one point in the last week. Still at 46% approval. As of TODAY!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

Getting a bit desperate, are we? As of August, 2005:

George W. Bush's overall job approval ratings have dropped from a month ago even as Americans who approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president are turning more optimistic about their personal financial situations according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Among all Americans, 36% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 58% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 33% approve and 62% disapprove.

Overall, 36% of Americans say that they approve of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president, 58% disapprove, and 6% are undecided.


http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

Of course, this is all, no doubt, lies spread by your mythical "liberal media."

 

[easycruise]

Getting a bit desperate, are we? As of August, 2005:

George W. Bush's overall job approval ratings have dropped from a month ago even as Americans who approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president are turning more optimistic about their personal financial situations according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Among all Americans, 36% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 58% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 33% approve and 62% disapprove.

Overall, 36% of Americans say that they approve of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president, 58% disapprove, and 6% are undecided.


http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

Of course, this is all, no doubt, lies spread by your mythical "liberal media."

You're desperate by picking the survey "outlier". At least my source was much closer with the pack. Let's look at ALL the surveys for the last 10 months. Show me where the "plummeting" part is over the last few weeks, will you?

http://realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/bush_ja.html

 

[Mark]

You're desperate by picking the survey "outlier". At least my source was much closer with the pack. Let's look at ALL the surveys for the last 10 months. Show me where the "plummeting" part is over the last few weeks, will you?

http://realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/bush_ja.html

Now you are really getting silly. 10 months ago? Why not quote his poll numbers from 3 years ago? 4?

The single biggest drop in Bush's support has been over the last month, so bringing in 10 month old poll numbers would be, well, an act of desperation, wouldn't you say?

Bush is doing great! Just look at his poll numbers from December, 2004!

Edited to add: \
The source I linked to---if you had bothered to read it---does give Bush's poll numbers for the last year.

 

[JenJen]

Now you are really getting silly. 10 months ago? Why not quote his poll numbers from 3 years ago? 4?

The single biggest drop in Bush's support has been over the last month, so bringing in 10 month old poll numbers would be, well, an act of desperation, wouldn't you say?

Bush is doing great! Just look at his poll numbers from December, 2004!

Edited to add: \
The source I linked to---if you had bothered to read it---does give Bush's poll numbers for the last year.

Good job.

Over the last 10 months means up to 9/7/05 - if you'd bothered to follow the link. And, from there you can follow links to the sources.

BTW - For the intellectually challenged, that's two days ago.



Jen

 

[Mark]

Good job.

Over the last 10 months means up to 9/7/05 - if you'd bothered to follow the link. And, from there you can follow links to the sources.

BTW - For the intellectually challenged, that's two days ago.



Jen

You are the one who brought up using poll numbers from 10 months ago.

For the intellectually challenged, that was slightly more than 2 days ago. Would you like me to buy you a calendar?

 

[JenJen]

You are the one who brought up using poll numbers from 10 months ago.

For the intellectually challenged, that was slightly more than 2 days ago. Would you like me to buy you a calendar?

First, I was NOT the one who brought up 10 months ago. And the guy that did said "for the last 10 months."

Second - the date may depend on where you live. Go look up the concept of timezones, please.

Jen

 

[Mark]

First, I was NOT the one who brought up 10 months ago. And the guy that did said "for the last 10 months."

Second - the date may depend on where you live. Go look up the concept of timezones, please.

Jen

True; it was Easycruise. My mistake on that.

But are you seriously suggesting that timezones have an effect on the poll numbers?!?!?!!?

10 months is not 10 months because of timezones?!?!?!

This is starting to be a little "through the looking glass" here.

 

[JenJen]

True; it was Easycruise. My mistake on that.

But are you seriously suggesting that timezones have an effect on the poll numbers?!?!?!!?

10 months is not 10 months because of timezones?!?!?!

This is starting to be a little "through the looking glass" here.

If you're joking, I'll admit to being dense and apologize.

Otherwise, I don't get your point with regards to what has already been said.

Jen

 

[Mark]

If you're joking, I'll admit to being dense and apologize.

Otherwise, I don't get your point with regards to what has already been said.

Jen

And I will extend the same courtesy and say that maybe I just don't get your point.

Easycruise implied that his poll numbers were more valid, because they included polls from 10 months ago.

I responded by showing how irrelevant (OK, I said silly) that was. 10 month old poll numbers are about as valid as a 10 month old weather forecast.

The fact is, polls conducted in the last 4 weeks show Bush's approval rating at 36% or even lower, depending on the specific question asked.

 

[JenJen]

And I will extend the same courtesy and say that maybe I just don't get your point.

Easycruise implied that his poll numbers were more valid, because they included polls from 10 months ago.

I responded by showing how irrelevant (OK, I said silly) that was. 10 month old poll numbers are about as valid as a 10 month old weather forecast.

The fact is, polls conducted in the last 4 weeks show Bush's approval rating at 36% or even lower, depending on the specific question asked.

I will, then, try again.

Easycruise said "for the last 10 months". That means from 10 months ago through current. The link that he provides has MANY polls and includes links to the supporting data. The most current polls that I saw on the list when I looked were 9/6 - 9/7. If you follow the links, they go on to articles & polls that are clearly dated 2005. This makes for a very interesting list of polls that goes back up to 10 months.

I'm in the Western US. It is the morning of 9/9, here. Two days from 9/7 and three from 9/6. We can argue at what time the polls were produced and or, maybe, we can just say 2.5 days. In my book, very recent data.

Otherwise, it all depends on the poll you're looking at. But Easycruise's link gives you easy access to many polls - some approval ratings go as low as 35 or 36 but most seem to be above 40.

Please follow the link that Easycruise so kindly supplied.

Jen

 

[Mark]

I will, then, try again.

Easycruise said "for the last 10 months". That means from 10 months ago through current. The link that he provides has MANY polls and includes links to the supporting data. The most current polls that I saw on the list when I looked were 9/6 - 9/7. If you follow the links, they go on to articles & polls that are clearly dated 2005. This makes for a very interesting list of polls that goes back up to 10 months.

I'm in the Western US. It is the morning of 9/9, here. Two days from 9/7 and three from 9/6. We can argue at what time the polls were produced and or, maybe, we can just say 2.5 days. In my book, very recent data.

Otherwise, it all depends on the poll you're looking at. But Easycruise's link gives you easy access to many polls - some approval ratings go as low as 35 or 36 but most seem to be above 40.

Please follow the link that Easycruise so kindly supplied.

Jen

I still don't get the significance of the older poll data. The source I linked to gave data from then as well. So what?

Please follow the link that I so kindly supplied.

 

[easycruise]

The single biggest drop in Bush's support has been over the last month, so bringing in 10 month old poll numbers would be, well, an act of desperation, wouldn't you say?

Where's the evidence of plummeting? You're still non-responsive on that claim. Let's see...Average of 5 surveys taken one month ago was 44.2%. Average of 5 surveys as of today is 42.4%. Oooohh, that must be that huge plummet you're talking about!

It looks like you've given up on the claim of "plummeting" and are now talking about the "single biggest drop". Moving the goalposts, are we? The palm readers and astrologers and the talk-to-the-dead people would be proud of your tactics.

 

[Mark]

Where's the evidence of plummeting? You're still non-responsive on that claim. Let's see...Average of 5 surveys taken one month ago was 44.2%. Average of 5 surveys as of today is 42.4%. Oooohh, that must be that huge plummet you're talking about!

It looks like you've given up on the claim of "plummeting" and are now talking about the "single biggest drop". Moving the goalposts, are we? The palm readers and astrologers and the talk-to-the-dead people would be proud of your tactics.

36% is one of the lowest approval ratings for any president in this stage of his presidency.

Your personal attacks are becoming sad.

 

[JenJen]

I still don't get the significance of the older poll data. The source I linked to gave data from then as well. So what?

Please follow the link that I so kindly supplied.

Darling,

Your poll is included in Easycruises list of polls - if you cared to follow his link. There are 10 more recent polls on the list so it is the 11th poll.

Your poll has a history, also - meaning old data. Old data is very interesting and important to compare to new data and for trending purposes. And you, yourself, are comparing older data to newer data to cite how much people hate GWB. This is why older poll data is significant.

BTW - Easycruises link has been bookmarked! Thank you Easycruise. Great link.

Jen