## How the Republicans washed out under Katrina

 Quote by Yonoz The Postmodernism Generator Quite a few forum members should have a look at that.
I'm sorry but is there any chance you could reiterate the intent of writing in something at least vaguely resembling formal English composition? I forced myself to read though it once and started a second time; but the collection of loosely related, mostly two sentence "paragraph" like things, failed miserably in communicating anything of value to me.

 Quote by BobG I'm not sure how question 1 affects question 2. I guess you could say if a 3rd grade bully has a choice of picking on an unarmed 1st grader or a 1st grader carrying a baseball bat, he'll probably choose to pick on the weaker target, but you could hardly expect either 1st grader to intentionally make themselves the weakest, most appealling target.
I am trying to point out that our actions (aggression) increase terrorism.

If you are concerned *only* with American soil, this may not be a problem. (No one bothers the bully.) If you are concerned with the entire planet (or the entire 3rd grade classroom), then you try to eliminate the fighting all around - you don't allow the kid that is "right" (whatever that means) to continue to beat up the kid that is "wrong."
 Obviously, the best option would have been to continue focusing on eliminating international terrorism to the point that it's not a serious threat to any country - the way we did with the Afghanistan invasion to eliminate al-Qaeda's center.
I disagree. To me it is obvious that the only way to "eliminate" an enemy is to increase communication with them --- I realize this is pollyannish but as I look at the results of our actions and see increased global terror, I tentatively conclude that terrorism does not respond to aggression the way we would like. Another clue here is that terrorists often claim past grievances as the basis for their actions.

This is somewhat distinct, in terms of basis of aggression, from the types of complaints that spur nations to war; historically they war over resources, or political ideologies.

But this is tangential. I would like to see conservatives place a number on what foreign lives are worth, compared to American lives. Barring that, I would like to see them *not* make the argument that we are safer because of our aggression, as the global incidents are escalating very rapidly.
 The obvious way to eliminating international terrorism is to avoid any future actions which would motivate people to turn to terrorism. Those who have already walked down that path will eventually die off, and without motivation there will be none to take their place.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Homework Help
 Quote by kyleb The obvious way to eliminating international terrorism is to avoid any future actions which would motivate people to turn to terrorism. Those who have already walked down that path will eventually die off, and without motivation there will be none to take their place.
This would basically require an end to change.

The primary beef with Western culture is its infiltration into Middle Eastern countries. The money from oil has been used to buy worthless products like Coca-Cola and Levi jeans. Worse, Western influence isn't just limited to products. It affects the attitude of Middle Easterners - women wanting a different role in Middle Eastern culture than they have traditionally had, for example.

It's hard to convince people that their new ways are corrupt - it alienates the people the fundamentalists are trying to reach. It's more effective to point out bad things Western culture has done that doesn't implicate the Arabs they're trying to convert. Fundamentalists point out the bad effects of European colonization, it's creation of Israel, and the US's continued support for Israel to turn Arabs against Western powers. If the Middle East is at war against all Western countries, then all of the Western influence in the Middle East should disappear, including Western products.

Those opposed to recent cultural changes in the Middle East will eventually die off in any event. Your fundamentalist groups aren't that different from, say, the ranchers that were so glad to have the railroad finally reach the prairies until they realized that the railroad also brought farmers (it may not be much fun herding cattle to market, but cattle can at least walk on their own, something wheat and corn can't do). The range wars ended over a hundred years ago - you'd be hard pressed to find a rancher roaming the range shooting farmers and sabotaging fences today.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Astronuc G.O.P. Split Over Big Plans for Storm Spending By CARL HULSE (NY Times), Sep 16 If the Republicans are for less government - why to the federal budgets keep increasing. The Republicans control the Executive Branch and Congress. Where is all that money going? And on top of that, my combined state and local taxes (more local than state) have doubled because the federal government has reduced spending in my state! We have a Republican governor and most local officials are Republican.
Since the Republicans control both of these branches of government, and are the one's who voted for the invasion of Iraq, the energy bill, highway bill, etc., how can they complain about spending? Oh, I know, it's different when the pork is going to your state and/or getting you reelected, but NOT when it is going elsewhere.

 Quote by BobG This would basically require an end to change.
I'm of the opinion that it would only require an end to our subjugation of the people of the Middle East as well as our support for those who subjugate their own. While it is true that many of them have a lack of respect for our culteural values, I do not belive that this in-itself motivates terrorism.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Homework Help
 Quote by kyleb I'm of the opinion that it would only require an end to our subjugation of the people of the Middle East as well as our support for those who subjugate their own. While it is true that many of them have a lack of respect for our culteural values, I do not belive that this in-itself motivates terrorism.
You miss the point. They probably wouldn't care one or the other about our cultural values as long as our values stayed out of the Middle East.

There's more than way for our cultural values to infiltrate the Middle East than political subjugation. Commerce has created a greater influx of Western culture than anything the US or Europe has done politically or militarily.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Homework Help
 Quote by SOS2008 Since the Republicans control both of these branches of government, and are the one's who voted for the invasion of Iraq, the energy bill, highway bill, etc., how can they complain about spending? Oh, I know, it's different when the pork is going to your state and/or getting you reelected, but NOT when it is going elsewhere.
It's the dawning realization that they rode the wrong horse.

I'm wondering what happens if Iraq becomes a Shi'ite theocracy. Then even the religious right will abandon Bush.

 Quote by BobG You miss the point. They probably wouldn't care one or the other about our cultural values as long as our values stayed out of the Middle East. There's more than way for our cultural values to infiltrate the Middle East than political subjugation. Commerce has created a greater influx of Western culture than anything the US or Europe has done politically or militarily.
Actually you are missing my point; I do not belive that the influx cultural values you previously noted are the root of the hostility.

 Quote by BobG It's the dawning realization that they rode the wrong horse.
But we told them. When are we allowed to punch them?

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Staff Emeritus
 With disaster costs estimated at $200 billion and beyond, Al Hubbard, director of Bush's National Economic Council, said, "It's coming from the American taxpayer." He acknowledged the costs would swell the deficit projected at$333 billion for the current year before Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1132385

 The Cost of War calculator is set to reach $204.6 billion at the end of fiscal year 2005 (September 30, 2005). The Cost of War calculator is occasionally reset based on new information and new allocations of funding. http://costofwar.com/numbers.html Note that fighting or preventing terrorism has not been mentioned yet.  Admin I heard that the funding for the Iraq war is being done as supplemental bills, so its not part of the budget and therefore it is not counted in the deficit either. So the deficit (excluding Katrina) is much larger, and then including Katrina it's even greater. Robert Reich had a great idea. Reopen the highway bill and strip out the pork. The money has been authorized, but not spent - so basically they can start over and eliminate unnecessary programs to cover Katrina.  Recognitions: Gold Member Science Advisor Staff Emeritus So just this year, and not counting Katrina, the Rep led government has cost every man, woman, and child, about$1000. ACtually I should say added to our debt since this doesn't count taxes paid. Weren't we in the Black [annually] under Clinton?
 Admin http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ The Outstanding Public Debt as of 17 Sep 2005 at 01:16:45 PM GMT is: $7,964,818,252,945.36 give or take - so each time one looks its greater The estimated population of the United States is 297,188,609 so each citizen's share of this debt is$26,800.55. The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $1.66 billion per day since September 30, 2004! Under Clinton, there were some years of surplus. Part of that was due to the inflated stock market - which between 1999-2001 fell by$6 trillion, although since then it has recovered by \$ 2-3 trillion. Nevertheless, the represents a significant reduction in future spending.
 Admin Reading this thread I couldn't help but think of a comment by P.J. O'Rourke and reiterated IIRC by Robert Fulghum. "Democrats are...the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected to prove it." More political commentary at - http://www.heartsandminds.org/humor/fundemrep.htm

 Quote by Ivan Seeking Weren't we in the Black [annually] under Clinton?
Well, yes, we were. But we can't vote Democrat because they'll raise taxes.

 Quote by loseyourname Historically speaking, it's always been a city that did what needs to be done to get the job finished. One thing I learned living there is that, even if there is class and race tension and all that, when it comes down to it, everybody there is a New Yorker. There's a love and a brotherhood there that I've never experienced in any other big city. I don't know that one could say the same about New Orleans.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't NY a very liberal city?