The Sears Christmas Catalog.

So what do you make of the fact that Bush used the phrase "climate change" in his speech? Here's the quote:

America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment -- and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.

I thought the official neocon position was that climate change wasn't happening -- that the overwhelming majority of the best-credentialed scientists were dead wrong, and that the people who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old were dead right? (Can we look askance at that, or should we ignore what the overwhelming majority of the best-credentialed scientists say on that as well? You *do* believe that the world is only 6K, don't you, Jay? I'm concerned for your immortal soul here.)

My, my, my. Doesn't the right hand know what the far right hand is doing?

Please, asti, don't be any more of a fuckwit than absolutely necessary. We have more than enough around here already.

I've loudly and repeatedly proclaimed my agnosticism. So why on (insert generic higher being here)'s green earth would I buy into the Biblical Literalists' notion about the earth's age?

Sorry I don't fit your pre-conceived stereotypes and prejudices, asti, but you might actually have to put some THOUGHT into your comments for a change.

Of course, that might be asking too much of you...

J.

"I thought the official neocon position was that climate change wasn't happening..."

Halibruton must have found a way to make a buck off of global warming. That would be the ONLY reason for a Republican President to embrace the fight against global warming --- if they had figured out to how to turn a profit from that embrace.

Remember those Clinton speeches? Over 150 items, everything but a makeover for Hillary was on them.

The SOU speech is useless, means nothing anymore.

Latest on Climate change ... Mars ice cap is melting, Neptune's moon Triton's ice cap is melting and now Pluto's ice cap is melting. Exploring our solar system has consequences for the global baloney crowd. I wonder what makes all these ice caps melt at the same time? I am sure alGore, the famous scientist that he isn't, can come up with a lie to fit these circumstances.

Deep thoughts up there. Marianas deep.

Jay Tea says:

"Please, asti, don't be any more of a fuckwit than absolutely necessary. We have more than enough around here already."

Does that fall under the category of your latest smash-hit column entitled "Stupid Name Calling"?

Bill, based on your sarcasm, you must think the Prez is full of Sh*t since the Prez believes that carbon emissions cause global warming.

Bill, surely you don't think that us humans are the only ones to have evil SUVs? Or has Halliburton set up secret oil companies and SUV plants on these other planets? Algore has a film planned to expose these evils!

WOW - you lefties give amazing arguments! First, you assume that all conservatives are bible thumpers, then you think of something stupid a bible thumper might say and assume all conservatives would say that. Guess that beats dealing with facts - such as the world has been warming since the last ice age - happens after every cooling cycle - duh! Pretty soon you'll realize that when the president said "climate change" that also includes cooling and you'll be really pissed at him.

Just wish you asshole lib/socialists would provide some reasonable arguments for your viewpoints so decent discussions can be had. Oops, nope, guess not - your side has no reasonable arguments.

gc

Wow a shocker! Lee is almost getting close to the truth for a change.

The "Global Warming" scare is actually all about money and making lots and lots of money with all the political power that comes with being rich.

Of course the far left would never admit who it is that is making all that money by lying to public and playing on thier fears...

The Dems are beyond contempt. All they can think of is to wound Bush no matter what the cost, even after a general on the ground warned that their resolution is an encouragement to the enemy.

Many Reps are spineless, but the Dems and the left in general are truly despicable. I really had the hope that the Dems would become more responsible when they are in power. But the current Dem party is beyond contempt now.

Of course the far left would never admit who it is that is making all that money by lying to public and playing on thier fears...

So says a virulent defender of ill-conceived wars against non-threats and the military-industrial complex that profits from them. Your cognitive dissonance would never allow you to recognize who will ultimately profit from the current drumbeat for war on Iran, would it?

Tell us, Babe the Blue Ox, who is making all this money on global climate change "lies"? Oh yeah, research scientists. Of course to believe this you must ignore the fact that you can make a lot more money shilling for the oil industry. And the best part, unlike research scientists, you don't even have to produce anything to receive funding!

The Dems are beyond contempt. All they can think of is to wound Bush no matter what the cost, even after a general on the ground warned that their resolution is an encouragement to the enemy.

Apparently LAI missed this response to Lt. Gen. Petraeus' comments:

We're not a division here today of patriots who support the troops and those who are making statements and working on resolutions that could be translated as aiding and abetting the enemy. We're trying to exercise the fundamental responsibilities of our democracy and how this nation has two co-equal branches of the government, each bearing its own responsibilities.

I hope that this colloquy has not entrapped you into some responses that you might later regret. I wonder if you would just give me the assurance that you'll go back and examine the transcript as to what you replied with respect to certain of these questions and review it, because we want you to succeed.

. . . I'm very proud of this committee and I don't want an impression, certainly among the armed forces, that we're not all steadfast behind them.

And which Democratic Senator said that? Oh wait, it was Republican John Warner.

I thought the official neocon position was that climate change wasn't happening -- that the overwhelming majority of the best-credentialed scientists were dead wrong

And this sums up exactly what is wrong with the term "global warming" as it is used today by the global warming alarmists. No one doubts the fact that the earth is warming, but that which is highly debatable is what contribution man is making and how much that effects the change.

If you can't understand the fact that is what's beging questioned, well then, there is no point in discussing it any further.

No one doubts the fact that the earth is warming, but that which is highly debatable is what contribution man is making and how much that effects the change.

No one? How about Senator James Inhofe:

"I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation's top climate scientists."

"satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century."

He's nobody though, just the former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Oh, and that nobody doesn't get any money from the Oil and Gas industry either.

TO JR and others who deny climate change is being caused by anthropogenic forcings.......

Keep an eye out for the IPCC report due out Feb 2nd.

Of course by the time you read that one you can start with "but, but Clinton".

You people are pathetic.

Mantis,

His reference is merely to the "global warming alarmists" that I refered to above, ala Al Gore. Those people that think if we don't change our lifestyles now through Government regulation we will all perish as catastrophic storms ravage our planet. Pure BS driven by hypocrites with a socialist agenda.

Unless of course you actually think The Day After Tomorrow is a likely scenario if the human race don't change their ways!

So what do you make of the fact that Bush used the phrase "climate change" in his speech? [snip] My, my, my. Doesn't the right hand know what the far right hand is doing? by astigafa on January 24, 2007 11:11 AM

Since when has the phrase "climate change" equate to human induced global warming?

Were you reading the presidents mind or more likely, you have assigned a preconceived notion to his words because your an asshat?

His reference is merely to the "global warming alarmists" that I refered to above, ala Al Gore.

It most certainly is not. Let's look at your claim:

No one doubts the fact that the earth is warming

And Inhofe's statement:

"satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century."

He is not referring to alarmists, he is saying explicitly that no warming has occurred.

Unless of course you actually think The Day After Tomorrow is a likely scenario if the human race don't change their ways!

I do not think that is a likely scenario. I saw that movie and thought it was ridiculous. Got anything but incorrect assumptions and strawmen?

Nice attempt to spin the truth to fit into your fabricated "reality".

The senator did not say that the Earth was not warming. Of course the Earth is warming as it has been for over 15,000 years. Only someone with the mental capacity of your average lefty would say that the Earth is not warming and there's only a handful of far-righties with the mental capacity of your average lefty.

Saying honest things like "catastrophic global warming is a hoax" and "no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century" , is quite a bit different than the big lie no one on the right believes that the Earth has been warming.

I suggest you read Micheal Criton's "State of Fear" to answer the other questions you posed to me.

Please mantis, that was hardly a strawman, you act like people don't think that scenario might actually happen. There are plenty out there that do.

And he is not saying that no warming is occuring, he clearly states that no "meaningful" warming is occuring. When you add that to scientists who say that we are just going through a normal warming trend and that man's influence is negligible, then really that statement doesn't seem as harsh as you make it out to be.

There's a growing body of peer reviewed science that links solar cycles to global warming and cooling. However, until recently no one could explain how small shifts in the sun's output could have much larger effects on the Earth's climate. It appears that it's not only the sun's energy output, but changes in it's magnetic field that amplifies the effect. When the sun enters a state of lower energy output, it's magnetic field interacts with Earth magnetic field in such a way as to allow more cosmic radiation to penetrates the atmosphere at lower latitudes. This increased radiation creates more high level clouds (you can see this effect in a cloud chamber), which reflect more of the sun's light back into space and contributes to global cooling. When the sun enters a state of higher energy the opposite happens and the warming effect is amplified.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun's output. The beginning of that cooling cycle may be just six years away. Also, paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter has noted that global warming stopped in 1998.

Humans may be dumping just enough extra CO2 into the atmosphere to mitigate the solar driven effects that would otherwise lead to disastrous global cooling.

The senator did not say that the Earth was not warming.

And saying that it isn't warming meaningfully is different how?

Of course the Earth is warming as it has been for over 15,000 years.

Don't tell the Senator that; I'm pretty sure that he, unlike Jay and apparently yourself, believes the Earth was invented through magic 6,000 years ago.

the big lie no one on the right believes that the Earth has been warming.

I didn't say that. Some do, some don't.

I suggest you read Micheal Criton's "State of Fear" to answer the other questions you posed to me.

Ha. I suggest you read about what climate scientists write about climate change, not novelists. Start with this debunking of Crichton.

Please mantis, that was hardly a strawman, you act like people don't think that scenario might actually happen. There are plenty out there that do.

Good for them. I don't. That's why it's a strawman, or weren't you directing your comment to me?

And he is not saying that no warming is occuring, he clearly states that no "meaningful" warming is occuring. When you add that to scientists who say that we are just going through a normal warming trend and that man's influence is negligible, then really that statement doesn't seem as harsh as you make it out to be.

Didn't say it was harsh, just willfully ignorant. In any case it does not matter whether he says the word meaningful or not. It is quite acceptable to have the debate about man's contribution to climate change, what we can do about it, and whether we should, but when idiots like Inhofe and others make statements such as that (while being in the pocket the energy industry), the intent of which is to deny that climate change is even something we should be concerned with, it makes it much harder to do so.

Oh my (insert your favorite deity)! The monkey's a moonbat! What will the wingnuts do now? Ah, I see - ignore the monkey's u-turn and continue to deny majority scientific opinion. That's the way to do it.

Sorry I don't fit your pre-conceived stereotypes and prejudices, asti, but you might actually have to put some THOUGHT into your comments for a change.

Got your leg here. Where should I send it?

And when you get that figured out (hint: "He's pulling your..."), tell us what you actually think -- if anything -- about the pres acknowledging the problem of climate change.

And if you don't think anything -- and I'm ready to believe that's the case -- tell us why you don't. If you can't express it in words, just bang your face on the keyboard: once for yes, twice for no -- and fifty times as a personal favor to me.

Marc:

Since when has the phrase "climate change" equate to human induced global warming? Were you reading the presidents mind or more likely, you have assigned a preconceived notion to his words because your an asshat?

So if human intervention is not needed and, indeed, cannot affect climate change in any way, where does the pres come off saying that those technologies will "help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change?"

Do recall that W mentioned this in the context of oil dependence. Come on, Marc. It's a ratiocinative exercise. You can do it. Show the people that you can do more than insult total strangers.

Take a deep breath, and let us know when you've got it figured out. Ask your mom to help you.

1) Boy, a lot of Bush's most staunch critics are real eager to shake his hand when the TV cameras are on them.

And if they hadn't, your post would have been, "Boy a lot of Bush's most staunch critics sure are disrespectful and classless for not shaking his hand, even when the TV cameras on on them."

2) Bush was very gracious to the Democrats, singling out Pelosi for special recognition and praise, then acknowledging their electoral triumphs.

And Pelosi was overly gracious and respectful when introducing Bush, as well.

So that's two instances where you praise the Republicans and criticize the Democrats, for exactly the same behavior. Tell us again how you're an "independent"?

My favorite part of the speech was his support of the Gulf States. Oh, sorry, he was not talking about Gulf States in the USA (you know,those states where all the devastation is and Americans are still suffering). Never mind.

doctorj,

Shut the hell up. There was no need to mention the Gulf States. Katrina was om 2005. Listen to State of the State addresses for information on each state effected in that region.

"climate change" and "global warming" are not synonymous, although the MSM and libs act as if they are. If the climate changes to being colder, that's climate change. Remember the Newsweek cover 25 years ago, the one that had us heading to a new Ice Age. Over long periods of time, the climate will change. How much humans contributed to this is another issue. Why did the past Ice Ages end if humans weren't around with their internal combustion engines? Too many Mastodon farts?

J.R.
I spent last weekend helping in one of the still devastated neighborhoods of New Orleans. In fact, it was the neighborhood I grew up in. It is DESTRUCTION to this day. Empty gutted houses, maybe a third with trailers in their yards. Roofs gone, boats still deserted in the streets. All during the speech, as the president was telling us how great the country was doing, all I could see in my mind's eye was my destroyed, dead neighborhood. Oh, but according to you and many so called Americans, that is yesterday's news. You make me sick. And I will never shut up about it , because it is WRONG for such things to be happening in America and to be quiet about it is to contribute to the downfall of this country.

is it just me, or does anyone else think Cheney is not alive and has been replaced by some kind of humanoid?

There was no need to mention the Gulf States. Katrina was om 2005.

He mentioned 9/11, and that was all the way back in 2001!

Moron.

You're right mantis,

9/11 has absolutely no importance whatsoever to the current times we live in. That event did nothing to change the course of American policy.

The fact is 9/11 is still worthy of mentioning today and in every SOTU address until we win the war on terror. Understand, asshat?

I can not begin to imagine the devastation that your neighborhood is going through. But the effort to rebuild is not a matter of the SOTU speech.

You're right mantis,

9/11 has absolutely no importance whatsoever to the current times we live in. That event did nothing to change the course of American policy.

Hmmm. Did I say that? Let me scroll up and check. Nope, didn't say that.

The fact is 9/11 is still worthy of mentioning today and in every SOTU address until we win the war on terror. Understand, asshat?

Right, and the gulf states are not because Katrina happened in 2005, not 2006. Good logic there sport.

Let's look at the other things Bush mentioned but shouldn't have because they don't meet your time requirements.

The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon - Happened in 2005. Not relevant!
The election in Afghanistan - Happened in 2005. Not relevant!

Further, those things didn't even happen in this country! I thought it was supposed to be the state of the union, not the state of various other states.

But the effort to rebuild is not a matter of the SOTU speech.

What is then? What is relevant to the state of the union address if not the state of the fucking union? Understand, assface?

Hmmm. Did I say that? Let me scroll up and check. Nope, didn't say that.

No, you implied that because he mentioned 9/11 (which was in 2001), he should also mention Katrina, stop being such a dick. You're the one that brought up 9/11. Katrina and 9/11 have nothing to do with each other.

Right, and the gulf states are not because Katrina happened in 2005, not 2006. Good logic there sport.

No, its because Katrina doesn't have anything to do with national policy in 2007. That's why it didn't deserve to be mentioned. Everything else you cite has to do in part with the war on terror, an integral part of our national policy.

What is then? What is relevant to the state of the union address if not the state of the fucking union? Understand, assface?

Yeah, he should mention every natural disaster that has occured over the last what 2, 3 years and detail everything that has happened there since. Give me a break.

Yeah, he should mention every natural disaster that has occured over the last what 2, 3 years and detail everything that has happened there since. Give me a break.

Was Katrina the most destructive natural disaster of the past century, if not the country's history? Yes, yes it was. Is the rebuilding finished? No, not by a long shot. Does New Orleans have levees that will actually hold in case another hurricane hits? Read some of Paul's posts for the answer to that one. Are many thousands of people still displaced as a result of the storm? Why yes, they are. Is any of this relevant to the state of the union? Unless Louisiana and Mississippi seceded, i think that's pretty clear.

Forget it pal, it's clear you're willing to pull whatever you can out of your ass to defend your Dear Leader. Go light a candle on your shrine to him.

doctorj,

I guess it comes down to most Americans feeling that rebuilding in New Orleans is a mistake. You can see by comments above that many people believe global warming is occurring and will continue to occur, and that means a continued rise in the average sea level. Given that along with the fact that New Orleans are sinking, and article posted on Science Daily is titled "New Orleans ... The New Atlantis?"

Here's an excerpt:

By the year 2100, the city of New Orleans may be extinct, submerged in water. A future akin to the fabled sunken city of Atlantis? Yes, according to Dr. Chip Groat, Director of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in Washington, D.C.

True or not, many Americans feel that it would be foolish to spend billions rebuilding areas that are below sea level and then spend many more billions protecting that foolishness. While the port of New Orleans is vital (at least until the Mississippi breaks free of it's man-made bounds), it seems to be operating just fine without many former residents of the city.

If Bush would have talked about New Orleans he would have said that the Democratic majority in Congress should realize that New Orleans is a quagmire and the war against nature conditions in that area can't be won. Congress should cut off funds and redeploy resources to where they can do some good.

OK buddy,

I'll go light that candle, and I don't just have a shrine, it's more like a temple.

Forget it pal, it's clear you're willing to pull whatever you can out of your ass to defend your Dear Leader.

And it seems you will pull anything out of your ass to ridicule him.

Like I said before, this is a matter for a State of the State address for LA and MS.

And it seems you will pull anything out of your ass to ridicule him.

I didn't ridicule him at all. I responded to this little bit of idiocy that you wrote:

Shut the hell up. There was no need to mention the Gulf States. Katrina was om 2005.

You see? I ridiculed you, not the president.

Like I said before, this is a matter for a State of the State address for LA and MS.

It's just as stupid as when you said it before.

And i was responding to doctorj, not you. You have a nice style, say something duplicitous and then claim that's not what you said.

It's just as stupid as when you said it before.

So you think it is should not be mentioned in those speeches? Interesting logic on your part.

I claimed to not say something I said? What, exactly?

So you think it is should not be mentioned in those speeches? Interesting logic on your part.

I'm the duplicitous one? Your claim, quite clearly, is that it belongs in those speeches and not the SOTU. It goes without saying that it belongs in the state of the state speeches. That is not at issue.

Keep on chirpin' mantis.

Good one.

That is not at issue.

What is at issue then? Your feelings that somehow a natural disaster warrants mention in a SOTU address a year and a half after it happens? Why? I imagine the rebuilding effort will last for a number of years, should it be mentioned every year until it is complete?

For the rest of the country, and I'm sorry if this offends you, Katrina is old news. Sure for those effected it will last a very long time, but it does not effect the rest of the country.

Or is it that you feel he didn't mention it because by your judgement it is a blemish on Bush's record and therefore he doesn't want to bring it up?

In 1993, there was no mention of Hurricane Andrew in the SOTU, why not? At that point, that hurricane was considered the most damaging of all time and it had only happened 6 months earlier.

What is at issue then?

Your assertion that talking about the gulf states in the SOTU would be inappropriate because the hurricane struck in 2005.

Your feelings that somehow a natural disaster warrants mention in a SOTU address a year and a half after it happens?

My feelings have nothing to do with it. I contend that it would have been entirely appropriate to talk about it.

I imagine the rebuilding effort will last for a number of years, should it be mentioned every year until it is complete?

It wouldn't be inappropriate to do so.

For the rest of the country, and I'm sorry if this offends you, Katrina is old news.

The president is not a newscaster, and the SOTU is not a nightly newscast. It is about the state of the union, and the gulf states are a part of that union.

Sure for those effected it will last a very long time, but it does not effect the rest of the country.

It affects many people in the rest of the country as the response to Katrina did much to decrease the public's confidence in federal, state, and local governments' capabilities and procedures in case of a natural or man-made disaster. You said earlier that it "did nothing to change the course of American policy." This of course is not true, as many proposals for FEMA and DHS reform have been introduced and passed as a result of the response to Katrina. Here's a story on Congress' accusations of foot-dragging at the DHS. See? Policy, news, timeliness. Totally appropriate.

Or is it that you feel he didn't mention it because by your judgement it is a blemish on Bush's record and therefore he doesn't want to bring it up?

Don't know why it wasn't written into the speech. That could be it, could be some other reason.

In 1993, there was no mention of Hurricane Andrew in the SOTU, why not? At that point, that hurricane was considered the most damaging of all time and it had only happened 6 months earlier.

And if someone said that it shouldn't have been mentioned because it was "old news" or didn't affect the rest of the country, I would have called bullshit on them as well.

Your assertion that talking about the gulf states in the SOTU would be inappropriate because the hurricane struck in 2005.

Never said it would be inappropriate to mention it, just that it didn't warrant mentioning.

My feelings have nothing to do with it. I contend that it would have been entirely appropriate to talk about it.

So is it entirely inappropriate to not mention it?

It is about the state of the union, and the gulf states are a part of that union.

As are many other areas the are effetted by natural disasters every year, should they be mentioned as well?

And if someone said that it shouldn't have been mentioned because it was "old news" or didn't affect the rest of the country, I would have called bullshit on them as well.

Again, I never said that. If he had mentioned it I sure wouldn't be ridiculing him for it and his not mentioning it surely does not mean he does not support the Gulf States as stated by doctorj above, which was the start of this whole argument.

Never said it would be inappropriate to mention it, just that it didn't warrant mentioning.

Well, you said this:

But the effort to rebuild is not a matter of the SOTU speech.

Sounds like you don't consider it appropriate to me.

So is it entirely inappropriate to not mention it?

No, but it was kind of dumb, considering the reaction.

As are many other areas the are effetted by natural disasters every year, should they be mentioned as well?

The magnitude of Katrina and its effect on the gulf states and especially NO makes it a unique.

Again, I never said that.

How can it be read any other way?

his not mentioning it surely does not mean he does not support the Gulf States as stated by doctorj above

doctorj did not explicitly say that the president does not support the Gulf States, but you (rightly) read it that way, didn't you?

Sounds like you don't consider it appropriate to me.

No, I don't think it is necessary, apparently you do.

No, but it was kind of dumb, considering the reaction.

Whose reaction are you referring to?

How can it be read any other way?

I gave you that answer. It didn't warrant mentioning and it is old news.

doctorj did not explicitly say that the president does not support the Gulf States, but you (rightly) read it that way, didn't you?

he said this:
My favorite part of the speech was his support of the Gulf States. Oh, sorry, he was not talking about Gulf States in the USA (you know,those states where all the devastation is and Americans are still suffering).

How can it be read any other way?

I can play that game too, but apparently you are the only arbiter in the meaning of everyone elses comments.

No, I don't think it is necessary, apparently you do.

Despite my answering to the contrary.

Whose reaction are you referring to?

Start here

How can it be read any other way?

You're obviously a bit slow so I'll spell it out for you. It can't be read another way. Neither can your objection.

I can play that game too, but apparently you are the only arbiter in the meaning of everyone elses comments.

No, I just call em as I see em.

Please, hardly areaction worth mentioning.

Despite my answering to the contrary.

Well you sure seem pre-occupied with the apparent snub.

Neither can your objection.

My objection, as you call it, was merely to suggest that despite doctorj's obvious anger, there was no necessity for the President to mention Katrina the other night.

No, I just call em as I see em.

According to your pre-conceived notions, well done.

So my home is mistake to you. Do all of you realize that we survived a flood caused by defective federal levees, got back in touch with the world again to hear our own citizens and representatives saying we are a mistake and should be buldozed and since then have received a chorus of opinions and complaints about what a terrible job we are doing rebuilding our lives out of NOTHING because our government is no where to be seen. Pre-Katrina I was a hardcore conservative, but I have seen the cruel heart of conservatism. Compassion-forget it! Everyone is out for themselves. I mourn for this country and its lost course. I will die fighting to get them out of power. I warned you before the elections that the American public would turn against you . You see, no matter how much you spin the spin, they realize they might be the next one whose home might be a "mistake" and take the barbs of political partsans that will gladly walk over the dead bodies of their own citizens to protect their precious party. As was written in an article in the local paper "The federal government failed in its duty to protect New Orleans and for that, we must be punished. " You and your home may be next.

J.R. is dead. The man has no heart. Write him off. Expending more energy to try and instill compaassion into a heartless individual is a waste of good energy.

Many areas are at risk and the government's emergency response is weak to none. Expect more "Katrina's" as this country struggles to expel the poisonous individuals at the helm of governments, federal, state and local.

People who were not awakened to the gross negligence of this president and his gang of thugs by now will receive their just due. The grim reaper is about to come knocking. Beware, your odds are shrinking.

So my home is mistake to you.

I never said this, I was only commenting that I didn't see any reason to be up in arms that Bush didn't mention Katrina in his SOTU speech.

Responding to your comment I came out of the gate a little harsh, and there was no reason for that, sorry.

Pre-Katrina I was a hardcore conservative, but I have seen the cruel heart of conservatism

I find this hard to believe. So you don't hold any of the local or state officials responsible for any of this?

You see, no matter how much you spin the spin, they realize they might be the next one whose home might be a "mistake" and take the barbs of political partsans that will gladly walk over the dead bodies of their own citizens to protect their precious party.

Are you serious? So it really wouldn't have mattered if GWB mentioned the Gulf States or not, you would still feel the same way.

J.R. is dead. The man has no heart.

You know nothing about me nor my life.

Expending more energy to try and instill compaassion into a heartless individual is a waste of good energy.

Give me a break, I was talking about the content of a frickin' speech.

People who were not awakened to the gross negligence of this president and his gang of thugs by now will receive their just due. The grim reaper is about to come knocking. Beware, your odds are shrinking.

CB, you may need to up the dosage on your prescriptions.