Thread Manager
Moderator
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 1
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]385261[/split]
I think Katrina hit New Orleans harder than other areas and recent storms just don't compare.
and even Sean Penn, the actor was able to fly down there and help personally. Why not the federal government?
And he also had a gun.
For one thing, it would've been a violation of the Constitution. The governor of Louisiana did not request federal assistance. The federal government cannot just go in. I'm not saying that the federal government handled it perfectly (far from it), but it isn't as easy as you make it sound.
As for Sean Penn, he went down in a boat to "rescue people," but could not rescue anyone because his boat was filled to capacity with his entourage and photographers. It wasn't altruistic, it was attention ****ing.
Oh, I forgot to mention, Penn didn't hire a proper captain for his boat (no room for a captain when you are filled to the bring with photographers, I suppose) and did not know how to adequately steer it. Therefore he ended up getting in the way of and delaying real relief workers.
I don't understand the argument for Sean Penn's "altruism," MessiahDecoy.
So you're saying he had good intentions going down there but didn't really do anything? How is that a good thing in any way?
I mean, hell, I could've gone down and watched the whole damn thing play out with every intention of helping, but if I didn't (which is exactly what Penn did), there's nothing virtuous or "altruistic" about that.
It probably was. But unfortunately, it was a double edged sword for the McCain campaign: while it has Obama saying some controversial things, it also basically puts the federal government's mishandling of the Katrina relief efforts to the forefront. I'd bet that the McCain camp felt it would do more damage to their campaign than Obama's, at the time.
Now, perhaps it is not so much a double-edged sword for Republicans, though it still has the potential to backfire on them if used improperly.
I understand that there is a double standard when it comes to discussing peoples' religious views, but when they start making policy based on their religion (like Bush), it does become a political issue.
Until we get the first Mayan president that wants to sacrifice people to the sun god.
I dont care what a candidate believes as long as they dont get their advice from communion with an invisible higher being. I know religious folk like to hear a candidate say they routinely ask god for guidance but when I hear that they pretty much lose my vote. I want them to take advice from advisors, scientists, professionals, and good common sense. Not some deity. Whether they seriously ask god for guidance or not i cant risk voting in a zealot. Last thing we need is someone with their finger on the button asking god to tell them when.
WHat if they get advice from Billy Graham of John Hagee
Graham isnt the man to go to for political or policy advice so that would be a no go for me. I dont know the other guy.