Toro

Surely you cannot be serious. Do you have that much utter contempt for Republican voters? I guess we're all just a bunch of cotton-picking, inbred, banjo-playing, square-dancing, cousin-marrying, teeth-missing, grade-four educated yokels living here in the South. We can't see blatant racism in our leaders like you smart foreigners up there in Ottawa. (Oh, just to remind you, you are the one who brought this dispicable language onto this board.) Answer this question. What if this hurricane hit in 1999? How many billions and billions of dollars did Clinton spend to avoid this problem? And not only this problem, but how many billions and billions of dollars did the Clinton administration spend helping alleviate the inevitable suffering that will occur when the next big earthquake hits the west coast. Or how much money was spent on needed emergency response teams and shelters when a tornado inevitably rips through Oklahoma City? And on and on and on. To say this disaster is solely the responsilibity of the Bush administration is laughable. Its the fault of the political process and the will of the American people. Does Bush hold responsibility? You bet. He's the President. Does Congress? Yes. Does the Louisiana governor? Yes. Does the Louisiana legislature? Yes. Does the mayor of New Orleans? Yes. Does the city of New Orleans? Yes. Does every other politician who once had an opportunity to increase spending to prevent this disaster? Yes. Like it or not Argus, the American people voted for this guy twice, and he promised to cut taxes. Sorry, I didn't hear any politician saying they'd raise taxes to spend more on natural disaster prevention. Now don't get me wrong. I'm angry about this. Bush did cut money to the Army Core and he has to answer for it. Is it fair to blame Bush on the slow response? Possibly, I don't know. And neither, frankly, do you. There will be an investigation into the response to this disaster. Finally, I don't know how many hurricanes you've lived through up there in Ottawa, but I'm right here in hurricane central in Florida, and I've gone through many. If the attitude in New Orleans is like the attitude around here - and I'm sure it is - though no doubt there are a lot of people who couldn't get out simply because they were poor and unable, there are also a lot of people who stuck around thinking they could ride it out. Some become inurred to the storms because they are a constant every year, aren't dramatically effected, and lulled into a false sense of security. Some are just stupid - my Canadian neighbor once told me he'd like to go to the shore to see one some day. And some have ridden out storms before thinking they can ride them out again. That doesn't alleviate the responsibility of the government, but many are dead, both inside and outside of New Orleans, because they had the means and chose not to leave.

Screaming at the top of one's lungs that racism caused this tragedy is exactly the type of incompetence that has plagued the Democrats this decade. I can certainly understand the people in New Orleans who have been stranded for five days saying so because its a highly emotional situation, and its not like the blacks have never faced racism. But if one thinks that the independent swing voter, who is predominantly white, who voted for George Bush, and who will decide the 2006 Congressional elections, is going to take kindly to being called a racist over this tragedy, one does a gross disservice to those whom the race-baiters claim to speaking for. Same with saying the only other choice is "criminal negligence". You cannot possibly be thinking straight, or be particularly intelligent, or be so ideologically blind if you narrow the this tragedy to solely a function of racism or criminal negligence.

Saskatchewan aspires to be Alberta junior.

Hey, good idea. Let's "snatch control of our economy" and drive even more people into poverty.

I think the Republicans were poised for losses in 2006 anyways - that's assuming the Democrats are competent to take them, which they aren't necessarily. I think Katrina will make it more likely the GOP will lose seats. Whether or not they'll lose control of the House remains to be seen. Its doubtful they'll lose control of the Senate.

Free trade is a race to the top. That's a very good point about collective behavior. The madness of crowds often leads to irrational behavior.

Now is not the time nor the place. In the future, yes. But wait until the crisis has passed.

I'm not.

I agree. But that has nothing to do with race. Hurricane Ivan devastated parts of the Florida Panhandle. They vote solidly Republican from Panacea to Pensacola. Hurricane Charlie ripped through the state from Port Charlotte to Daytona. More white Republicans. White people died. It has nothing to do with race. To say they're negligent because they cut spending is one thing. To say that they did so because they're black is another. That is a scurrilous charge and there is absolutely nothing to back it up.

So did Saskatchewan.

I think this is a tough spot for the Republicans. They are going to have to answer the question why they have spent $200 billion in Iraq, yet didn't spend that money to help prevent this tragedy. Even if it is unfair - after all, Clinton didn't spend $20 billion improving the natural disaster infrastructure - the Republicans have been in power for 5 years. Its going to be an issue.

BTW, I think the title of this thread is hilarious...

90 per cent of the people still in New Orleans are black. Poverty is widespread and the black population doesn't have the resources to get out of harm's way, let alone rebuild. The rich white folk (Bush's base, as he calls them) can always go back and rebuild. The poor, predominately Democrat black population can't. That's the difference. Have you ever been in New Orleans? Have you ever been in the South? There are lots of poor white folks who vote Republican. Something like 75% of white males in the South vote Republican. And as much as you like to cartoonishly label Republican supporters as rich white people, there are a lot of poor white folks who have been killed in Alabama, Missisippi and, yes, Louisiana. As someone who both lives in the South who has never supported Bush, I can say that's a brutally ignorant argument.

Hence, the ironic monikor?

Its a fair criticism to state that such funds have been cut. Its quite another to state that its about race. The counties along the Gulf coast that are effected by hurricanes every single year are pretty much solid GOP. Those counties along the coast in Alabama and Mississippi that were devastated by Katrina vote Republican. On the coast, the homes are owned by rich, white people. All of those people are also effected by hurricanes.

The ignorance in this statement is unbelievably astonishing. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So you don't dispute the truth of anything I've said but you're indignant at my depiction of Bush as an archtypical southern cracker? No I dispute it. I don't know if its a comment worthy of a response.

The ignorance in this statement is unbelievably astonishing.

Thanks mirror. Got word yesterday that something was going to happen so go fill up, which we did. I imagine this will straighten itself out the next few days.

Reports are that most gas stations have run out of gas here in Tallahassee. My wife went by two stations today with no prices on their displays. She asked why, and she was told that there was no gas in the city.

This is a joke, right? Sometimes its hard to discern satire on a message board.

The loonie is within a cent of hitting a 13 year high. 75% chance of it hitting 90 cents. 50/50 it hits par.

That's the reason why we have NAFTA. The rules are different in the WTO than in NAFTA. The fact that you (or I) may have an opinion on the credibility of the WTO is irrelevevant. What matters is that the WTO has ruled against Canada. If there was no NAFTA, this issue is over, full-stop. With NAFTA, Canada can continue to argue that the US is violating an international treaty - which it is. This issue shows that we cannot replace the NAFTA with the WTO. Also, the US lumber industry wants to kill NAFTA too because it knows it is in the wrong. It also knows that if it succeeds, it wins and Canada loses. So killing NAFTA will only make it worse for the softwood lumber industry in Canada.

Or took an economics class...

Actually, eureka, though I agree with your sentiment that the Byrd law is a ridiculous, idiotic, uneconomic and egregious law, there were many disputes under GATT, which was the forerunner of the WTO. For many years, Canada deliberately flouted GATT rulings over the beer industry for example.

You are absolutely correct mirror. Canada is a wonderful country, and though every country has its problems, there is far too much complaining in Canada relative to the true problems the country faces. The 21st century will not belong to Canada. Canada's relative importance in the world will almost certainly decline. That has to do with other countries emerging rather than Canada actually declining. Its a testament to Canada that it has been one of the most prosperous nations in the planet with a fairly small population.