Al Gore

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ntdz
You do realize that nuclear power plants don't "explode" when things go wrong, right?

I'm sure that's a great comfort to the former residents of Chernobyl and all those living in the water table area surrounding the nuclear facilities at Hanford, Washington, Three Mile Island and any other contaminated area. :roll:

A little info from the NRC

NRC Incident Reports
NRC Alerts

• Indian Point Unit 2 (15-Feb-2000) (NRC Information Notice 2000-09)

NRC Site Area Emergencies

• LaSalle County Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 (20-Feb-2006) (ref NRC Event Number 42348)
• Honeywell International, Metropolis Illinois (22-Dec-2003) (ref NRC Event Number 40405)
• Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory (27-Jul-2000 and 17-Sep-2000) (ref NRC Event Number 37193 and NRC Event Number 37337)
• Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory (12-Jul-1999) (ref NRC Event Number 35915)
• Nuclear Fuel Services, Erwin Tennessee (2-Apr-1996) (ref NRC Commission Paper SECY 96-076)
• Nine Mile Point Unit 2 (13-Aug-1991) (ref NRC Information Notice 91-64)
• Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 1 (20-Mar-1990) (ref NRC Information Notice 90-25)
• Davis-Besse (09-Jun-1985) - originally declared as an "Unusual Event" but upgraded by NRC findings (ref NRC Information Notice 85-80)
• Ginna (25-Jan-1982) (ref NRC Generic Letter GL-82008 and NRC Generic Letter GL-82011) - NUREG-0909 and NUREG-0916 both seem to be missing from the NRC web site

NRC General Emergencies

• Three Mile Island Unit 2 (28-Mar-1979)

NRC ASP Analysis Program
The NRC established the Accident Sequence Precursor (ASP) analysis program in 1979 in response to the Risk Assessment Review Group report (see NUREG/CR-0400, dated September 1978). The primary objective of the ASP Program is to systematically evaluate U.S. nuclear power plant operating experience to identify, document, and rank the operating events that were most likely to lead to inadequate core cooling and severe core damage (precursors), if additional failures had occurred. To identify potential precursors, NRC staff reviews plant events from licensee event reports (LERs), inspection reports, and special requests from NRC staff. The staff then analyzes any identified potential precursors by calculating a probability of an event leading to a core damage state.

(ref NRC Commission Document SECY-05-0192 Attachment 2)

A "significant precursor" is an event that leads to a conditional core damage probability (CCDP) or increase in core damage probability (CDP) that is greater than or equal to 1×10-3. In other words given that the precursor event has occurred, the probability that a subsequent failure will cause core damage is >=0.001.

As of 24-Oct-2005 the "significant" precursor events (i.e. the worst category) were (listed from highest probability of occurrence 1 to lowest probability of occurrence 0.001):

1. Three Mile Island Unit 2, CDP = 1.000, (28-Mar-1979)
2. Browns Ferry Unit 1, CDP = 0.200, (22-Mar-1975) (ref NRC IE BULLETIN NO. - 75-04A)
3. Rancho Seco, CDP = 0.100, (20-Mar-1978)
4. Davis-Besse, CDP = 0.070, (24-Sep-1977)
5. Turkey Point Unit 3, CDP = 0.020, (8-May-1974)
6. Davis-Besse, CDP = 0.010, (9-Jun-1985)
7. Salem Unit 1, CDP = 0.010, (27-Nov-1978)
8. Millstone Unit 2, CDP = 0.010, (20-Jul-1976)
9. Brunswick Unit 2, CDP = 0.009, (29-Apr-1975)
10. Brunswick Unit 1, CDP = 0.007, (19-Apr-1981)
11. Davis-Besse, CDP = 0.006, (27-Feb-2002)
12. Harris Unit 1, CDP = 0.006, (3-Apr-1991)
13. Salem Unit 1, CDP = 0.005, (25-Feb-1983)
14. Millstone Unit 2, CDP = 0.005, (2-Jan-1981)
15. Crystal River Unit 3, CDP = 0.005, (26-Feb-1980)
16. Farley Unit 1, CDP = 0.005, (25-Mar-1978)
17. Davis-Besse, CDP = 0.005, (11-Dec-1977)
18. Kewaunee, CDP = 0.005, (5-Nov-1975)
19. Point Beach Unit 1, CDP = 0.005, (7-Apr-1974)
20. Wolf Creek Unit 1, CDP = 0.003, (17-Sep-1994)
21. Catawba Unit 1, CDP = 0.003, (13-Jun-1986)
22. Calvert Cliffs Unit 1, CDP = 0.003, (13-Apr-1978)
23. Hatch Unit 1, CDP = 0.002, (15-May-1985)
24. Lasalle Unit 1, CDP = 0.002, (21-Sep-1984)
25. Davis-Besse, CDP = 0.002, (24-Jun-1981)
26. Oyster Creek, CDP = 0.002, (2-May-1979)
27. Zion Unit 2, CDP = 0.002, (12-Jul-1977)
28. Turkey Point Unit 3, CDP = 0.001, (27-Dec-1986)
29. St. Lucie Unit 1, CDP = 0.001, (11-Jun-1980)

For some more perspective, see the list of civilian nuclear accidents. I'll skip those from the '50's through the '90's and cut to those since 2000.

List of civilian nuclear accidents
.
.
2000s

• February 15, 2000 ? The Indian Point nuclear power plant's reactor 2 in Buchanan, New York, vented a small amount of radioactive steam when a steam generator tube failed. No detectable radioactivity was observed offsite. Con Edison was censured by the NRC for not following the procedures for timely notification of government agencies. Subsequently, Con Edison is required by the NRC to replace all four steam generators. NRC Information Notice 2000-09
• February 9, 2002 ? Two workers were exposed to a small amount of radiation and suffered minor burns when a fire broke out at the Onagawa Nuclear Power Station Miyagi Prefecture, Japan. The fire occurred in the basement of reactor #3 during a routine inspection when a spray can was punctured accidentally, igniting a sheet of plastic.
• April 10, 2003 ? Radioactivity leak in Paks Nuclear Power Plant, Hungary. Rated INES-3.
• April 19, 2005 ? Sellafield, UK. Twenty metric tons of uranium and 160 kilograms of plutonium dissolved in 83,000 liters of nitric acid leaked undetected over several months from a cracked pipe into a stainless steel sump chamber at the Thorp nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. The partially processed spent fuel was drained into holding tanks outside the plant.
• 2005 ? Dounreay, UK. In September, the site's cementation plant was closed when 266 litres of radioactive reprocessing residues were spilled inside containment. In October, another of the site's reprocessing laboratories was closed down after nose-blow tests of eight workers tested positive for trace radioactivity.
• July 25, 2006 ? An electricity fault prompted shut down of the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant, Sweden. Several problems occurred during the shut-down phase. While Swedish Nuclear Power Inspection authority rated the incident INES 2, Lars-Olov Höglund, expert familiar with design of the plant, stated it was the most serious nuclear incident since the Chernobyl disaster and it was pure luck that prevented a meltdown.

Considering the meaning of the word, ACCIDENT, and ignoring the added threat of an intentional terrorist attack, remember, it would take just ONE serious nuclear event to kill more people than than died on 9-11, sicken a lot more and render a significant amount of real estate uninhabitable forever.

Knowing that, now, would you rather take every precaution to prevent such a catastrophy before it happened or live with the foreseeable results and your own conscience AFTER the fact... that is, if you weren't one of the victims?

If you're not in a position to make such decisions for our society, and remembering how flawed this and previous adminstrations have been about monitoring our air, water, food supply, chemical and nuclear plants and other critical resources, what would you think about those who decided to go forward with more nuclear facilities AFTER the fact of such a nuclear event? Do you really trust those who serve a money driven government and economy to choose wisely 100% of the time? :shocked:

 

[ntdz]

If you're against nuclear power, how in the hell do you propose we cut our CO2 emissions? Apparently you're against all energy sources, except maybe solar. But wait, large groups of solar panels destroys the environment as well. I guess we'll just get 100% of our power from wind, there's the solution.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ntdz
If you're against nuclear power, how in the hell do you propose we cut our CO2 emissions?

Very good! It took you long enough, but you've finally asked the right question. :beer: :thumbsup:

The answer is, it will probably take a combination of technologies, we have to evaluate all possible solutions, and the decisions have to be made by those who are technically qualified to understand them, not by those who stand to gain short term profits from adopting any particular technology.

Apparently you're against all energy sources, except maybe solar. But wait, large groups of solar panels destroys the environment as well.

Really? Please post some links to support that, including info about the nature and extent of such environmental problems and what can be done to avoid or ameliolrate them. It's an honest question. I'd like to know more.

I guess we'll just get 100% of our power from wind, there's the solution.

So far, your posts are full of enough wind to power a large forum server. :laugh:

Sorry -- Couldn't resist the obvious reply. Take it as the joke it's intended to be.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: ntdz
If you're against nuclear power, how in the hell do you propose we cut our CO2 emissions? Apparently you're against all energy sources, except maybe solar. But wait, large groups of solar panels destroys the environment as well. I guess we'll just get 100% of our power from wind, there's the solution.

I tend to agree with you on the ntdz, you can't call for America to be more environmentally friendly without a willingness to utilize cleaner power plants (aka, nukes.) I can understand if people are hesitant to live around one of these, I would be too even though you've got a great change of getting cancer from your cell phone (it's just the thought.) However, America is full a space (yes, it really is full of lots and lots of space between the coasts ) so why not make use of it, put a shitload of nukes out in the middle of nowhere and route the power into the grid and be happy. I might sound like a can EDIT: haha, can I meant con, but I'm not. It just so happens that I find this particular issue (anti-nuke) is unreasonable when put against my other concerns (environment, alternate energy sources, etc.). Can't have your cake and it t too, they say.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ntdz
If you're against nuclear power, how in the hell do you propose we cut our CO2 emissions?

Very good! It took you long enough, but you've finally asked the right question. :beer: :thumbsup:

The answer is, it will probably take a combination of technologies, we have to evaluate all possible solutions, and the decisions have to be made by those who are technically qualified to understand them, not by those who stand to gain short term profits from adopting any particular technology.

Apparently you're against all energy sources, except maybe solar. But wait, large groups of solar panels destroys the environment as well.

Really? Please post some links to support that, including info about the nature and extent of such environmental problems and what can be done to avoid or ameliolrate them. It's an honest question. I'd like to know more.
I guess we'll just get 100% of our power from wind, there's the solution.

So far, your posts are full of enough wind to power a large forum server. :laugh:

Sorry -- Couldn't resist the obvious reply. Take it as the joke it's intended to be. [/quote]

The answer is what? You provided me with not even ONE thing we can do to reduce CO2 emissions. Come on, you can do better than that. My solution is more nuclear plants and tax breaks for people installing solar panels on their homes, for one. I don't even want to think about trying to ween ourselves off gasoline.

I don't have any links, I watched it on a documentary. It would take many square miles of solar panels to produce any real amount of energy, thus destroying the environment underneath of them (usually in the desert).

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ntdz
The answer is what? You provided me with not even ONE thing we can do to reduce CO2 emissions. Come on, you can do better than that.

Yes, I did. I replied that you finally asked the right question. I'm an engineer, but not in that field. I don't owe you any more of an answer than that.

My solution is more nuclear plants and tax breaks for people installing solar panels on their homes, for one....

< Ehnn-n-n-n-ngh > [game show buzzer sound]. I'm sorry. That's one bad answer along with one good one. Johnny, tell our audience about Mr. ntdz's consolation prize.

I don't even want to think about trying to ween ourselves off gasoline.

You're right that it won't happen in the near future. We have far too much invested in the technologies that currently power the world, but that's not a reason to work very seriously at getting away from gasoline as a power source. Even then, we'll still be using petro products and their synthetic clones for other purposes.

I don't have any links, I watched it on a documentary.

Huh??? I took the time to search for links and quotes in my previous posts. Even the Idiot In Chief acknowledges "the Google." Too bad he's too lame to know what to do with good information. Even worse, too bad he's so compelled to invent his own "facts" when reality doesn't agree with his objectives.

It would take many square miles of solar panels to produce any real amount of energy, thus destroying the environment underneath of them (usually in the desert).

Damn! If that's so, show us some research about the present and projected future conversion efficiency of solar cells. While you're at it, give us a little info about the toxicity of the materials in solar panel, the worst case scenarios that could occur with solar power and the chances of any catastrophic failure.

I gave you that kind of info about nuclear power a couple of posts ago, and calling the realistic downside of a nuclear accident catastrophic is, to say the least, a wild understatement.

Unless you're documented as a qualified research scientist on the subject, don't just lay out fluff statements like that without some supporting facts. If you are qualified, then you already know where to find them.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ntdz
The answer is what? You provided me with not even ONE thing we can do to reduce CO2 emissions. Come on, you can do better than that.

Yes, I did. I replied that you finally asked the right question. I'm an engineer, but not in that field. I don't owe you any more of an answer than that.

My solution is more nuclear plants and tax breaks for people installing solar panels on their homes, for one....

< Ehnn-n-n-n-ngh > [game show buzzer sound]. I'm sorry. That's one bad answer along with one good one. Johnny, tell our audience about Mr. ntdz's consolation prize.

I don't even want to think about trying to ween ourselves off gasoline.

You're right that it won't happen in the near future. We have far too much invested in the technologies that currently power the world, but that's not a reason to work very seriously at getting away from gasoline as a power source. Even then, we'll still be using petro products and their synthetic clones for other purposes.

I don't have any links, I watched it on a documentary.

Huh??? I took the time to search for links and quotes in my previous posts. Even the Idiot In Chief acknowledges "the Google." Too bad he's too lame to know what to do with good information. Even worse, too bad he's so compelled to invent his own "facts" when reality doesn't agree with his objectives.

It would take many square miles of solar panels to produce any real amount of energy, thus destroying the environment underneath of them (usually in the desert).

Damn! If that's so, show us some research about the present and projected future conversion efficiency of solar cells. While you're at it, give us a little info about the toxicity of the materials in solar panel, the worst case scenarios that could occur with solar power and the chances of any catastrophic failure.

I gave you that kind of info about nuclear power a couple of posts ago, and calling the realistic downside of a nuclear accident catastrophic is, to say the least, a wild understatement.

Unless you're documented as a qualified research scientist on the subject, don't just lay out fluff statements like that without some supporting facts. If you are qualified, then you already know where to find them.

So Al Gore shouldn't be talking about global warming either because he's not technically in that field? If you're going to come out against Nuclear energy (which provides 17% of the worlds energy), you damn well better have an alternative for all that energy loss. I'm curious to see what it is. How many square miles of land have to be covered by solar panels to make up for our energy loss?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ntdz
So Al Gore shouldn't be talking about global warming either because he's not technically in that field?

Considering all the experts involved in his various projects on global warming and energy production, from his film to the companies he's started and supported, I suspect you're blowing more pollution in the way of smoke when you try to paint him as uninformed in those fields. You don't have to know everything as long as you're smart enough to know who and what to ask for the answers.

If you're going to come out against Nuclear energy (which provides 17% of the worlds energy), you damn well better have an alternative for all that energy loss. I'm curious to see what it is.

Bullsh8! I'm not subject to your rules. To repeat, yet again, I posted plenty of information about why we should be concerned about the foreseeable, potentially CATASTROPHIC!!!... I'll say it again... CATASTROPHIC!!! effects of a nuclear event, whether by accident or some terrorist activity.

Either refute those possiblities, or convince us that there are no possible alternative energy sources with less potential for such CATASTROPHIC!!! failures.

How many square miles of land have to be covered by solar panels to make up for our energy loss?

You posed the question. To get to dig up the answers. I don't owe you that, either.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ntdz
So Al Gore shouldn't be talking about global warming either because he's not technically in that field?

Considering all the experts involved in his various projects on global warming and energy production, from his film to the companies he's started and supported, I suspect you're blowing more pollution in the way of smoke when you try to paint him as uninformed in those fields. You don't have to know everything as long as you're smart enough to know who and what to ask for the answers.

If you're going to come out against Nuclear energy (which provides 17% of the worlds energy), you damn well better have an alternative for all that energy loss. I'm curious to see what it is.

Bullsh8! I'm not subject to your rules. To repeat, yet again, I posted plenty of information about why we should be concerned about the foreseeable, potentially CATASTROPHIC!!!... I'll say it again... CATASTROPHIC!!! effects of a nuclear event, whether by accident or some terrorist activity.

Either refute those possiblities, or convince us that there are no possible alternative energy sources with less potential for such CATASTROPHIC!!! failures.

How many square miles of land have to be covered by solar panels to make up for our energy loss?

You posed the question. To get to dig up the answers. I don't owe you that, either.

What catastrophic failures? A little radiation leakage? Big deal, it pales in comparison to the potential consequences if the enviro wackos beliefs come true in the 100 years.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ntdz
What catastrophic failures? A little radiation leakage? Big deal, it pales in comparison to the potential consequences if the enviro wackos beliefs come true in the 100 years.

Is there some reason you didn't read my previous post? I said:

I'm sure that's a great comfort to the former residents of Chernobyl and all those living in the water table area surrounding the nuclear facilities at Hanford, Washington, Three Mile Island and any other contaminated area. :roll

and, from the list of civilian nuclear accidents:

July 25, 2006 ? An electricity fault prompted shut down of the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant, Sweden. Several problems occurred during the shut-down phase. While Swedish Nuclear Power Inspection authority rated the incident INES 2, Lars-Olov Höglund, expert familiar with design of the plant, stated it was the most serious nuclear incident since the Chernobyl disaster and it was pure luck that prevented a meltdown.

I only posted those from 2006. You could have followed my link to read the reports from previous years, but I'm pretty sure you didn't because that reality would be... ummm... An Inconvenient Truth that would negate all of your BS.

 

[A Scream]

having most of thread...

who cares? You can conserve power, I'll use it. You people practically want to put us back in the stone age! Quit moaning, and develop something yourself. IMO solar power is the way to go, but it's still a ways off. Quit spending money on telling people to conserve, and spend it on developing your alternative. Untill it's ready, STFU!

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: A Scream
having most of thread...

who cares? You can conserve power, I'll use it. You people practically want to put us back in the stone age! Quit moaning, and develop something yourself. IMO solar power is the way to go, but it's still a ways off. Quit spending money on telling people to conserve, and spend it on developing your alternative. Untill it's ready, STFU!

Feel entitled much?
:roll:

 

[TMoney468]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
15 page thread on Al Gore's electrical usage LMAO!!!

agreed. this thread is a waste of bandwidth. algore is a loser, let him attatch himself to whichever cause he likes. he can't get it done when it comes to presidential bids, so he resorts to personal causes. Let him be.

What's even funnier than conservatives harping on algore are the looney leftwing extremists in here that still want him to run for president. Now THAT's some funny stuff.

I'm looney because I want him to run for President and win (again)? This time around there won't be a drugged up Rehnquist to vote against him. If anyone can look back at these past 7 years and be happy with the way things happened and are going, then they're utterly retarded. Gore has the experience and has championed a cause which will be the most important one of our time. All Bush has done is create a civil war, increased terrorism globally, and something called Katrina. Now that's funny that looney right wingers believe Bush has done a good job.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: TMoney468

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
15 page thread on Al Gore's electrical usage LMAO!!!

agreed. this thread is a waste of bandwidth. algore is a loser, let him attatch himself to whichever cause he likes. he can't get it done when it comes to presidential bids, so he resorts to personal causes. Let him be.

What's even funnier than conservatives harping on algore are the looney leftwing extremists in here that still want him to run for president. Now THAT's some funny stuff.

I'm looney because I want him to run for President and win (again)? This time around there won't be a drugged up Rehnquist to vote against him. If anyone can look back at these past 7 years and be happy with the way things happened and are going, then they're utterly retarded. Gore has the experience and has championed a cause which will be the most important one of our time. All Bush has done is create a civil war, increased terrorism globally, and something called Katrina. Now that's funny that looney right wingers believe Bush has done a good job.

Personally, I don't know anyone that thinks Bush has done a good job in Iraq or with Katrina.

 

[herm0016]

[rant]

Originally posted by: TMoney468
All Bush has done is create a civil war, increased terrorism globally, and something called Katrina. Now that's funny that looney right wingers believe Bush has done a good job.

how the hell can you still be blaming a natural disaster on bush! do you think he prayed that a hurricane would come and wipe out a city? do you think he engineered the levees that broke? and he does not control FEMA!!!! you freaks just don't seem to understand states rights. FEMA can only be called out by a state! the governor is to blame for bad response, and so are the people in the city, instead of helping they decided to complain about the help they were getting and steal/ran sake what was left. [/rant]

the amount of radiation that most of those incidents involved was probably less than everyone on earth is exposed to in a year or 2. you must put things like this in perspective. do you have a watch that glows? guess what! its radio active! your cell phone? the computer you are using to post here? all radio active to some extent. nuclear energy is a way to produce energy just as safe as coal or natural gas without the emissions. do you know what happened in Chernobyl? the reactor there was using liquid graphite as a coolant, no part of the design of that reactor was standard. The new lite water reactors that GE is putting out are very safe and produce much less radiation than they used to. why do you think the military loves them? because they are dangerous and a threat to the ships they power? you need to do more research. come back when you have real research instead of the accident logs of the NRC. tell us how much rad. that each of us is exposed to each year and compare that to each incident. i bet you will find that most of them are very insignificant. also research the new reactor designs. you are missing out on all the real information that is relevant.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: herm0016

[rant]

Originally posted by: TMoney468
All Bush has done is create a civil war, increased terrorism globally, and something called Katrina. Now that's funny that looney right wingers believe Bush has done a good job.

how the hell can you still be blaming a natural disaster on bush!

He is directly responsible for the Government aftermath.

My wife is still getting daily mailings from FEMA which are a complete waste of money.

I didn't get a penny while people that were sent to Houston got money many times over they shouldn't have gotten.

Katrina showed as Americans we are screwed and actually better off in another Country at this point.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Katrina showed as Americans we are screwed and actually better off in another Country at this point.

reason #54,324 for you to leave. so why don't you?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: herm0016

[rant]

Originally posted by: TMoney468
All Bush has done is create a civil war, increased terrorism globally, and something called Katrina. Now that's funny that looney right wingers believe Bush has done a good job.

how the hell can you still be blaming a natural disaster on bush! do you think he prayed that a hurricane would come and wipe out a city? do you think he engineered the levees that broke? and he does not control FEMA!!!! you freaks just don't seem to understand states rights. FEMA can only be called out by a state! the governor is to blame for bad response, and so are the people in the city, instead of helping they decided to complain about the help they were getting and steal/ran sake what was left. [/rant]

That is a pretty crappy rant. I think you lack the comprehension skills to understand that it is not the actual hurricane that people blame this administration but the RESPONSE by the administration. And Bush leads this administration.

Understanding of course that there are local and state levels that have a level of responsibility as well.

The buck stops with Bush. Hell I think he even took some of the blame too but you apologists don't know enough to pay attention. shrug.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Katrina showed as Americans we are screwed and actually better off shipping the President and his inept band of cronies off to another Country at this point.

Fixed it for ya.

There are some cells at Guantanamo that should be a good spot to park them for a few years. While they're there, let's give 'em all free daily passes for the waterboard ride.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Katrina showed as Americans we are screwed and actually better off in another Country at this point.

reason #54,324 for you to leave. so why don't you?

Because I feel America is worth saving unlike you and your fellow Republicans bent on continuing to destroy it.

 

[TMoney468]

Originally posted by: herm0016

[rant]

Originally posted by: TMoney468
All Bush has done is create a civil war, increased terrorism globally, and something called Katrina. Now that's funny that looney right wingers believe Bush has done a good job.

how the hell can you still be blaming a natural disaster on bush! do you think he prayed that a hurricane would come and wipe out a city? do you think he engineered the levees that broke? and he does not control FEMA!!!! you freaks just don't seem to understand states rights. FEMA can only be called out by a state! the governor is to blame for bad response, and so are the people in the city, instead of helping they decided to complain about the help they were getting and steal/ran sake what was left. [/rant]

I thought that it was understood that Bush doesn't have the power to create hurricanes and floods. But as others have stated, it wasn't the event but the immediate and continuing aftermath that marks Bush's ineptitude.

 

[wiin]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
And? So he's not the greatest dude. His behavior doesn't invalidate his points.

Only a bigot would say something like this.
His behaviour does exactly that.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: wiin

Originally posted by: blackllotus
And? So he's not the greatest dude. His behavior doesn't invalidate his points.

Only a bigot would say something like this.
His behaviour does exactly that.

A Bigot???? How so?