For those of you (I'm assuming just about everyone in this thread who is complaining) who didn't read the post, here is what she said: "What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas." "Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality." "And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway," she said, "so this is working very well for them." Now.....considering the fact that most of you libs have proclaimed the same thing (that the people who ended up in the Superdome were underpriviliged), and assuming that these quotes were actually taken from Barbara, and assuming that all of the people she spoke with (or who spoke to the conduit through which she heard this) did indeed actually want to stay in Texas (which NOBODY with a lick of common sense could dispute......considering what just happened to them).......what then..... .....exactly...... ....did she say that was so wrong? Can someone break it down for me? The only thing I can pick out that might be construed as offensive is that she thinks that it is "kinda scary" that all these people want to stay in Texas. If I lived below the poverty level and had no transportation and a hurricane came through and destroyed my city, and I had to spend a week in living hell before a bus came and picked me up and took me to another city where they provided me a free place to stay, volunteers were lined up to provide me food and water, and programs were starting up to help me find more permanent housing and employment, I'd probably want to stay there as well. Especially when news reports suggest that it might be years before my old city is rebuilt. I'm just not getting it. You know.....I'm all over the place politically, though I tend to lean more to the right. However, I'm not a big fan of Bush, and because of that, right now I'm much more likely to really open up to ideas from the left. But it's threads like this (and anything that Glynch posts) that just push me right back towards the conservatives.
I don't understand Pole. It's the attitude that makes me upset. It's the insinuation that these people should be pleased with their plight. I'm not arguing that she may be right in the case of a few people, but the assertion that the "underpriviliged" people fleeing the devestation of the hurricane are in such great shape is offensive to me. There should be pity and concern, not grandiose statements that "this is working very well for them." My humble opinion of course.
"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway," she said, "so this is working very well for them." Better said "this working out BETTER for them IN THE ASTRODOME VERSUS THE SUPERDOME." Throw in the *scary* remark and giving Babs the benefit of the doubt is on shaky ground.
You're right ROTFLMAO! What's disgusting to say the least, is that some of you will actually defend the b**** and then try and preface it with, "I'm not trying to defend what she said". In an attempt not to sound like the complete A-hole you might otherwise sound like. Well Detroit is the poorest city in the US. So why don't we flood Detroit kill a couple thousand people destroy all their property (irreplaceable items e.g. photo's, pets, etc) and move the survivors to shelters. I'm sure they will be better off. Hell why stop in Detroit there are plenty of Ghettos and trailer parks across the country. Once we are done with the poor we can move onto the middle class. I mean this is a lot easier than creating jobs, building community centers, improving the schools, etc of these poor neighbourhoods. Why bother when we can just wash them away.
Maybe its a failure to reconize that these "Conservative elitiest" can actually see the true poverty in New Orleans versus the "bleeding heart liberals" who think everyone lives $75k houses with year round AC and full pantries. First its, "the conservatives could not evacuate the poor who have no transportation and whom live in extreme poverty" Now its, "how dare you say the extreme poverty are getting 3 meals a day and some of their needs met" Were the conservatives this petty during the Clinton admistration? Honestly, it gets tiring to hear the same people bash our government at every opportunity they can find. If you don't like it, LEAVE!!!"
Twist words, embellish, exaggerate, curse, call people names, and repeat cycle! That's the liberal way!
I think its pretty obvious that she is saying they are in a better situation pre-flood and that is just stupid. At lot of these people had homes, some of them probably had cars, its not like they were a bunch of homeless people. There is nothing good about having everything you own wiped away, definitely not because you get to live in an arena with thousands of other people and getting some free food.
I swear before your last sentence we were going to get a ... "Thats the Shawn Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Conservatism way" LOL. Please try to pretend it doesnt occur from NeoCons.
Imagine you are walking down a street going back to your house. On the side of the road you see a beggar whose bones jut out because he's so thin. He's obviously starving. You remember you have a leftover sandwich in you coat pocket. Why not, you think. You walk over and hand the sandwich to the beggar. Instead of going on your way, you turn to the beggar and say, "I guess you are lucky I came by. I helped you out. You're better off now because you have met me." Is it true? Sure. But it's rude, stupid and conceited.
Wait....yes it is. Katrina: Poverty (NO) -> Poverty(Houston) Claim they are better off. Sandwich: Poverty -> Poverty with a sandwich Claim they are better off. Well, if you can't see it. Then I'm not going to bother explaining it to you. Anyways, you asked someone to explain it to you.
Imagine that beggar also lost his parents and his best friend who died walking on that road where you met him. Yes, he does get a sandwich, but is he really better off?
Granted, some will succeed. But you and perhaps Mrs. Bush are assuming that broken families will find their friends and loved ones alive or in good health. There's many in NO still at their homes right now because it has value to them. I've seen many members claim that the living conditions for the American poor are a lot better than people living in third world countries. Well Babs insinuating that the underprivileged transplanted to Houston are even better off by mooching the hospitality of the city. She's also hinting that Houston is such a better city by far that more underprivilieged living here would be a scary possibility. I agree, but if Mrs. Bush means they're better off pre-flood, then couldn't what you wrote also apply to all poor people? Had Teresa Heinz Kerry said the same thing, I would've made a topic for it as well.
Seems to me she probably meant, under the circumstances, things are working out as well as they could. It's amazing how people want to jump on whatever little thing they can to have yet another person to bash and call names.
When a entire group of people are under privilidge like they are in New Orleans, shouldn't the government have done something before Katrina to better the life of those in that situation anyways?
