Threatening people because you don't like hearing the truth is a poor way to debate issues. You do what you think is necessary and i'll let the chips fall where they may. I will not respond to you anymore. Not until to get a gripe and stop acting like a juvenile.
NO SIR, launching into repeated personal attacks rather the answer the questions posed to you is the "poor way to debate issues". Since you have FAILED to provide even one shred of proof to back up your anti Bush accusation, I guess that means you have NONE?
So once again, without any more emotional hysteria from you. Answer the questions posed to you. Source for your accusation that Bush's Hurricane Recovery plan is "poll driven"?
What is YOUR solution then. Don't like what Bush planned, what is YOUR solution?
I personally thought that his proposals were good ones which would be consistent with a conservative method of following the Stafford Act, which requires BY LAW the federal government to be involved in reconstruction after a major disaster.
It seems to me that I spent some time reading your posts on another thread, in which you were arduing that no matter what, President Bush would never be a great president, while Ronald Reagan was. At the time, I told you that it wasn't necessary to try to decide which was greater, in the same way that we don't argue the merits of Washington and Lincoln.
I see now that you are saying that this is NOT about Reagan, and your argument has changed to attacking Bush because he isn't conservative enough for you.
So, put up or shut up. What is your solution to this disaster? Why is an enterprise zone for the Gulf area not a conservative solution? What is wrong with encouraging home ownership? What is wrong with helping people get training so that they can work and pay taxes?