The legitimate complaints against Bush regarding the response to Hurricane Katrina

[Brandonf]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Simple.

Replace the incompetents.

What about the people who continue to put them in office and support them in the first place? I doubt Mississippi and Lousianna will be so "red" after the way the Fed's have handled this..but you never know. I think a bigger problem is that people in both parties are more worried about covering their asses and blaming the other side. When Clinton was in office every Republican would scream and howl that the world was going to shit while Clinton sat around and got blow jobs in the White House. Now, whenever anything bad happens all the Dems howl that the world is going to shit while Bush sits in Crawford on vacation. Both major parties are equally incompetent.

In the mean time one thing we can all do is offer aid to the victims. Groups like the Baton Rouge Foodbank, the Salvation Army and Red Cross are all doing what they can to help and could use all the help we can give.

 

[Pabst]

Here's the point that just now is being raised. It's great to say "evacuate 'em." But where? You think it's easy finding shelter for a million people in the rural south? Keep in mind that Katrina was worse wind wise in many places besides New Orleans. In other words it's not like going to Biloxi or Mobile was the appropriate option. I heard someone say "the army could have built a tent city." LMFAO! A tent in a hurricane was a better venue than the Superdome?!

Bottom line: These storms are going to repeat, and evacuation is NEVER going to be possible. My folks live in South Florida. (in fact they were hit by Katrina as it came through Fl). My parents are old and know that the 5,000,000 people that live in Dade, Broward, and PBC will never be able to evacuate. What are they going to do? Call Disney World and ask if they have lodging available in Orlando for several million. Yea, the conditions in those shelters must have been indescribable. I can't imagine living in the piss, shit of thousands, little food, little water, and death. Guess what? Thats the FUCKING DOWNSIDE TO BEING CAUGHT IN A CAT 4 HURRICANE! It's not a movie!! No the Superdome was not the Ritz. But what the hell was the option

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

I don't disagree that the politicians dropped the ball on this one.

When I saw Bush on Friday morning, right before he was going to fly out to Missippi and NO, he said "The situation is not acceptable down there."

My first reaction was, well it is about time he showed he was pissed off. I thought for a brief moment he was going to act like a leader.

If you had friends/relatives, etc. and saw what we had seen over the past several days, wouldn't you be pissed off too?

So it took Bush 4 days to finally get pissed off. He is a very slow thinker, but better late than never.

Then I see he goes down there and falls back into spineless politician.

Revolting.

This man should have fired someone on the spot.

People want to see some leadership who will actually lead, which at times means to be pissed off and fire someone for incompetence.

Bush does neither. He just "prays" and hugs.

As if that solves the problem, or replaces the boneheads in his department who contributed to the problems in their own way.

Quote from Brandonf:

What about the people who continue to put them in office and support them in the first place? I doubt Mississippi and Lousianna will be so "red" after the way the Fed's have handled this..but you never know. I think a bigger problem is that people in both parties are more worried about covering their asses and blaming the other side. When Clinton was in office every Republican would scream and howl that the world was going to shit while Clinton sat around and got blow jobs in the White House. Now, whenever anything bad happens all the Dems howl that the world is going to shit while Bush sits in Crawford on vacation. Both major parties are equally incompetent.

In the mean time one thing we can all do is offer aid to the victims. Groups like the Baton Rouge Foodbank, the Salvation Army and Red Cross are all doing what they can to help and could use all the help we can give.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

"But for" principle.....

Actually I would argue that it is still contributory negligence.

"An injured person's failure to exercise due care, which along with another person's (the defendant's) negligence, contributed to the injury."

http://insurance.cch.com/rupps/contributory-negligence.htm


The people who voted in this mentally injured numbskull of a president are the defendants who are ultimately negligent of the needs of the American people, and Bush's contributory negligence to the situation is obvious.

You want to sue everyone who voted for Bush? That's a novel lawsuit. Nevertheless, you are miscomprehending a legal tort theory that is completely inapplicable. Just because it's called "contributory" negligence, doesn't mean that you can advance the theory against anyone who has contributed to the negligence. Contributory negligence is a theory only available to a defendant to prevent a plaintiff from obtaining compensation for damages that were caused by the plaintiff's own failure to use due care. PERIOD!

What you are attempting to argue is called, "equitable contribution," i.e., the theory that a person should fairly contribute to satisfying a judgment for damages on grounds that they have some responsibility, even though they cannot be held legally liable. This is exactly the situation that you are describing. The President is immune from civil liability, however he is an agent of the electorate who voted for him, and "but for," the electorate's negligence, President Bush would not have been elected.

The question, then, is whether the electorate was negligent in voting for Bush. Negligence requires an existing duty of care, the breach of that duty, and proof that the defendant is the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

The electorate has a fundamental right to vote, however, it has no legal duty to vote. Once a person chooses to vote, it is possible that they may have a duty to use due care in their decision. If you could prove that a voter failed to educate themselves in any meaningful way prior to casting a vote, then you could possibly show that they violated their duty to vote responsibly. Unfortunately, you cannot do this, because no person can be forced to state their choice in an election. So, you have a "proof of facts" problem. You cannot prove your case, because your witness cannot be compelled to testify, and that would end the lawsuit.

But, let's say that you could get voluntary testimony from every person who voted for Bush, now how will you prove, that "but for" the electorates' breach, the hurricane would not have occurred? Hurricanes as big as Katrina have been recorded in occurred in the past, before the idea of global warming was ever contemplated. So, here the evidence fails again. There is not a preponderance of evidence to demonstrate that global warming is the direct, or even a clear and convincing cause of hurricane Katrina, and that "but for" Bush's election Katrina would not have occurred.

Judgment for the defendant (Bush and the Republicans).

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Is this message board a court of law?

Quote from kjkent1:

You want to sue everyone who voted for Bush? That's a novel lawsuit. Nevertheless, you are miscomprehending a legal tort theory that is completely inapplicable. Just because it's called "contributory" negligence, doesn't mean that you can advance the theory against anyone who has contributed to the negligence. Contributory negligence is a theory only available to a defendant to prevent a plaintiff from obtaining compensation for damages that were caused by the plaintiff's own failure to use due care. PERIOD!

What you are attempting to argue is called, "equitable contribution," i.e., the theory that a person should fairly contribute to satisfying a judgment for damages on grounds that they have some responsibility, even though they cannot be held legally liable. This is exactly the situation that you are describing. The President is immune from civil liability, however he is an agent of the electorate who voted for him, and "but for," the electorate's negligence, President Bush would not have been elected.

The question, then, is whether the electorate was negligent in voting for Bush. Negligent requires an existing duty of care, the breach of that duty, and proof that the defendant is the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

The electorate has a fundamental right to vote, however, it has no legal duty to vote. Once a person chooses to vote, it is possible that they may have a duty to use due care in their decision. If you could prove that a voter failed to educate themselves in any meaningful way prior to casting a vote, then you could possibly show that they violated their duty to vote responsibly. Unfortunately, you cannot do this, because no person can be forced to state their choice in an election. So, you have a "proof of facts" problem. You cannot prove your case, because your witness cannot be compelled to testify, and that would end the lawsuit.

But, let's say that you could get voluntary testimony from every person who voted for Bush, now how will you prove, that "but for" the electorates' breach, the hurricane would not have occurred? Hurricanes as big as Katrina have been recorded in occurred in the past, before the idea of global warming was ever contemplated. So, here the evidence fails again. There is not a preponderance of evidence to demonstrate that global warming is the direct, or even a clear and convincing cause of hurricane Katrina.

Judgment for the defendant (Bush and the Republicans).

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Is this message board a court of law?

You raised the issue of contributory negligence, and you did so incorrectly -- twice. So, instead of trying to act like you know what you're talking about and I'm the schmuck for trying to educate you -- instead, try and learn something from the free education and say "thank you."

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Did I say Bush's contributory negligence was a legal term to be used in a court of law in a lawsuit against Bush?

We do agree, you are $300 an hour schmuck.

Quote from kjkent1:

You raised the issue of contributory negligence, and you did so incorrectly -- twice. So, instead of trying to act like you know what you're talking about and I'm the schmuck for trying to educate you -- instead, try and learn something from the free education and say "thank you."

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Did I say Bush's contributory negligence was a legal term to be used in a court of law in a lawsuit against Bush?

Yes. You referred to a law dictionary to support your argument, and then when I tried to correct you the first time, you found a second legal source to try to rebut my correction.

Now, say "Thank you."

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

I referred to an insurance website, not a legal dictionary.

If the people are the plaintiff, and the Bush's lackeys in FEMA and other agencies are the defendants who did not exercise their duties, then Bush contributed to the negligence of the people in NO and their stupidity as a red state to vote in this moron by Bush's constant efforts of dumbing down of America.

Did I ever say Bush was the defendant in a lawsuit?

You continue to prove Shakespeare to be prescient....

Quote from kjkent1:

Yes. You referred to a law dictionary to support your argument, and then when I tried to correct you the first time, you found a second legal source to try to rebut my correction.

Now, say "Thank you."

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

What law dictionary?

Did they teach you in law school to throw away Black's Law Dictionary or Westlaw and consult insurance websites instead?

Quote from kjkent1:

Yes. You referred to a law dictionary to support your argument, and then when I tried to correct you the first time, you found a second legal source to try to rebut my correction.

Now, say "Thank you."