DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**QualityReachOut** · 12-15-2009, 11:13 PM

By the title and then your intro, I can pretty much guess that Bush was called at the time a racist murderer, I'm guessing due to the population in New Orleans being mostly black?

In a nutshell, yes. The title of the thread is tongue-in-cheek. The point of the exercise is to imagine people defending Bush, personally, regarding the Katrina fiasco, and instead blaming the problems on unresponsive government agencies. Or, conversely, that Chavez had been held personally responsible for the Vargas deaths, and people had demanded that he do something about the situation the same people acted toward Bush. The contrast between the two presidents involved (one perceived as far right vs. one perceived as far left) makes the exercise that much more interesting.

What I was hoping people would get out of the exercise is that it's counterproductive to defend your favored politician/party to the point that you're manipulating/distorting facts in order to make them look good, or excuse them of wrongdoing/responsibility/etc. All politicians, political parties and government agencies need to be viewed objectively by voters, and held accountable for their actions, or lack thereof.

That's about it.

12-15-2009, 11:13 PM	#3
QualityReachOut Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 662 Senior Member	By the title and then your intro, I can pretty much guess that Bush was called at the time a racist murderer, I'm guessing due to the population in New Orleans being mostly black? In a nutshell, yes. The title of the thread is tongue-in-cheek. The point of the exercise is to imagine people defending Bush, personally, regarding the Katrina fiasco, and instead blaming the problems on unresponsive government agencies. Or, conversely, that Chavez had been held personally responsible for the Vargas deaths, and people had demanded that he do something about the situation the same people acted toward Bush. The contrast between the two presidents involved (one perceived as far right vs. one perceived as far left) makes the exercise that much more interesting. What I was hoping people would get out of the exercise is that it's counterproductive to defend your favored politician/party to the point that you're manipulating/distorting facts in order to make them look good, or excuse them of wrongdoing/responsibility/etc. All politicians, political parties and government agencies need to be viewed objectively by voters, and held accountable for their actions, or lack thereof. That's about it.
	Quote