If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Romney in CNN debate: Get rid of FEMA, let states handle disasters. Romney campaign now that there's a major emergency: We need to make sure states "have the resources and assistance they need"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 334
    More: Amusing, Mitt Romney, FEMA, GOP, hurricane warning, United States, Ocean City, Hilton Head Island, Hurricane Irene  
•       •       •

7719 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Oct 2012 at 3:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



334 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-28 11:53:09 PM
FTA: Mitt Romney was asked, in the context of the Joplin disaster and FEMA's cash crunch, whether the agency should be shuttered so that states can individually take over responsibility for disaster response. "Absolutely," he said. "Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction.

UPDATE: "Gov. Romney wants to ensure states, who are the first responders and are in the best position to aid impacted individuals and communities, have the resources and assistance they need to cope with natural disasters," the Romney official said.

----

So in other words, kill FEMA and stop Federal aid.... until it's needed, and then, what? Reopen it? And then shut it down again? LOL at the logic of these fools.
 
2012-10-28 11:55:42 PM
To be fair, in a flood situation, flip-flops will substitute for oars quite nicely.
 
2012-10-29 12:04:23 AM
Would someone please stop taking Schrödinger's candidate out of his box?
 
2012-10-29 12:07:09 AM
i159.photobucket.comi159.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-29 12:12:38 AM
Reading between the lines: I'm attacking the President for an inadequate response to a disaster that hasn't happened yet.

It's the same thing as Libya. He's can't even bother to wait for the facts to come in, he's already attacking. Hell, he's attacking before the disaster.

Lionel Mandrake: [i159.photobucket.com image 294x300][i159.photobucket.com image 294x300]


Seriously, that might give me nightmares. Why?
 
2012-10-29 12:13:26 AM
If it's left up to states to handle disasters, what state will be chosen to handle his campaign?
 
2012-10-29 12:14:22 AM
This is Jindal's volcano gaffe all over again. "Fark FEMA! ...Holy shiat, we need FEMA!"
 
2012-10-29 12:16:07 AM
Meanwhile, Chris Christie canceled a trip to campaign for Romney to go back to NJ and tell the press that Obama is awesome for his response to the storm so far.

/facepalm Mittens
 
2012-10-29 12:20:45 AM
I thought Bobby Jindal was pretty much the winner of the "predict the next natural disaster by noting what agency I propose to eliminate", but honestly, Mittens, you're just so. damn. good.
 
2012-10-29 12:26:47 AM
Mittens ist ein arseloch
 
2012-10-29 12:29:47 AM
It'll be fun watching Romney attempt to criticize Obama's Federal response to a disaster after demanding that the Feds shouldn't respond at all.
 
2012-10-29 12:31:52 AM

teto85: Mittens ist ein arseloch

Arschloch.

Aber du bist richtig
 
2012-10-29 12:33:12 AM

shower_in_my_socks: It'll be fun watching Romney attempt to criticize Obama's Federal response to a disaster after demanding that the Feds shouldn't respond at all.


It is a guaranteed certainty. There is absolutely no question at all that Romney and the GOP will be screaming about Obama's cuts to FEMA and how they're hurting the disaster response.
 
2012-10-29 12:34:14 AM
Romney: "The Federal agency that I don't believe in better not screw up its response to a storm strengthened by a global warming phenomenon that I also don't believe in."
 
2012-10-29 12:34:23 AM
Gee, Romney is now saying something completely opposite of something he just recently said? I am SHOCKED!

Apparently, lying isn't one of the morals Republicans are concerned about.
 
2012-10-29 12:42:04 AM

shower_in_my_socks: Romney: "The Federal agency that I don't believe in better not screw up its response to a storm strengthened by a global warming phenomenon that I also don't believe in."


Any good conservative already knows global warming is a hoax; it's Obama's misuse of HAARP that is causing the natural disasters.
 
2012-10-29 12:42:07 AM
Meanwhile, 538's model just upped Obama's chances to 74.6%, which is the best they've been since the 1st debate. And PEC's model predicted 300 EV wins for him today, which is the highest I've seen them go in the week or so that I've been following, and upped his odds of winning to 90%-97%.
 
2012-10-29 12:44:54 AM
Romney could walk into the middle of a park, shoot a dog in the head, and immediately condem everyone for letting him shoot that dog, and 40% of this country would still vote for him. This changes nothing.
 
2012-10-29 12:50:24 AM
Fark you Mitt.
 
2012-10-29 12:52:44 AM
An honest question for conservatives or Republicans: without referencing Obama or the Democrats, can you please explain how you reconcile voting for a man who has such a careless disregard for consistency of any kind? How do you know what he believes in or what he will do when president?
 
2012-10-29 12:54:36 AM

coco ebert: An honest question for conservatives or Republicans: without referencing Obama or the Democrats, can you please explain how you reconcile voting for a man who has such a careless disregard for consistency of any kind? How do you know what he believes in or what he will do when president?


None of that matters with a blah man in the White House.
 
2012-10-29 12:55:00 AM
I can't wait for the shills to get here with their rationalizations for this. Talking points are being distributed right about now.
I'm sure it'll be something about bloated federal government stealing tax money from citizens/states and the states could do better without burdensome federal FEMA/EPA regulations, but since FEMA hasn't been abolished yet we deserve to get back all the tax money we've paid into the failed bureaucracy and Obama failed to respond in time because he's punishing red states for not voting for him.
And something something Benghazi.
 
2012-10-29 12:56:07 AM

coco ebert: An honest question for conservatives or Republicans: without referencing Obama or the Democrats, can you please explain how you reconcile voting for a man who has such a careless disregard for consistency of any kind? How do you know what he believes in or what he will do when president?


Romney has been consistently white and not Obama.
 
2012-10-29 12:57:14 AM
FTA: "And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that's even better."

Yeah, we can let Halliburton have some no-bid contracts to clean up natural disasters. Sounds like a really good idea*.



*if you're a retard
 
2012-10-29 12:58:05 AM

themindiswatching: coco ebert: An honest question for conservatives or Republicans: without referencing Obama or the Democrats, can you please explain how you reconcile voting for a man who has such a careless disregard for consistency of any kind? How do you know what he believes in or what he will do when president?

None of that matters with a blah man in the White House.


BEIGE/BRAH 2012!!!!!1!
 
2012-10-29 01:03:55 AM

SilentStrider: Fark you Mitt.

 
2012-10-29 01:13:21 AM

propasaurus: shower_in_my_socks: It'll be fun watching Romney attempt to criticize Obama's Federal response to a disaster after demanding that the Feds shouldn't respond at all.

It is a guaranteed certainty. There is absolutely no question at all that Romney and the GOP will be screaming about Obama's cuts to FEMA and how they're hurting the disaster response.


I'm guessing they will start slamming Obama for the disaster response before Sandy makes landfall. Hell I will go out on a limb and predict that some right wing arsehole accuses the Obama administration of with holding much needed relief from New Jersey deliberately to get back at Gov. Chris "sausage fingers" Christie. One of the usual trolls in the media will be "asking questions" before noon. Rush will compare it to the events in Benghazi by mid week.

The election has already started. It's on baby. Reality has been suspended for the next 9 days.

It will not show up on the radar for TWC but Frankenstorm is going to collide with election 2012 Derpstorm. I'm frightened by that. Don't stare into that abyss too long folks. It can't be good for you.
 
2012-10-29 01:17:22 AM
So taking money from California to provide disaster relief to Missouri is now socialism. Except when it goes to Massachusetts.

Obama needs to just troll the fark out of him by demanding that defense spending be handed over to the states.
 
2012-10-29 01:17:29 AM

APE992: SilentStrider: Fark you Mitt.

 
2012-10-29 01:18:49 AM
FFS GUYS, STOP USING HIS OWN WORDS AGAINST HIM

Its farking unfair
 
2012-10-29 01:21:22 AM

cman: FFS GUYS, STOP USING HIS OWN WORDS AGAINST HIM

Its farking unfair


Troll harder...

wait, what?
 
2012-10-29 01:23:14 AM

propasaurus: cman: FFS GUYS, STOP USING HIS OWN WORDS AGAINST HIM

Its farking unfair

Troll harder...

wait, what?


I think we need to get back to the most important issue of this election: Kenyan abortions.
 
2012-10-29 01:24:53 AM

cman: propasaurus: cman: FFS GUYS, STOP USING HIS OWN WORDS AGAINST HIM

Its farking unfair

Troll harder...

wait, what?

I think we need to get back to the most important issue of this election: Kenyan abortions.


Are you pro- or anti- ?
 
2012-10-29 01:28:13 AM

Lionel Mandrake: cman: propasaurus: cman: FFS GUYS, STOP USING HIS OWN WORDS AGAINST HIM

Its farking unfair

Troll harder...

wait, what?

I think we need to get back to the most important issue of this election: Kenyan abortions.

Are you pro- or anti- ?


I am an undecided voter. YOU BETTER CATER TO MY NEEDS CANDIDATES
 
2012-10-29 01:34:35 AM

coco ebert: An honest question for conservatives or Republicans: without referencing Obama or the Democrats, can you please explain how you reconcile voting for a man who has such a careless disregard for consistency of any kind? How do you know what he believes in or what he will do when president?


Because both sides are bad. Duh.
 
2012-10-29 01:37:36 AM

coco ebert: An honest question for conservatives or Republicans: without referencing Obama or the Democrats, can you please explain how you reconcile voting for a man who has such a careless disregard for consistency of any kind? How do you know what he believes in or what he will do when president?


I tried that. The answer was various forms of, "No politician ever does what he promises to do during the campaign!"

While somewhat true, it still doesn't account for the ridiculous platform (or non-platform, depending on what day it is) Romney is campaigning with. Any further questioning in order to clarify their answer just spirals down into further levels of derp.
 
2012-10-29 01:39:36 AM

brigid_fitch: coco ebert: An honest question for conservatives or Republicans: without referencing Obama or the Democrats, can you please explain how you reconcile voting for a man who has such a careless disregard for consistency of any kind? How do you know what he believes in or what he will do when president?

I tried that. The answer was various forms of, "No politician ever does what he promises to do during the campaign!"

While somewhat true, it still doesn't account for the ridiculous platform (or non-platform, depending on what day it is) Romney is campaigning with. Any further questioning in order to clarify their answer just spirals down into further levels of derp.


And it also negates their own talking point of 'Obama didn't do what he promised during the campaign.'
 
2012-10-29 01:43:49 AM

sammyk: propasaurus: shower_in_my_socks: It'll be fun watching Romney attempt to criticize Obama's Federal response to a disaster after demanding that the Feds shouldn't respond at all.

It is a guaranteed certainty. There is absolutely no question at all that Romney and the GOP will be screaming about Obama's cuts to FEMA and how they're hurting the disaster response.

I'm guessing they will start slamming Obama for the disaster response before Sandy makes landfall. Hell I will go out on a limb and predict that some right wing arsehole accuses the Obama administration of with holding much needed relief from New Jersey deliberately to get back at Gov. Chris "sausage fingers" Christie. One of the usual trolls in the media will be "asking questions" before noon. Rush will compare it to the events in Benghazi by mid week


While I don't doubt that's going to happen, everyone keep in mind that FEMA can't even be allocated until a state of emergency is declared. And Christie didn't do that until around 3pm today. We were the last state on the East Coast to do it, even though by Saturday night most weather models showed a Jersey Shore landfall,

If ANYONE on the right--or hell, anyone in NJ--starts biatching about FEMA not being allocated earlier, I'm going to beat them over the head w/Christie's 2:45pm press conference video.
 
2012-10-29 01:45:01 AM

propasaurus: brigid_fitch: coco ebert: An honest question for conservatives or Republicans: without referencing Obama or the Democrats, can you please explain how you reconcile voting for a man who has such a careless disregard for consistency of any kind? How do you know what he believes in or what he will do when president?

I tried that. The answer was various forms of, "No politician ever does what he promises to do during the campaign!"

While somewhat true, it still doesn't account for the ridiculous platform (or non-platform, depending on what day it is) Romney is campaigning with. Any further questioning in order to clarify their answer just spirals down into further levels of derp.

And it also negates their own talking point of 'Obama didn't do what he promised during the campaign.'


You'd think so, but that would require logic, something they clearly don't possess the faculties to handle.
 
2012-10-29 02:02:16 AM
Shouldn't the National Guard of each state be prepared, and supplied, to handle emergencies such as this?

I understand we've chosen to centralize our disaster response with FEMA but wouldn't it make sense to allow the states to be the first responders given they will know the area, it's population and it's needs better than a central agency who has never dealt there before?

I think it would be simple to train them for this and probably also defray cost in the long run as transports, fuel and a massive bureaucracy cost quite a bit!
 
2012-10-29 02:07:37 AM

SlappyKincaid: but wouldn't it make sense to allow the states to be the first responders given they will know the area, it's population and it's needs better than a central agency who has never dealt there before?


the states are the first responders. There is nothing to "allow" them to do that they don't do already.
 
2012-10-29 02:09:52 AM
It's what Jindal was biatching about not too long ago. That even though Obama and FEMA responded in a timely manner, what he really wanted was for the Feds to cover ALL the costs of the cleanup and recovery. Anything les than the federal government giving LA a blank check was an abject failure on the part of the President.
 
2012-10-29 02:11:43 AM

log_jammin: SlappyKincaid: but wouldn't it make sense to allow the states to be the first responders given they will know the area, it's population and it's needs better than a central agency who has never dealt there before?

the states are the first responders. There is nothing to "allow" them to do that they don't do already.


Thanks for the info. The if the National Guard already does this at a statewide level why is FEMA needed? Is it purely coordination or do they put boots on the ground?

I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.
 
2012-10-29 02:20:30 AM

SlappyKincaid: Thanks for the info. The if the National Guard already does this at a statewide level why is FEMA needed? Is it purely coordination or do they put boots on the ground?

I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.



resources. Bottled water, food, communications, doctors, coordinating state relief efforts with federal efforts, etc.. It's just a way to provide more than what one state can do on it's own.
 
2012-10-29 02:24:06 AM
We should be 50 individual countries.
 
2012-10-29 02:27:48 AM

SlappyKincaid: log_jammin: SlappyKincaid: but wouldn't it make sense to allow the states to be the first responders given they will know the area, it's population and it's needs better than a central agency who has never dealt there before?

the states are the first responders. There is nothing to "allow" them to do that they don't do already.

Thanks for the info. The if the National Guard already does this at a statewide level why is FEMA needed? Is it purely coordination or do they put boots on the ground?

I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.


Federal Government has significantly more resources over individual states to help in special emergencies. Even I can see how FEMA could be a necessary evil for shiat like this.
 
2012-10-29 02:29:44 AM

log_jammin: SlappyKincaid: Thanks for the info. The if the National Guard already does this at a statewide level why is FEMA needed? Is it purely coordination or do they put boots on the ground?

I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.


resources. Bottled water, food, communications, doctors, coordinating state relief efforts with federal efforts, etc.. It's just a way to provide more than what one state can do on it's own.


Again thanks. It just seems to be that a state should be able to supply much of this, short of full devastation, without having to rely on others, especially in a populous state. I live in Chicago, IL and if we had massive damage due to Tornadoes, which we do get from time to time, I don't see why we can't send in our own doctors etc. Each state could have an army of volunteers. I would sign up and volunteer my talents in case of disaster.

I'm just trying to find a creative way to solve the problem that would also help mitigate cost to the tax payers.

For a small state like Rhode Island I think FEMA makes sense. A 50' tsumani could level pretty much all of the state. But for us larger, heavily populated states I think it should be left to us.

That's my two cents anyway. Feel free to disagree!
 
2012-10-29 02:31:58 AM

SlappyKincaid: For a small state like Rhode Island I think FEMA makes sense. A 50' tsumani could level pretty much all of the state. But for us larger, heavily populated states I think it should be left to us.

That's my two cents anyway. Feel free to disagree!


Not all states have the money and resources to properly handle emergencies. Can you imagine Louisiana or Mississippi trying to deal with a major disaster with no federal disaster relief? It was bad enough when we had help.
 
2012-10-29 02:39:11 AM

SlappyKincaid: I don't see why we can't send in our own doctors etc. Each state could have an army of volunteers. I would sign up and volunteer my talents in case of disaster.


The state can and does send it's own doctors and supplies and what ever. The simple fact is that most, if not all, the states simple do not have the resources to handle a major disaster all on their own.

There is no reason at all to do away with FEMA and make the states handle it on their own.
 
2012-10-29 02:42:56 AM

Genevieve Marie: SlappyKincaid: For a small state like Rhode Island I think FEMA makes sense. A 50' tsumani could level pretty much all of the state. But for us larger, heavily populated states I think it should be left to us.

That's my two cents anyway. Feel free to disagree!

Not all states have the money and resources to properly handle emergencies. Can you imagine Louisiana or Mississippi trying to deal with a major disaster with no federal disaster relief? It was bad enough when we had help.


That is true. Many states these days are over budget and in their current state many would need to rely on the federal government for help in a disaster.

I'm not saying it wouldn't take effort but why can't each state set aside a certain amount of funds that could be allocated to disaster relief, especially in states prone to natural disaster? Florida, Kansas and California come to mind, though Katrina also puts Louisiana on the list. They could earmark funds that cannot be touched except in the case of a disaster.

I look at something like Katrina or 9/11 and it was amazing to see just how many citizens pulled together to give freely of their time and energy to help others out and I wonder why states can't advertise for that.

Maybe it's the neighborhoods I've lived in but people are more than willing to help out others when things happen. I remember my parents taking in our neighbors for like 3 months when a fire pretty much demolished their home. That left an indelible mark on my perception of charity and I wish more would adopt that attitude. Self reliance and helping others when needed.

Perhaps that what FEMA is doing at it's core. I'm just not a fan of red tape! It slows down action!
 
Displayed 50 of 334 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report