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.

(Salon)   Mitt flips on FEMA as inconvenient timing rears its ugly head. In other news the earth still revolves around the sun and water is still wet   (salon.com) divider line 254
    More: Fail, FEMA, Ryan Grim, Somerset  
•       •       •

8187 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Oct 2012 at 12:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-10-30 12:06:19 PM  
*Twitch*
 
2012-10-30 12:07:06 PM  
Lets just put every politics submission on the main page for the next week. Should be fun
 
2012-10-30 12:07:39 PM  
Lucky Vinnick wasn't running or there would be trouble in SoCal
 
2012-10-30 12:07:39 PM  
He's very consistent at being inconstant a total douchebag.
 
2012-10-30 12:07:43 PM  
Wow, now I really don't know who to vote for. This is disturbing my brain cells.
 
2012-10-30 12:07:45 PM  
Surprising absolutely no one.
 
2012-10-30 12:08:01 PM  
At this point I feel like the admin is adding the apostrophe just to fark with us
 
2012-10-30 12:08:07 PM  
latinorebels.com
 
2012-10-30 12:08:13 PM  
Romney's just shaking things up a bit:

latinorebels.com
 
Skr
2012-10-30 12:08:34 PM  
While I am all for people evolving their opinions and not being shackled to one doctrine... this really reeks of horse malarkey.
 
2012-10-30 12:08:48 PM  
So let's see now, the only position he's consistently held since day one has been to de-fund NPR?
 
2012-10-30 12:08:51 PM  
Did the hurricane blow an apostrophe into your headline subby?
 
2012-10-30 12:08:55 PM  

Maud Dib: [latinorebels.com image 550x448]


*shakes tiny etch a sketch*
 
2012-10-30 12:09:02 PM  
holy crap, mitt romney is lie... changing his mind?!?!?! this changes everything!
 
2012-10-30 12:09:14 PM  
Romney flip-flopped on another issue?

i.imgur.com

Well, no shiat.
 
2012-10-30 12:09:23 PM  
i, for one, am shocked
 
2012-10-30 12:09:29 PM  

Kyro: Surprising absolutely no one.

 
2012-10-30 12:09:33 PM  
i.chzbgr.com
 
2012-10-30 12:09:40 PM  

bdub77: Maud Dib: [latinorebels.com image 550x448]

*shakes tiny etch a sketch*


Woulda been an epic simulpost.
 
2012-10-30 12:09:49 PM  

bdub77: Romney's just shaking things up a bit:

[latinorebels.com image 550x448]


6 seconds too late. If you had posted it without text, like Maud Dib, you might have won this little race.
 
2012-10-30 12:10:21 PM  

markie_farkie: So let's see now, the only position he's consistently held since day one has been to de-fund NPR?


And PBS. And the Department of Education.

Anyone see a trend here?
 
2012-10-30 12:10:30 PM  
Whew. I was thinking we would need to rely on insurance companies to rescue people.
 
2012-10-30 12:10:38 PM  

vogonity: Did the hurricane blow an apostrophe into your headline subby?


Well it does have an ugly head.

/by it, I mean Mitt
//almost a poet
 
2012-10-30 12:10:53 PM  

markie_farkie: So let's see now, the only position he's consistently held since day one has been to de-fund NPR?


And kill big bird, over turn Roe v. Wade, and defund Planned Parenthood. And bomb Iran. All before lunch on day 1.
 
2012-10-30 12:11:14 PM  
North East folks: don't forget to get your FEMA credit card! That shiat was dope.
 
2012-10-30 12:11:25 PM  
Has Obama declared this an act of nature yet?

Or is he blaming it on some incendiary hurricane-chasing youtube video?
 
2012-10-30 12:12:07 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: markie_farkie: So let's see now, the only position he's consistently held since day one has been to de-fund NPR?

And PBS. And the Department of Education.

Anyone see a trend here?


Well, fark, why don't we just "de-fund" all of government until we pay no taxes and live in an anarchy? But, then we can support those programs when we need them. Like FEMA. We just de-fund it and then give it money when we need it.
 
2012-10-30 12:12:09 PM  
It is ugly head?
 
2012-10-30 12:12:58 PM  
Did not see that coming
 
2012-10-30 12:13:19 PM  
DRINK!

i171.photobucket.com
 
M-G
2012-10-30 12:13:41 PM  
Obama campaign needs to hammer VA with ads of Mitt's quote about getting rid of FEMA. Sure, the right-wing pundits will cry foul, but they're going to biatch about whatever he does anyway.
 
2012-10-30 12:14:10 PM  
This article went green at about 12:05. From the thread below:

President declares federal disaster area in NY in the wake of hurricane Sandy. Romney to announce his severe love for FEMA and federal disaster aid by noon today

I'll call it a win for Fark.
 
2012-10-30 12:14:17 PM  
You just know that the rabid right-wing conspiracy nuts (AKA the GOP's base) are now thinking that the
ZOG has got to Rmoney and implanted him with the Mark of the Beasttm brain control chip.
 
2012-10-30 12:14:35 PM  
Headline only needed the first two words
 
2012-10-30 12:14:49 PM  

Cletus C.: Has Obama declared this an act of nature yet?

Or is he blaming it on some incendiary hurricane-chasing youtube video?


That joke was worse than the hurricane.
 
2012-10-30 12:14:53 PM  
See, now I fear that Obama may be one of the few relics left who actually believes in "tactful" politics. Personally, I got that beaten out of me sometime around the 100th demand for his birth certificate. So I'm all for him politicizing this and turning Romney's original position against him via TV ad bomb.

He won't, but I wish he would.
 
2012-10-30 12:15:03 PM  

Cletus C.: Has Obama declared this an act of nature yet?

Or is he blaming it on some incendiary hurricane-chasing youtube video?


You're trying too hard. Go to bed.
 
2012-10-30 12:15:10 PM  
I would never vote for Mitt Romney, but I don't see how his unidentified spokesman's statement that Romney wants to ensure that the states have the resources and assistance they need to cope with natural disasters is confirming that Romney wants to eliminate FEMA. Now, Romney saying in the debate that he absolutely would eliminate FEMA is another story, but the recent statement from his campaign is a lot less absolute.
 
2012-10-30 12:15:39 PM  
♪♫ When | tim-ing reared its | ug-ly head, ♫♪
♫♪ He | took the | opp-′site | stance in- | -stead. ♪♫
♪♫ | Brave-est of the | brave, Sir | Rom-ney! ♫♪
 
2012-10-30 12:16:07 PM  
I hope Palin is on hand to save Alaska from Putin!
 
2012-10-30 12:16:13 PM  
States are already first responders. The whole point of FEMA is to provide them any aid if it reaches beyond what they can handle. The Romney campaign has a knack for using lots of words to say precisely nothing.
 
2012-10-30 12:16:38 PM  
its
 
2012-10-30 12:16:46 PM  
He did it; he really did it.
 
2012-10-30 12:16:54 PM  
Hey Japan, and whatever other country we gave aid, Time to give back... Help a brother out.
 
2012-10-30 12:17:27 PM  
If Romney wins then this country is essentially getting what it deserves: The lasting, painful effects of willful ignorance.
 
2012-10-30 12:17:29 PM  
As we noted yesterday, eliminating the federal component of disaster relief is a terrible idea. And after Hurricane Sandy left millions suffering

Aw, the suffering millions. Silly ass libs.
 
2012-10-30 12:17:29 PM  

Cletus C.: Or is he blaming it on some incendiary hurricane-chasing youtube video?


You can do better than this. Seriously, earn your keep.
 
2012-10-30 12:17:57 PM  

Muta: This article went green at about 12:05. From the thread below:

President declares federal disaster area in NY in the wake of hurricane Sandy. Romney to announce his severe love for FEMA and federal disaster aid by noon today

I'll call it a win for Fark.


The sarcasm and satire of Fark is now becoming actual reality. Fark will tip so far into satire that it will come back around to serious news commentary......
 
2012-10-30 12:18:59 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Cletus C.: Has Obama declared this an act of nature yet?

Or is he blaming it on some incendiary hurricane-chasing youtube video?

You're trying too hard. Go to bed.


Perhaps you're right. This is no time to joke. Businesses Obama built are being destroyed.
 
2012-10-30 12:19:05 PM  
His thinly-disguised "Charitable Food & Sundries Delivery That Really Is In No Way Politicizing This Storm™" that is going on right now in Ohio is really pissing me off. If he wanted to be truly charitable, he would have delivered all this stuff anonymously (or at least with little fanfare) to local food banks and assistance organizations, which, by the way, would have been along the lines of what he agrees with, supposedly. Start with local, then ask for state help, then federal, which, as TFA correctly points out, is EXACTLY HOW IT WORKS NOW.

Instead, he wants to politicize the act of charity and drive the narrative that Mitt knows better than what is going on right now.

I heard him say at that shindig (and I'm paraphrasing) that he remembers when Katrina refugees were sent from New Orleans to Massachusetts while he was governor, he met them and blah blah blah, and that's why he's got the experience to deal with major natural disasters.

Mitt, go fark yourself. You really know nothing about it.
 
2012-10-30 12:19:28 PM  
No, Mitt Romney Doesn't Really Want to Kill Off FEMA, say right-wing nutjobs at....The Atlantic?
 
2012-10-30 12:20:09 PM  
Well I'm shocked, SHOCKED!
 
2012-10-30 12:20:13 PM  
All this article shows is that the gop house is holding our country back and they need to be voted out of office. The big stuff that Romney wants is the same crap that Dubya got and look at the result of that.
 
2012-10-30 12:20:38 PM  
People don't understand, funding FEMA is immoral! It's immoral! See we should let the state's decide how to do it, that way it's not immoral.

You see how that works?

Federal Emergency Management Agency = immoral
State Emergency Management Agency = moral

See, states can do everything. They are magical AND moral. Except invading Iran. Then we will ask states to send their people to other countries to die for us. Which is absolutely the moral thing to do.

That's what people just don't understand in America. We are America! We live in a country that is made up of tiny countries! A union of tiny countries into one country that's the same country! It's brilliant, really. And we don't have to help each other out except to attack other countries. I mean sure, we mostly all speak the same language. And sure, we have the same currency. And our businesses are intertwined all over the country. And our systems of roads, bridges, and waterways span across different states, sure. Oh and people can move between countries and often do a lot. But we should let states each invent totally different rules so that we're confused by each state's rules and therefore we no longer function as a country but a set of independent countries where rape babies are OK in some places. That's how it works, people! America! Freedom! Eagles! Rape Babies!
 
2012-10-30 12:20:58 PM  

BravadoGT: The Atlantic


and to go along with that, a story from Yahoo news:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/83001.html
 
2012-10-30 12:21:39 PM  
Not surprised in 3.. 2..
 
2012-10-30 12:22:31 PM  
I, for one, would love less government control. If this means less help when in bad times, well, so be it.

Anyway to cut costs.
 
2012-10-30 12:22:42 PM  

BravadoGT: No, Mitt Romney Doesn't Really Want to Kill Off FEMA, say right-wing nutjobs at....The Atlantic?


So what your article states is that Romney left enough wiggle room to talk out of both sides of his face again. Well that's quite an endorsement.
 
2012-10-30 12:22:46 PM  
 
2012-10-30 12:22:51 PM  

m1ke: North East folks: don't forget to get your FEMA credit debit card! That shiat was dope.


You're thinking of FEMA under Mike Brown, Former Horse Show Judge. This is now FEMA under Craig Fugate, Former Director of Florida's Emergency Management Agency.

// Craig Fugate, whose nomination to his current post was held up by David Vitter (R-LA), who said he had asked FEMA some questions - unrelated to Fugate or his confirmation - and they hadn't responded timely enough for him
// Mike Brown's nomination sailed through with nary a peep about anything - confirmed by chamber voice vote
 
2012-10-30 12:23:03 PM  

soj4life: All this article shows is that the gop house is holding our country back and they need to be voted out of office. The big stuff that Romney wants is the same crap that Dubya got and look at the result of that.

Wrong thread.

Romney is only saying this now because so many states he is trying to win are effected by Sandy.
 
2012-10-30 12:23:30 PM  
Governor Romney, there are times when we're fifty states and there are times when we're one country, and have national needs. And the way I know this is that Massachusetts didn't fight Germany in World War II or establish civil rights. You think states should do the governing wall-to-wall. That's a perfectly valid opinion. But your state of Massachusetts got $12.6 billion in federal money last year - from Nebraskans, and Virginians, and New Yorkers, and Alaskans, with their Eskimo poetry. 12.6 out of a state budget of $32 billion. I'm supposed to be using this time for a question, so here it is: Can we have it back, please?
 
2012-10-30 12:23:38 PM  
No way really?
 
2012-10-30 12:23:56 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-30 12:24:08 PM  
i'm surprised he waited this long.
 
2012-10-30 12:24:21 PM  

doyner: If Romney wins then this country is essentially getting what it deserves: The lasting, painful effects of willful ignorance.


The GOP's stonewalling of Obama is just as much a continuation of such ignorance, and unfortunately
if Obama wins they will continue their reprehensible treason.
 
2012-10-30 12:24:22 PM  
When FEMA, once again, proves its uselessness, I'm sure you all will offer your apologies for your stupidity.
 
2012-10-30 12:24:50 PM  
Since Obama still believes in responsible, effective government, when he needed an expert to run FEMA he called on Jeb Bush's hurricane expert, Craig Fugate.
Hell of a job, Craigie.
Sure beats a horsey guy political hack.
 
2012-10-30 12:24:52 PM  
What is more disturbing to me is not that he flip flopped, but that his mouth breathing base thought it was a good idea to disband FEMA in the first place.
 
2012-10-30 12:24:58 PM  
Hurricane Sandy left millions suffering

Hey, wasn't this at about the time of the Katrina disaster where the Huffington Post claimed the cannibalism had begun? About lunch time the day after?
 
2012-10-30 12:25:12 PM  
A friend of mine referred to a new theory called "Quantum Romneyism". It proposes that Mitt Romney holds a superposition of all political opinions which, when observed, collapse based on the audience.
 
2012-10-30 12:25:37 PM  

Fart_Machine: States are already first responders. The whole point of FEMA is to provide them any aid if it reaches beyond what they can handle. The Romney campaign has a knack for using lots of words to say precisely nothing.


And the governor of the state must apply for such aid, have his state declared a federal disaster area, and the president must approve. Further, if the cost of amount of aid exceeds a predetermined limit, the Congress must approve a special appropriation. I don't know about the anti-government wing nuts, but I think this is a better way of spending tax dollars on disaster relief than just throwing a bag of cash at a state to do with what it wants.
 
2012-10-30 12:25:43 PM  
crooksandliars.com
 
2012-10-30 12:25:44 PM  
 
2012-10-30 12:25:44 PM  

DjangoStonereaver: You just know that the rabid right-wing conspiracy nuts (AKA the GOP's base) are now thinking that the
ZOG has got to Rmoney and implanted him with the Mark of the Beasttm brain control chip.


Actually, the GOP base is thinking, "I have no idea what any of Romney's policies really will be, but would check a box labeled 'Someone Else' when the other box is next to a black guy."
 
2012-10-30 12:25:46 PM  
I hope Romney goes down in history as the Presidential candidate (chosen by his peers) as:

"The man who stood for everything, and simultaneously for nothing."
 
2012-10-30 12:25:49 PM  
*YARN*

If Mitt does win, this country deserves him.
 
2012-10-30 12:26:41 PM  
Wait wait wait...can somebody tell me if its ok to blame this hurricane on Bush or not? According to 2005,he DOES have the power to contrl the weather, after all.
 
2012-10-30 12:26:42 PM  
I'll repost what I saw on GMA this morning since we're talking FEMA:

I just saw Chris Christie (on Good Morning America) praise Obama, the Administration, and FEMA for their performance working with NJ regarding Sandy.

My first thought:
"A nationally-known Republican who may well run in 2016 is praising Obama's job performance a week before the election on a nationally broadcast morning show?!" (I think in long, comma-free sentences)

I can't remember the last time a well-known Republican who is still active in politics praised Obama for anything. Well, except for Mitt at the last debate saying Obama's foreign policy was what he'd do, but he'd do it better. Not sure if that counts....
 
2012-10-30 12:26:49 PM  

Cletus C.: Vodka Zombie: Cletus C.: Has Obama declared this an act of nature yet?

Or is he blaming it on some incendiary hurricane-chasing youtube video?

You're trying too hard. Go to bed.

Perhaps you're right. This is no time to joke. Businesses Obama built are being destroyed.


You sound desperate, and tired. I've seen much better from you.
 
2012-10-30 12:26:58 PM  

papatex: I, for one, would love less government control. If this means less help when in bad times, well, so be it.

Anyway to cut costs.

Do you have any insurance policies in your name? If so, why? You clearly would rather cut costs then be prepared for catastrophes. Federal aid for disasters is like a country wide insurance policy. Its always easy to say "cut costs for emergencies" until you're the one that needs help.
 
2012-10-30 12:27:08 PM  
Getting Romney's to settle on a position is like trying to nail Jello to a tree.
 
2012-10-30 12:27:58 PM  

Citrate1007: What is more disturbing to me is not that he flip flopped, but that his mouth breathing base thought it was a good idea to disband FEMA in the first place.


They're still wetting themselves over the death camp thing
 
2012-10-30 12:28:01 PM  
Shameless, but certainly not surprising...

The man is an empty suit devoid of any character or consistency.
 
2012-10-30 12:28:04 PM  

adamgreeney: The sarcasm and satire of Fark is now becoming actual reality. Fark will tip so far into satire that it will come back around to serious news commentary......


It happened to the Onion.
 
2012-10-30 12:28:06 PM  
If Mitt does win, this country deserves him.

Don't scare me. After all, we voted for the shrub.....twice....
 
2012-10-30 12:28:07 PM  
Flip-flops are so 99%. Mittens wouldn't be caught dead in them. Reversible jackets? Well, that's another thing.

Now get back to work! The GOP has more wealth to transfer upward.
 
2012-10-30 12:28:16 PM  

jasimo: My first thought:
"A nationally-known Republican who may well run in 2016 is praising Obama's job performance a week before the election on a nationally broadcast morning show?!" (I think in long, comma-free sentences)


Your second thought should have been:
"Well, of course, he isn't going to be able to run against an incumbent Romney in 2016 and there's a good chance his heart will give out on him before 2020"
 
2012-10-30 12:28:40 PM  

AFKobel: Governor Romney, there are times when we're fifty states and there are times when we're one country, and have national needs. And the way I know this is that Massachusetts didn't fight Germany in World War II or establish civil rights. You think states should do the governing wall-to-wall. That's a perfectly valid opinion. But your state of Massachusetts got $12.6 billion in federal money last year - from Nebraskans, and Virginians, and New Yorkers, and Alaskans, with their Eskimo poetry. 12.6 out of a state budget of $32 billion. I'm supposed to be using this time for a question, so here it is: Can we have it back, please?


Why the fark are you addressing Massachusetts when talking to Romney? He has fark-all to do with this state now, and he has everything to do why this state has had some recent budget problems. And Massachusetts is still a net contributor to the federal coffers, so you can take your request and stick it up your ass.
 
2012-10-30 12:29:13 PM  
One the most obvious things in the narrative of this election is "No one actually wants Romney in charge". I've seen lots of support for the character and actions of Obama, but no one actually seems to like Romney. Even the die hard Republican supporters tend to speak about the negatives of Obama, never the positives of Romney.

That's not surprising, as he's clearly the "best we had to offer" for this election, but it's telling all the same.
 
2012-10-30 12:29:25 PM  

Fart_Machine: BravadoGT: No, Mitt Romney Doesn't Really Want to Kill Off FEMA, say right-wing nutjobs at....The Atlantic?

So what your article states is that Romney left enough wiggle room to talk out of both sides of his face again. Well that's quite an endorsement.


At least it was honest, unlike Salon, who misstates the question John King asked Romney in order to fit the template of their argument here. in TFA Salon writes:

In a GOP primary debate in June of last year, moderator John King asked Romney if he would let states take on the responsibilities of FEMA, which was "about to run out of money." "Absolutely," Romney replied. "And 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. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that's even better... We cannot - we cannot afford to do those things," he added.

When, in actuality, King asked Romney if, in light of FEMA's serious budget problems, he would let states take on MORE of the responsibilities of FEMA.

That's a different question, and changes the meaning of the answer. You can see the actual video of the exchange
When, in actuality, King asked Romney if, in light of FEMA's serious budget problems, he would let states take on MORE of the responsibilities of FEMA.

That's a different question, and changes the meaning of the answer. " target="_blank">here.
 
2012-10-30 12:29:34 PM  

BravadoGT: No, Mitt Romney Doesn't Really Want to Kill Off FEMA, say right-wing nutjobs at....The Atlantic?


Note how they go out of their way to give Romney the benefit of the doubt, instead of taking his words at face value. It's basically a 'well, if we view it like this, then maybe hes not saying what he said' sort of thing.

Piss poor journalism at work.
 
2012-10-30 12:29:52 PM  
I really want to vote for Mitt Romney, but since I won't know what his opinions will actually be on election day until election day I haven't actually made up my mind yet.
 
2012-10-30 12:30:06 PM  
Like any federally-run agency, you can't cut it cold turkey. You have to phase it out gradually.
 
2012-10-30 12:30:10 PM  
Romney is in favor of getting rid of FEMA. But, since we are in a crisis, the disaster has hit, and we have trained the entire country to rely on the federal government for everything, he is supporting their efforts now. It would be like changing the rules after the game has begun.

I know the article in Salon referenced all the wonderful work and coordination that occurs when the federal government is in charge and they try to make you believe that only the federal government can perform that. If you have studied a little history, you may recall that the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 occurred prior to any federal relief programs, as did the Great Chicago Fire. In both instances, the devastation was incredible. In both instances, the relief came from private individuals, bank loans, private investment and even foreign countries. In neither case was there a FEMA. In both cases, rebuilding was fairly quick and robust.

Compare that to Katrina in New Orleans and the wonderful work of FEMA. You may recall that private companies (even the hated Wal-Mart) and relief agencies were quicker on the scene. You may recall that, even though there was advanced warning (notably lacking in San Francisco or Chicago) the city was unprepared because the mayor and governor had the option of ignoring warnings and advice and exercised that option. Rebuilding has been incredibly slow, in large part because of all the red tape surrounding FEMA. Note: the red tape isn't a poltical issue. It is an immutable law of too-large bureaucracies. Which is why FEMA should be phased out and control increasingly put on states and private insurance companies.
 
2012-10-30 12:30:40 PM  
"Cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things; but we do not like the way the present Administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them-we will do more of them, we will do them better; and, most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything."
 
2012-10-30 12:30:52 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: I really want to vote for Mitt Romney


And here we have the first time someone has ever uttered this sentence in the history of ever.
 
2012-10-30 12:30:53 PM  

Antimatter: Piss poor journalism at work.


You misspelled "stenography".
 
2012-10-30 12:31:02 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Lets just put every politics submission on the main page for the next week. Should be fun


No I avoid the politics tab because people have no clue what they are reading or how it is spun, these articles rely on just emotion instead of actual facts.

Right now states do not have anything set up like FEMA, a few do, like NY but by and large if shiat hits the fan then local municipalities have no idea how to deal with it. Its why NO turned into a shiat fest, Bush was asking what they needed and the governor along with the mayor both were pissing and moaning about who or what office should be in charge. They have no clear direction and they are more knowledgeable at a local level than a federal level but they all rely on federal departments to fix shiat.

But then we should expect this spin so close to an election, others people aren't the sheep we have come to know and despise.
 
2012-10-30 12:31:07 PM  

BravadoGT: Fart_Machine: BravadoGT: No, Mitt Romney Doesn't Really Want to Kill Off FEMA, say right-wing nutjobs at....The Atlantic?

So what your article states is that Romney left enough wiggle room to talk out of both sides of his face again. Well that's quite an endorsement.

At least it was honest, unlike Salon, who misstates the question John King asked Romney in order to fit the template of their argument here. in TFA Salon writes:

In a GOP primary debate in June of last year, moderator John King asked Romney if he would let states take on the responsibilities of FEMA, which was "about to run out of money." "Absolutely," Romney replied. "And 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. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that's even better... We cannot - we cannot afford to do those things," he added.

When, in actuality, King asked Romney if, in light of FEMA's serious budget problems, he would let states take on MORE of the responsibilities of FEMA.

That's a different question, and changes the meaning of the answer. You can see the actual video of the exchange
When, in actuality, King asked Romney if, in light of FEMA's serious budget problems, he would let states take on MORE of the responsibilities of FEMA.

That's a different question, and changes the meaning of the answer. " target="_blank">here.


Well, something went wrong there!

anyway, the link for the video is here
 
2012-10-30 12:31:31 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Citrate1007: What is more disturbing to me is not that he flip flopped, but that his mouth breathing base thought it was a good idea to disband FEMA in the first place.

They're still wetting themselves over the death camp thing


Oh I forgot, Obama is the ultimate Manchurian candidate and is waiting for his 2nd term to [insert paranoid right wing racist conspiracy]
 
2012-10-30 12:31:39 PM  

Spare Me: When FEMA, once again, proves its uselessness, I'm sure you all will offer your apologies for your stupidity.


Name another time than the New Orleans part of Katrina that FEMA farked up. Got the googler working?

I don't need it for these counterexamples where FEMA got high marks. Working backward, from memory:
The Joplin tornadoes, the Mississippi/Alabama parts of Katrina, Rita, the 2003 hurricanes (though I don't quite remember how much FEMA was involved), 9/11, the blizzards of '96-'97 (I think it was '96, the last time a hurricane hit a Nor'easter), the Murrah building (OKC), the WTC bombing in '93.

And countless minor instances where people used the information FEMA has to save themselves/their houses.
 
2012-10-30 12:32:16 PM  
I don't see this as a flip flop.

Under the current system, Fema has to get involved.

Romney would like it to be at the state level, which is where it should be. Federal $ would still be doled out, but the operation would be handled by the state. State programs are usually more efficient than federal programs, reducing the cost.
 
2012-10-30 12:32:48 PM  

Spare Me: When FEMA, once again, proves its uselessness, I'm sure you all will offer your apologies for your stupidity.


You're going to be disappointed. FEMA does okay when it isn't headed by a man whose only meaningful job experience was managing horse shows.
 
2012-10-30 12:34:03 PM  

generallyso: meaningful job experience was managing horse shows.


You would think that romney would love that.
 
2012-10-30 12:34:45 PM  
So I'm pretty much voting for Obama at this point just because "Fark Mitt". Thanks, republican party. Buncha farkin douchenozzles.
 
2012-10-30 12:34:50 PM  

BravadoGT: At least it was honest, unlike Salon, who misstates the question John King asked Romney in order to fit the template of their argument here. in TFA Salon writes:

In a GOP primary debate in June of last year, moderator John King asked Romney if he would let states take on the responsibilities of FEMA, which was "about to run out of money." "Absolutely," Romney replied. "And 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. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that's even better... We cannot - we cannot afford to do those things," he added.

When, in actuality, King asked Romney if, in light of FEMA's serious budget problems, he would let states take on MORE of the responsibilities of FEMA.

That's a different question, and changes the meaning of the answer. You can see the actual video of the exchange
When, in actuality, King asked Romney if, in light of FEMA's serious budget problems, he would let states take on MORE of the responsibilities of FEMA.

That's a different question, and changes the meaning of the answer. " target="_blank">here.


Yea, you know, let's just go ahead and say you're right. Your argument is that Mitt then would weaken FEMA and Mitt today is cool with FEMA.

Fundamentally, exactly nothing changes. Mitt Romney is still a two-faced sack of shiat who refuses to take an open and honest position on any issue. You're arguing degrees because you have real argument. I'm not any more convinced of Mitt Romney's integrity even if I arbitrarily accept your argument because your argument still doesn't shine a good light on Mitt Romney's missing integrity.
 
2012-10-30 12:35:10 PM  

pxsteel: I don't see this as a flip flop.

Under the current system, Fema has to get involved.

Romney would like it to be at the state level, which is where it should be. Federal $ would still be doled out, but the operation would be handled by the state. State programs are usually more efficient than federal programs, reducing the cost.


i see you have no idea how fema operates. Fairly comon for conservatives, who though putting a guy in charge of horse shows in as it's boss was a good idea.

The states always dot the command parts, fema just coordinates the federal stuff so they don't have to.
 
2012-10-30 12:35:14 PM  

papatex: Anyway to cut costs.


Are you cutting costs by removing the space between "any" and "way"?
 
2012-10-30 12:35:19 PM  

Pool "asked Romney at least five times whether he would eliminate FEMA as president/what he would do with FEMA." He ignored the questions.

- Sabrina Siddiqui (@SabrinaSiddiqui) October 30, 2012


Brave Sir Romney.
 
2012-10-30 12:35:25 PM  

pxsteel: I don't see this as a flip flop.

Under the current system, Fema has to get involved.

Romney would like it to be at the state level, which is where it should be. Federal $ would still be doled out, but the operation would be handled by the state. State programs are usually more efficient than federal programs, reducing the cost.


Explain to me how state programs are more effective when they're right smack in the middle of the disaster.
 
2012-10-30 12:36:40 PM  
Shocking. Rmoney is a lying hypocrite.

Who knew?
 
2012-10-30 12:37:10 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Lets just put every politics submission on the main page for the next week. Should be fun


This guy is an inch away from becoming president of the USA. You don't think that's even mildly important?
 
2012-10-30 12:37:50 PM  

steamingpile: Right now states do not have anything set up like FEMA, a few do, like NY but by and large if shiat hits the fan then local municipalities have no idea how to deal with it.


Every state - and some that aren't states, like Micronesia and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands - has both an Office of Emergency Management (though it might be phrased differently) and a State Emergency Manager.

How do I know that? I helped track down addresses and phone numbers to create this list.

// yes, I had to call CNMI - from the East Coast - to get info
// something like a 15-year time difference over there
 
2012-10-30 12:38:15 PM  

mooseyfate: So I'm pretty much voting for Obama at this point just because "Fark Mitt". Thanks, republican party. Buncha farkin douchenozzles.


You SHOULD be voting for Obama because Mitt's (and the republican party's) platform is basically "fark you".

If you aren't pulling down more than a quarter million a year and you vote for Mitt Romney, you're a gotdang moron and there's nothing more to it. The fact that either a) Obama isn't going to win with 95% of the popular vote or b) a third party candidate is going to make a very, very strong showing in the popular vote just goes to show how incredibly stupid nearly half of this country really is.
 
2012-10-30 12:38:21 PM  

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: markie_farkie: So let's see now, the only position he's consistently held since day one has been to de-fund NPR?

And kill big bird, over turn Roe v. Wade, and defund Planned Parenthood. And bomb Iran. All before lunch on day 1.


Nope.
 
2012-10-30 12:39:48 PM  

Spartacus Outlaw: I would never vote for Mitt Romney, but I don't see how his unidentified spokesman's statement that Romney wants to ensure that the states have the resources and assistance they need to cope with natural disasters is confirming that Romney wants to eliminate FEMA. Now, Romney saying in the debate that he absolutely would eliminate FEMA is another story, but the recent statement from his campaign is a lot less absolute.


That's... that's kind of the point.

Romney: Spending money on FEMA immoral
[major disaster]
Romney: Whooo, FEMA!
 
2012-10-30 12:40:15 PM  
I know this joke's been told into the ground, dug up, washed off, killed with fire, and exorcised, but it still applies:

A liberal, a conservative and a moderate all walk into a bar. Bartender says "Hi, Mitt".
 
2012-10-30 12:40:17 PM  

theorellior: AFKobel: Governor Romney, there are times when we're fifty states and there are times when we're one country, and have national needs. And the way I know this is that Massachusetts didn't fight Germany in World War II or establish civil rights. You think states should do the governing wall-to-wall. That's a perfectly valid opinion. But your state of Massachusetts got $12.6 billion in federal money last year - from Nebraskans, and Virginians, and New Yorkers, and Alaskans, with their Eskimo poetry. 12.6 out of a state budget of $32 billion. I'm supposed to be using this time for a question, so here it is: Can we have it back, please?

Why the fark are you addressing Massachusetts when talking to Romney? He has fark-all to do with this state now, and he has everything to do why this state has had some recent budget problems. And Massachusetts is still a net contributor to the federal coffers, so you can take your request and stick it up your ass.


it's a reworked west wing quote.
 
2012-10-30 12:40:34 PM  

Mr. Right: Romney is in favor of getting rid of FEMA. But, since we are in a crisis, the disaster has hit, and we have trained the entire country to rely on the federal government for everything, he is supporting their efforts now. It would be like changing the rules after the game has begun.

I know the article in Salon referenced all the wonderful work and coordination that occurs when the federal government is in charge and they try to make you believe that only the federal government can perform that. If you have studied a little history, you may recall that the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 occurred prior to any federal relief programs, as did the Great Chicago Fire. In both instances, the devastation was incredible. In both instances, the relief came from private individuals, bank loans, private investment and even foreign countries. In neither case was there a FEMA. In both cases, rebuilding was fairly quick and robust.

Compare that to Katrina in New Orleans and the wonderful work of FEMA. You may recall that private companies (even the hated Wal-Mart) and relief agencies were quicker on the scene. You may recall that, even though there was advanced warning (notably lacking in San Francisco or Chicago) the city was unprepared because the mayor and governor had the option of ignoring warnings and advice and exercised that option. Rebuilding has been incredibly slow, in large part because of all the red tape surrounding FEMA. Note: the red tape isn't a poltical issue. It is an immutable law of too-large bureaucracies. Which is why FEMA should be phased out and control increasingly put on states and private insurance companies.

San Francisco earthquake of 1906... Great Chicago Fire

Neither one of those were national events. Nice try comparing apples to fruit nobody has ever heard off.


Compare that to Katrina in New Orleans and the wonderful work of FEMA
If you studied a little history, you'll learn that the previously effective FEMA under Clinton was gutted and run by an unqualified Bush appointee. Way to deflect the blame from Republicans...

Which is why FEMA should be phased out and control increasingly put on states and private insurance companies.
STATES RIGHTS! PRIVATIZE IT.

Your post would have been complete except for your missing call to cut taxes for the wealthy.
 
2012-10-30 12:41:10 PM  
In the event of a Hurricane, Mitt Romney will be sure to see which way the wind is blowing.
 
2012-10-30 12:41:55 PM  

Stile4aly: In the event of a Hurricane, Mitt Romney will be sure to see which way the wind is blowing.


The fact that it's usually blowing in all directions will suit him nicely then.
 
2012-10-30 12:42:07 PM  

zarberg: pxsteel: I don't see this as a flip flop.

Under the current system, Fema has to get involved.

Romney would like it to be at the state level, which is where it should be. Federal $ would still be doled out, but the operation would be handled by the state. State programs are usually more efficient than federal programs, reducing the cost.

Explain to me how state programs are more effective when they're right smack in the middle of the disaster.


The issue is capacity not who can do it better. If a city exceeds their response capacity, they go to the State, if the State exceed their response capacity, they go to the Feds.

I assume under Romney, the State would go directly to the UN for help.
 
2012-10-30 12:42:33 PM  

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: markie_farkie: So let's see now, the only position he's consistently held since day one has been to de-fund NPR?

And kill big bird, over turn Roe v. Wade, and defund Planned Parenthood. And bomb Iran. All before lunch on day 1.


I'm not cynical like the most of you.. when Romney flip flops I believe he genuinely flip flops... as in he genuinely believe in his 'new' position at that moment in time however long that belief may last.

However, on the things that he has NOT flip flop on like the ones you mentioned.. that is the true Romney and those positions will likely be his beliefs and policy making if or when he becomes president.

In other words things like big bird, Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood will be what he said they will be. Those things he has been 100% consistent on.

Most American do not realize that a couple of the SCOTUS justices are old and very likely be replaced in the next cycle. If only they are more cognizant of this fact, the American public will put more stock into this election cycle because it WILL make a difference.

Personally I think Roe v Wade will always be on the table and I think it's only a matter of time before it gets overturn.
 
2012-10-30 12:42:50 PM  
As I mentioned in the other thread on this topic:

[Romney's] infamous changes of stance are not little wispy ideological alterations of a few degrees here or there - they are perfect and absolute mathematical reversals, as in "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country" and "I am firmly pro-life." Yet unlike other politicians, who at least recognize that saying completely contradictory things presents a political problem, Romney seems genuinely puzzled by the public's insistence that he be consistent. "I'm not going to apologize for having changed my mind," he likes to say. It's an attitude that recalls the standard defense offered by Wall Street in the wake of some of its most recent and notorious crimes: Goldman Sachs excused its lying to clients, for example, by insisting that its customers are "sophisticated investors" who should expect to be lied to. - Matt Taibbi

That's exactly the way I think Romney sees voters. Mitt sees the election as a game of saying anything it takes to win, and the voters are people who should expect to be lied to in exchange for their support. What policy is going to make them happy today? And if Mitt wins, he's changed his positions so many times that whatever he does, he can say it was part of his plan that he mentioned during the campaign. The sad part is that for half the country, this is working.
 
2012-10-30 12:42:58 PM  

Cletus C.: Has Obama declared this an act of nature yet?

Or is he blaming it on some incendiary hurricane-chasing youtube video?


Evasion noted.
 
2012-10-30 12:43:34 PM  

Muta: This article went green at about 12:05. From the thread below:

President declares federal disaster area in NY in the wake of hurricane Sandy. Romney to announce his severe love for FEMA and federal disaster aid by noon today

I'll call it a win for Fark.


This.
 
2012-10-30 12:43:40 PM  

Citrate1007: What is more disturbing to me is not that he flip flopped, but that his mouth breathing base thought it was a good idea to disband FEMA in the first place.


Not to worry, if Mitt wins his base will get the chance to drown in the dark without help.
 
2012-10-30 12:44:07 PM  
papatex: Anyway to cut costs.

Are you cutting costs by removing the space between "any" and "way"?


thank you that was funny.
 
2012-10-30 12:44:57 PM  

pxsteel: Romney would like it to be at the state level, which is where it should be. Federal $ would still be doled out, but the operation would be handled by the state. State programs are usually more efficient than federal programs, reducing the cost.


Unless the state's infrastructure and ability to manage an operation has been completely shattered. Pretty tough to go all bootstrappy if your entire command and control capability has been destroyed.
 
2012-10-30 12:45:06 PM  
MitTron must pander. Pander. Pander. MitTron must pander.


www.clivebanks.co.uk 


Seriously at this point if you don't line who MitTron claims to be, just wait five minutes.
 
2012-10-30 12:45:28 PM  

Mr. Right: Romney is in favor of getting rid of FEMA. But, since we are in a crisis, the disaster has hit, and we have trained the entire country to rely on the federal government for everything, he is supporting their efforts now. It would be like changing the rules after the game has begun.

I know the article in Salon referenced all the wonderful work and coordination that occurs when the federal government is in charge and they try to make you believe that only the federal government can perform that. If you have studied a little history, you may recall that the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 occurred prior to any federal relief programs, as did the Great Chicago Fire. In both instances, the devastation was incredible. In both instances, the relief came from private individuals, bank loans, private investment and even foreign countries. In neither case was there a FEMA. In both cases, rebuilding was fairly quick and robust.

Compare that to Katrina in New Orleans and the wonderful work of FEMA. You may recall that private companies (even the hated Wal-Mart) and relief agencies were quicker on the scene. You may recall that, even though there was advanced warning (notably lacking in San Francisco or Chicago) the city was unprepared because the mayor and governor had the option of ignoring warnings and advice and exercised that option. Rebuilding has been incredibly slow, in large part because of all the red tape surrounding FEMA. Note: the red tape isn't a poltical issue. It is an immutable law of too-large bureaucracies. Which is why FEMA should be phased out and control increasingly put on states and private insurance companies.


Yes, let's not have a national infrastructure in place for natural disasters which stretch across regions of the United States.

Every state will have its own disaster response agencies, and private companies will donate supplies or sell them cheaply at their own discretion and benediction.

/Good job on proving why FEMA was needed and created in the first place via your second paragraph, though.
 
2012-10-30 12:45:54 PM  

Cletus C.: Has Obama declared this an act of nature yet?

Or is he blaming it on some incendiary hurricane-chasing youtube video?


Last I heard, Obama was blaming the gales of butthurt coming from your ass.
 
2012-10-30 12:46:30 PM  

Cletus C.: Vodka Zombie: Cletus C.: Has Obama declared this an act of nature yet?

Or is he blaming it on some incendiary hurricane-chasing youtube video?

You're trying too hard. Go to bed.

Perhaps you're right. This is no time to joke. Businesses Obama built are being destroyed.


No. It's a perfect time to joke.

Just leave it to those who are smart enough to make those jokes. What you're spewing is just, well... it's stupid, actually.

Seriously. Just leave this to your betters, okay?
 
2012-10-30 12:46:33 PM  
Not so fast, there's still a week left to go. By my calculations, Romney still has time to change his position about 17 more times.
 
2012-10-30 12:47:24 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Hurricane Sandy left millions suffering

Hey, wasn't this at about the time of the Katrina disaster where the Huffington Post claimed the cannibalism had begun? About lunch time the day after?


There was no cannibalism, they all died of dysentery on the Oregon trail.
 
2012-10-30 12:47:28 PM  

imontheinternet: Not so fast, there's still a week left to go. By my calculations, Romney still has time to change his position about 17 more times.


I think you're undersampling.
 
2012-10-30 12:48:07 PM  
Seriously?!?!
Three greenlit stories on Romney and FEMA?
(four Romney so far today)
We get it ModMins. Your Liberal Democrats.

Now do you think you can get back to work and look at a few of the other five thousand of submitted links that aren't political and about Romney?
Or at least keep them to the Politics tab? They can't get enough of things about Romney to whine about over there.
 
2012-10-30 12:48:10 PM  
Rebuilding has been incredibly slow, in large part because of all the red tape surrounding FEMA. Note: the red tape isn't a poltical issue. It is an immutable law of too-large bureaucracies. Which is why FEMA should be phased out and control increasingly put on states and private insurance companies.

THIS.

Yet the Flaming Proletariat here at Fark can't seem to realize this is the core reason why people want big government scaled back. Farkistan wails and moans at the depredations of the TSA, CIA, FBI, yadda yadda yadda, but are now enthusiastic supporters of red tape bound FEMA.

Big organizations are inherently dangerous, and should be avoided. If states can handle something, they should.

If private organizations can handle a societal need, they should.

Who certifies the quality and strength of materials and fasteners that hold virtually everything together? A private organization called ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials)

Why can't the functions of the FDA be provided by a similar organization? Who pioneered consumer safety? Not the government. Underwriters Labs (UL) did. Yeah, the little UL tag on your toaster cord. We don't NEED the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It's a government boondoggle.

And all these large government entities have lots of power. Power that can be used to hurt you.

Think about that before you reflexively attack small government/states rights advocates.....
 
2012-10-30 12:48:38 PM  
I guess the trees along the eastern seaboard are the perfect height now.
 
2012-10-30 12:48:39 PM  

pxsteel: I don't see this as a flip flop.

Under the current system, Fema has to get involved.

Romney would like it to be at the state level, which is where it should be. Federal $ would still be doled out, but the operation would be handled by the state. State programs are usually more efficient than federal programs, reducing the cost.


There still needs to be co-ordination between states, and the ability to mobilize resources in an effective manner. There's no way individual states can handle that more effectively than a federal level program. The answer lies in between: State involved operations with local input, backed with the logistics of a federal response team.
 
2012-10-30 12:48:44 PM  

GardenWeasel: Cletus C.: Has Obama declared this an act of nature yet?

Or is he blaming it on some incendiary hurricane-chasing youtube video?

Last I heard, Obama was blaming the gales of butthurt coming from your ass.


May I use that?
 
2012-10-30 12:49:01 PM  

bdub77: Maud Dib: [latinorebels.com image 550x448]

*shakes tiny etch a sketch*


you mean like this?
www.geekalerts.com

/hot
 
2012-10-30 12:49:07 PM  

papatex: I, for one, would love less government control. If this means less help when in bad times, well, so be it.

Anyway to cut costs.


I may be feeding a troll here, but fark it. While I don't agree with you, I respect that your opinion is your opinion. While perhaps it may one day evolve when other facts and knowledge are gained (or not), it is an opinion grounded enough in your core belief system that it will not be swayed with the slightest provocation.

Romney's isn't.

Or maybe it is. Maybe he still thinks he should cut FEMA, but doesn't want to admit that after a natural disaster effecting several states happens a week before election day. Either way, he's a coward. And probably a liar too.
 
2012-10-30 12:49:45 PM  

verbaltoxin: GardenWeasel: Cletus C.: Has Obama declared this an act of nature yet?

Or is he blaming it on some incendiary hurricane-chasing youtube video?

Last I heard, Obama was blaming the gales of butthurt coming from your ass.

May I use that?


Lol, have at it.
 
2012-10-30 12:49:56 PM  

pxsteel: I don't see this as a flip flop.

Under the current system, Fema has to get involved.

Romney would like it to be at the state level, which is where it should be. Federal $ would still be doled out, but the operation would be handled by the state. State programs are usually more efficient than federal programs, reducing the cost.


So we should fragment national programs and have to increase the administrative overhead, introduce more complex communication protocols and funding. Poor states will have a non-functioning system, richer states will respond more effectively, etc.

Imagine the Interstate highway system, the FAA, the FDA, the USDA, etc. all being locally controlled. That will add to the amount of government overhead and costs. Then imagine how complex it would be for businesses to comply with each state's ideosyncratic changes to standard processes.

Balkanization rarely has benefits other than benefit local power-hungry government fiefdoms. Now watch your state taxes and fees skyrocket.

If "States' Rights" were really a GOP goal, they'd allow each state to decide on medical pot and marriage freedom...but they don't.

They only want more state control ONLY when they're not in power, then when they are in power they increase the Federal budget and payroll with unqualified morons to encourage dysfunction and failure so that their marketing department has something to point to.

Domestic terrorism at its finest.
 
2012-10-30 12:50:47 PM  

Rwa2play: Cletus C.: Has Obama declared this an act of nature yet?

Or is he blaming it on some incendiary hurricane-chasing youtube video?

Evasion noted.


You need to try harder.

Take something Obama said, or didn't say, and twist it to fit your ideological bent.

Take something Romney said, or didn't say, and twist it to fit your ideological bent.

It's fun and easy. If you're one of those special people deep up the backside, you connect the dots and arrive at your desired conclusion.

Obama said fark you to Americans under attack
Romney said fark you to hurricane victims
 
2012-10-30 12:51:00 PM  

verbaltoxin: GardenWeasel: Cletus C.: Has Obama declared this an act of nature yet?

Or is he blaming it on some incendiary hurricane-chasing youtube video?

Last I heard, Obama was blaming the gales of butthurt coming from your ass.

May I use that?


The shiat winds are blowin', Randy.
 
2012-10-30 12:51:23 PM  

verbaltoxin: GardenWeasel: Cletus C.: Has Obama declared this an act of nature yet?

Or is he blaming it on some incendiary hurricane-chasing youtube video?

Last I heard, Obama was blaming the gales of butthurt coming from your ass.

May I use that?


♫ The shills it is said, never give up their derp, when the gales of butthurt come early... ♫
 
2012-10-30 12:51:34 PM  

pxsteel: I don't see this as a flip flop.

Under the current system, Fema has to get involved.

Romney would like it to be at the state level, which is where it should be. Federal $ would still be doled out, but the operation would be handled by the state. State programs are usually more efficient than federal programs, reducing the cost.


That is what happens already. FEMA only steps in when states request them to. FEMA also offers the coordination that is needed when there is a multi-state event. What Mitt is proposing would create another Katrina. Also you need to leave the private sector out of disaster management, there is no moral grounds for them to make a profit and cost the government even more during events.
 
2012-10-30 12:51:48 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Hurricane Sandy left millions suffering

Hey, wasn't this at about the time of the Katrina disaster where the Huffington Post claimed the cannibalism had begun? About lunch time the day after?


I think shrub was playing Guitar Hero and letting them eat cake, IIRC.
 
2012-10-30 12:52:07 PM  

lohphat: If "States' Rights" were really a GOP goal, they'd allow each state to decide on medical pot and marriage freedom...but they don't.


I lean Democrat the vast majority of the time, but the medical pot issue could have easily been solved (albeit temporarily) by Obama by simply telling the right authorities/agencies to not enforce the law in that specific instance. I blame him on this one.
 
2012-10-30 12:52:09 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Cletus C.: Vodka Zombie: Cletus C.: Has Obama declared this an act of nature yet?

Or is he blaming it on some incendiary hurricane-chasing youtube video?

You're trying too hard. Go to bed.

Perhaps you're right. This is no time to joke. Businesses Obama built are being destroyed.

No. It's a perfect time to joke.

Just leave it to those who are smart enough to make those jokes. What you're spewing is just, well... it's stupid, actually.

Seriously. Just leave this to your betters, okay?


Oh snap.
 
2012-10-30 12:53:00 PM  
he is a flip flop a hole
 
2012-10-30 12:53:55 PM  

Fart_Machine: States are already first responders. The whole point of FEMA is to provide them any aid if it reaches beyond what they can handle. The Romney campaign has a knack for using lots of words to say precisely nothing.


Usually. It seems in this case however, Romney saying he'll be "giving x safety net program to the states" just means he plans on gutting it or defunding it entirely on the federal level, then wiping his hands on his servant-laundered pants.

Take Medicaid for instance... he said the same thing about that, but states already handle their own state-specific programs while adhering to federal law and guidelines. "Giving it to the states" in this case just means to kill that 90% federal funding. Medicaid would then be dead in the water... under all of those shiny new battleships.

What his supporters don't seem to understand is that, instead of the government figuratively holding you at gunpoint for this money, the would-be recipients might step in with a more literal role if things get desperate enough for them. I can easily see large groups of displaced people take matters into their own hands if they are lacking basic necessities, funds to move/rebuild, and somewhere to go in the meantime.

Of course, all of this would have to get through the legislative branch first. The scary thing is, if there's a Republican majority in both the house and senate for whatever odd reason, there is no telling how much damage will be done.
 
2012-10-30 12:54:08 PM  

BravadoGT: Fart_Machine: BravadoGT: No, Mitt Romney Doesn't Really Want to Kill Off FEMA, say right-wing nutjobs at....The Atlantic?

So what your article states is that Romney left enough wiggle room to talk out of both sides of his face again. Well that's quite an endorsement.

At least it was honest, unlike Salon, who misstates the question John King asked Romney in order to fit the template of their argument here. in TFA Salon writes:

In a GOP primary debate in June of last year, moderator John King asked Romney if he would let states take on the responsibilities of FEMA, which was "about to run out of money." "Absolutely," Romney replied. "And 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. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that's even better... We cannot - we cannot afford to do those things," he added.

When, in actuality, King asked Romney if, in light of FEMA's serious budget problems, he would let states take on MORE of the responsibilities of FEMA.

That's a different question, and changes the meaning of the answer. You can see the actual video of the exchange
When, in actuality, King asked Romney if, in light of FEMA's serious budget problems, he would let states take on MORE of the responsibilities of FEMA.

That's a different question, and changes the meaning of the answer. " target="_blank">here.


Their response was, in their terms, being "charitable" to Romney. In most campaigns a candidate differentiates his positions from his opponent. In the case of Romney what he stands for shifts like the wind. Given that states are already first responders you will still need to shore up FEMA with funding if you want to make sure the states will be taken care of and that means Federal dollars.
 
2012-10-30 12:55:34 PM  
Haven't heard this much "No I didn't!" and "Me too!" since elementary school.
At least there you only heard one at a time.
 
2012-10-30 12:55:43 PM  
Mitt was severely for dismantling FEMA before he was against dismantling FEMA. Obviously, the man can't be relied upon to do anything as president other than seeing to the care and feeding of the 1%. Have a nice off season GOP. Who will you spring on us in 2016?
 
2012-10-30 12:56:02 PM  
water is still wet

But is Lemonade still Lemon, Wet and Good?
 
2012-10-30 12:57:14 PM  

pxsteel: I don't see this as a flip flop.

Under the current system, Fema has to get involved.

Romney would like it to be at the state level, which is where it should be. Federal $ would still be doled out, but the operation would be handled by the state. State programs are usually more efficient than federal programs, reducing the cost.


Why do federal dollars need to be doled out? It will never be enough and the states have an interest to show that it isn't enough so they will botch the management of their disasters to get more money from the federal government. If the American people want to help these special needs states, they can donate their own money to the cause. If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.
 
2012-10-30 12:57:46 PM  

Cletus C.: Vodka Zombie: Cletus C.: Has Obama declared this an act of nature yet?

Or is he blaming it on some incendiary hurricane-chasing youtube video?

You're trying too hard. Go to bed.

Perhaps you're right. This is no time to joke. Businesses Obama built are being destroyed.


i301.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-30 12:59:00 PM  
Forgot to summarize what I was getting at.

The Romney campaign has the knack, not to say a lot of words that mean nothing, but to say a lot of words that mean "fark you, I've got mine" unlike the past republican administration that just cut to the chase and told you straight to your face. I'll give them credit where credit's due at least.
 
2012-10-30 12:59:08 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.


I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?
 
2012-10-30 01:01:21 PM  

Prey4reign: Who will you spring on us in 2016?


Whoever came in 2nd for the nomination this year.

Cons only want (us) to be ruled by their oligarchy, so if they can't find a Bush then they'll go back to the first loser on deck. 

Look at their history - it's all they know.
 
2012-10-30 01:02:08 PM  
I like how conservatives' alternative to FEMA is empowering states and private entities to do what they're already doing, minus the national level structure FEMA provides.

Did I say "I like it?" Wait, I don't. It's fundamentally stupid and pointless. I also have yet to see among the gales of butthurt* among the right any drive to donate to the Red Cross, become trained in CPR or First Aid, or anything else in the form of a solution. Nope it's all, "durr 0bama!" as usual.

/*Copyright GardenWeasel
 
2012-10-30 01:03:34 PM  
Wow, are you people really this stupid???

Even if Mitt wants to de-fund FEMA and have states manage their emergencies, that structure isn't what's in place now, so FEMA is the current authority equipped to handle the situation.
 
2012-10-30 01:05:03 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.

I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?


People are farking stupid. People that use any argument remotely resembling that should be drowned in a tub of urine.
 
2012-10-30 01:05:54 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.

I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?


I live in a tent in a bootstrap factory, so I'm all set.
 
2012-10-30 01:07:16 PM  
Ya'll know that old saying about not understanding history leads to repeating your failures; FEMA was developed at the request of the states to help them deal with the dilemma caused by the balanced budget constraints and the massive cost of disasters (plus continual failures to manage disasters at the state level) SO WHY WOULD WE GO BACK THIS?

Privatize? Makes no sense
 
2012-10-30 01:07:40 PM  

pxsteel: I don't see this as a flip flop.

Under the current system, Fema has to get involved.

Romney would like it to be at the state level, which is where it should be. Federal $ would still be doled out, but the operation would be handled by the state. State programs are usually more efficient than federal programs, reducing the cost.



Yes, because when I think of "more efficient" I think of 50 easier-to-corrupt-bureaucracies-that-can-no-longer-share-the-costs-of- a-larger-organization-and-must-pay-for-duplicate-items.


To put it slightly less snarky:

Every year, we can expect 3-6 hurricanes to make landfall on the united states. We are never quite sure where exactly they will land, as they can hit anywhere along the eastern seaboard. Each year, FEMA prepares logistically for 3-6 hurricanes which could fall anywhere along the border. Now, suddenly FEMA can't do that, and each state must prepare individually. So we are either left with a situation where some states always prepare for 6 hurricanes, and then the supplies are wasted when they don't hit the state that year, or where some states decide that hurricanes almost never hit them, so why bother prepare for them at all, and are completely buttfarked when a hurricane does hit.

Organizations like FEMA are far more efficient at the federal level because there is no way to accurately predict the annual distribution of every single weather disaster down to the state level, thus necessitating each state individually prepare for everything, wasting an amazing amount of money, or each state hedges its bets and gets destroyed when it cannot cope.
 
2012-10-30 01:07:43 PM  
I'm going to echo what others have said recently: if this slimy, glad-handing bullsh*tter wins the election, the country deserves what it's going to get.
 
2012-10-30 01:09:24 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.

I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?


not to mention in these "hurricane zones" they have some of the most fertile soil in all of America.
 
2012-10-30 01:10:02 PM  

monoski: Ya'll know that old saying about not understanding history leads to repeating your failures; FEMA was developed at the request of the states to help them deal with the dilemma caused by the balanced budget constraints and the massive cost of disasters (plus continual failures to manage disasters at the state level) SO WHY WOULD WE GO BACK THIS?

Privatize? Makes no sense



AmITakingCrazyPills.jpeg
 
2012-10-30 01:10:16 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.

I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?


Are you claiming that all places have the same potential risk for catastrophic events? The liberal mind is a magical thing.
 
2012-10-30 01:10:20 PM  
De-fund FEMA? What the hell are we supposed to do with all those death camps now?
 
2012-10-30 01:10:28 PM  

imontheinternet: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.

I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?

I live in a tent in a bootstrap factory, so I'm all set.


Well I live in a tent in a factory that makes tents out of bootstraps. Beat that!
 
2012-10-30 01:13:01 PM  

Mr. Right: Romney is in favor of getting rid of FEMA. But, since we are in a crisis, the disaster has hit, and we have trained the entire country to rely on the federal government for everything, he is supporting their efforts now. It would be like changing the rules after the game has begun.

I know the article in Salon referenced all the wonderful work and coordination that occurs when the federal government is in charge and they try to make you believe that only the federal government can perform that. If you have studied a little history, you may recall that the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 occurred prior to any federal relief programs, as did the Great Chicago Fire. In both instances, the devastation was incredible. In both instances, the relief came from private individuals, bank loans, private investment and even foreign countries. In neither case was there a FEMA. In both cases, rebuilding was fairly quick and robust.

Compare that to Katrina in New Orleans and the wonderful work of FEMA. You may recall that private companies (even the hated Wal-Mart) and relief agencies were quicker on the scene. You may recall that, even though there was advanced warning (notably lacking in San Francisco or Chicago) the city was unprepared because the mayor and governor had the option of ignoring warnings and advice and exercised that option. Rebuilding has been incredibly slow, in large part because of all the red tape surrounding FEMA. Note: the red tape isn't a poltical issue. It is an immutable law of too-large bureaucracies. Which is why FEMA should be phased out and control increasingly put on states and private insurance companies.



So you chose to ignore that in the entire history of FEMA it has always been helpful and efficient, and focus on the one gigantic failure it has experienced in its lifetime- a failure perpetrated by Republicans appointing their friends to these agencies instead of anyone actually qualified.

Congratulations. You just made a good case for why noone in their right minds should ever vote Republican.

/Republican motto is "Look at how Government fails", when in reality it should be "Look at how we made a formerly-operating Government fail intentionally so we can get away with looting its corpse".
 
2012-10-30 01:13:04 PM  

physt: San Francisco earthquake of 1906... Great Chicago Fire
Neither one of those were national events. Nice try comparing apples to fruit nobody has ever heard off.


Both were more devastating than Katrina. New Orleans isn't national either.

physt: Compare that to Katrina in New Orleans and the wonderful work of FEMA
If you studied a little history, you'll learn that the previously effective FEMA under Clinton was gutted and run by an unqualified Bush appointee. Way to deflect the blame from Republicans...



If you weren't a rabid partisan hack, you'd know that FEMA was no more effective under Clinton - it was never tested as severely. Nor was it gutted by Bush. Way to dodge criticism of a bureaucracy with partisan snark.

physt: Your post would have been complete except for your missing call to cut taxes for the wealthy.


I didn't mention taxes at all. But, since you brought them up, how is it fair that middle class working folks keep paying taxes that end up in FEMA rebuilding the yacht basins for the rich bastards up and down the coast after hurricane season?
 
2012-10-30 01:13:39 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.

I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?

Are you claiming that all places have the same potential risk for catastrophic events? The liberal mind is a magical thing.


Are you going to respond to what he said, or what you imagined he said?

/Come to the Midwest!
//No hurricanes, but plenty of droughts, wildfires, floods, blizzards and tornadoes!
///Oh and we're right in Yellowstone's path of destruction if it ever goes off
////Plus we have fault lines too!
 
2012-10-30 01:13:41 PM  

Headso: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.

I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?

not to mention in these "hurricane zones" they have some of the most fertile soil in all of America.


Not many hurricanes or earthquakes or tornadoes here in the AZ desert. Good luck growing anything without major irrigation help, though.

My spring sunflowers spontaneously combusted in June. :(
 
2012-10-30 01:15:10 PM  

Mr. Right: physt: San Francisco earthquake of 1906... Great Chicago Fire
Neither one of those were national events. Nice try comparing apples to fruit nobody has ever heard off.

Both were more devastating than Katrina. New Orleans isn't national either.

physt: Compare that to Katrina in New Orleans and the wonderful work of FEMA
If you studied a little history, you'll learn that the previously effective FEMA under Clinton was gutted and run by an unqualified Bush appointee. Way to deflect the blame from Republicans...


If you weren't a rabid partisan hack, you'd know that FEMA was no more effective under Clinton - it was never tested as severely. Nor was it gutted by Bush. Way to dodge criticism of a bureaucracy with partisan snark.

physt: Your post would have been complete except for your missing call to cut taxes for the wealthy.

I didn't mention taxes at all. But, since you brought them up, how is it fair that middle class working folks keep paying taxes that end up in FEMA rebuilding the yacht basins for the rich bastards up and down the coast after hurricane season?


They guy called "Mr. Right" just called someone a partisan hack.
 
2012-10-30 01:15:13 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.

I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?

Are you claiming that all places have the same potential risk for catastrophic events? The liberal mind is a magical thing.


Etch-a-sketch troll counterpart to an Etch-a-Sketch candidate ^^^^^
 
2012-10-30 01:15:36 PM  
The reason Romney wanted to disband FEMA to begin with is because he was catering to the minority of extremists who kept saying Obama was going to put people in FEMA death camps or some stupid nonsense when Obamacare became implemented.

Seriously... do a google search for FEMA camps and the first hit is this piece of tin foil work: Link

And Romney was playing right into it...

The same thing goes for NPR, PBS, and PP...
Right wing extermists call NPR a government funded liberal media establishment designed to brainwash people and spread the liberal agenda
They think PBS is the same as NPR but worse because they are trying to indoctrinate children
and they are both aimed at sending women to PP to kill un-babies...

They believe once the AHCA becomes implemented then the president will force the sick and the old into FEMA internment camps waiting to face death panels...

And while Romney didn't outright say he believes in the same thing, he was obviously reaching out to the social extremists by saying he will cut government support of these socially liberal propaganda engines while trying to appeal to the moderate republicans by saying that funding them is an example of fiscal liberalism that should be culled...


It's really an ingenious plan... You come out at the bell appealing to the mouth frothing extremists in the country, real them in hook line and sinker, then when it gets closer to election, start flipping your agenda to appeal to the moderates, because the mouth frothers won't believe for a second that you aren't on their side, and the average american voter memory seems to be about the human equivalent of a goldfish so moderates will only remember what you said in the last couple of weeks or even the last days of the elections...

for the average 'murican, this tactic is perfect... So go have yourself a Bud light and flip on rastlin, or UFC, because at some point, Romney has said something to show you he has your back...
 
2012-10-30 01:16:22 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Are you claiming that all places have the same potential risk for catastrophic events?


No. Are you claiming that when you said "hurricane and earthquake zones" you weren't being demonstrative, but, rather, literal, and you're okay with people who live in the path of tornadoes, floods, fires, mudslides and volcanoes?

The conservative mind is... well.... nothing. Because I have yet to see evidence conservatives are actually capable of any kind of thought.
 
2012-10-30 01:18:10 PM  

Frosty_Icehole: imontheinternet: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.

I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?

I live in a tent in a bootstrap factory, so I'm all set.

Well I live in a tent in a factory that makes tents out of bootstraps. Beat that!


I paid for my tent by selling portraits of Ronald Reagan made out of bootstraps.
 
2012-10-30 01:18:54 PM  

Headso: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.

I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?

not to mention in these "hurricane zones" they have some of the most fertile soil in all of America.


And that there is an "earthquake zone" in every state in the country, including most of the population centers in CA, the middle of VA (and because of how the East Coast's soil/mantle are, a minor EQ will ring all the way up and down the coast, affecting DC, most of MD - including where all the people live, NC, SC and up into NJ/NY)... And that there does not exist a house or place of business not at risk for flooding.

Hurricane-prone areas exist, sure - but almost anywhere you move will have that or other risks (notably, tornadoes and droughts).
 
2012-10-30 01:18:55 PM  
Mr. Right: If you weren't a rabid partisan hack, you'd know that FEMA was no more effective under Clinton - it was never tested as severely. Nor was it gutted by Bush. Way to dodge criticism of a bureaucracy with partisan snark.

From the Wikipedia article on FEMA:

President Bush appointed Michael D. Brown as FEMA's director in January 2003. Brown warned in September 2003 that FEMA's absorption into DHS would make a mockery of FEMA's new motto, "A Nation Prepared", and would "fundamentally sever FEMA from its core functions", "shatter agency morale" and "break longstanding, effective and tested relationships with states and first responder stakeholders". The inevitable result of the reorganization of 2003, warned Brown, would be "an ineffective and uncoordinated response" to a terrorist attack or a natural disaster.
 
2012-10-30 01:19:08 PM  

Headso: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.

I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?

not to mention in these "hurricane zones" they have some of the most fertile soil in all of America.


Good, then they can afford to manage their own disasters. If not, then the benefit side of the ledger doesn't balance out the risk side and they can move or deal with the consequences.
 
2012-10-30 01:19:36 PM  
The Dem desperation.

It is entertaining.
 
2012-10-30 01:20:42 PM  
Farks sake, Mitt - you are hilariously awful at this.
 
2012-10-30 01:21:45 PM  

imontheinternet: Frosty_Icehole: imontheinternet: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.

I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?

I live in a tent in a bootstrap factory, so I'm all set.

Well I live in a tent in a factory that makes tents out of bootstraps. Beat that!

I paid for my tent by selling portraits of Ronald Reagan made out of bootstraps.


I concede good sir.
 
2012-10-30 01:22:20 PM  

Skeptos: Mr. Right: If you weren't a rabid partisan hack, you'd know that FEMA was no more effective under Clinton - it was never tested as severely. Nor was it gutted by Bush. Way to dodge criticism of a bureaucracy with partisan snark.

From the Wikipedia article on FEMA:

President Bush appointed Michael D. Brown as FEMA's director in January 2003. Brown warned in September 2003 that FEMA's absorption into DHS would make a mockery of FEMA's new motto, "A Nation Prepared", and would "fundamentally sever FEMA from its core functions", "shatter agency morale" and "break longstanding, effective and tested relationships with states and first responder stakeholders". The inevitable result of the reorganization of 2003, warned Brown, would be "an ineffective and uncoordinated response" to a terrorist attack or a natural disaster.


Brown's opinion on anything is meaningless. He was a horse judge. The fact that he was appointed by Bush in the first is all you need to know.
 
2012-10-30 01:23:00 PM  

Mr. Right: physt: San Francisco earthquake of 1906... Great Chicago Fire
Neither one of those were national events. Nice try comparing apples to fruit nobody has ever heard off.

Both were more devastating than Katrina. New Orleans isn't national either.

physt: Compare that to Katrina in New Orleans and the wonderful work of FEMA
If you studied a little history, you'll learn that the previously effective FEMA under Clinton was gutted and run by an unqualified Bush appointee. Way to deflect the blame from Republicans...


If you weren't a rabid partisan hack, you'd know that FEMA was no more effective under Clinton - it was never tested as severely. Nor was it gutted by Bush. Way to dodge criticism of a bureaucracy with partisan snark.

physt: Your post would have been complete except for your missing call to cut taxes for the wealthy.

I didn't mention taxes at all. But, since you brought them up, how is it fair that middle class working folks keep paying taxes that end up in FEMA rebuilding the yacht basins for the rich bastards up and down the coast after hurricane season?


I don't know anything about that but it doesn't sound fair. How about we fix it instead of scraping the whole thing and letting the private section prey on us?
 
2012-10-30 01:26:13 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Good, then they can afford to manage their own disasters. If not, then the benefit side of the ledger doesn't balance out the risk side and they can move or deal with the consequences.


www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Wyoming, Michigan, Vermont, Massachusettes, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, Hawaii and Alaska. Everybody pile in!

/ and I'm sure once that happens those states won't wind up being the most expensive disaster areas
 
2012-10-30 01:26:26 PM  
huh... weird, fark stripped my link
here it is: http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm
 
2012-10-30 01:27:21 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Headso: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.

I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?

not to mention in these "hurricane zones" they have some of the most fertile soil in all of America.

Good, then they can afford to manage their own disasters. If not, then the benefit side of the ledger doesn't balance out the risk side and they can move or deal with the consequences.


That's just one out of touch derpers opinion. IMO we should support people living in these areas when they are impacted by these storms so they can get back to contributing to the GPD of our nation and growing the foods we all eat.
 
2012-10-30 01:29:17 PM  
Republican mantra to disaster relief:

*right hand is crushed in an accident*
Right hand: Aggggh!!! Help!!!
Left hand: dude, will you shut up already? And no, you can't have any of my blood, you had your own!
Right hand: come on leftie, I'm gonna die if you don't help me! My death will cause trouble for the entire body and will result in suffering for all other body systems and organs, including you.
Left hand: stop being a mooch and asking for a handout!
*later, as leftie is rotting away from gangrene*
Left hand: stupid right hand! I win!!!
 
2012-10-30 01:30:35 PM  
The man has all the political conviction of a windsock
 
2012-10-30 01:31:22 PM  

stonicus: Republican mantra to disaster relief:

*right hand is crushed in an accident*
Right hand: Aggggh!!! Help!!!
Left hand: dude, will you shut up already? And no, you can't have any of my blood, you had your own!
Right hand: come on leftie, I'm gonna die if you don't help me! My death will cause trouble for the entire body and will result in suffering for all other body systems and organs, including you.
Left hand: stop being a mooch and asking for a handout!
*later, as leftie is rotting away from gangrene*
Left hand: stupid right hand! I win!!!
Left hand: stupid gangrenous right hand! This is all your fault! I was doing great until you got me all diseasy! You better help me out of this mess, you stubby sumbiatch!


FTFY
 
2012-10-30 01:31:27 PM  

Headso: Noam Chimpsky: Headso: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.

I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?

not to mention in these "hurricane zones" they have some of the most fertile soil in all of America.

Good, then they can afford to manage their own disasters. If not, then the benefit side of the ledger doesn't balance out the risk side and they can move or deal with the consequences.

That's just one out of touch derpers opinion. IMO we should support people living in these areas when they are impacted by these storms so they can get back to contributing to the GPD of our nation and growing the foods we all eat.


Looking at the label of all the fruits and veggies i eat, seems most of the food i eat comes from California...
The fish comes from the pacific, so that conceivably comes from CA as well... I have no idea where my beef comes from...

Though i do eat a lot of shrimp... so... i guess we can keep Louisiana...
 
2012-10-30 01:31:30 PM  
So he final understands that when shiat hits the fan. It's best to have a scape goat.
Thats about all FEMA is good for.
 
2012-10-30 01:31:59 PM  
i449.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-30 01:34:48 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Why do federal dollars need to be doled out?

"To promote the general welfare". It's part of one of our founding documents describing the Fed's responsibilities

It will never be enough
Since it won't be enough, let's just not give any, is that it? Why not give more until it's enough?

and the states have an interest to show that it isn't enough so they will botch the management of their disasters to get more money from the federal government.
Right, local emergency management will screw over themselves and their friends and family just to get more Fed money, rather than use what local and state money the do have effectively.

If the American people want to help these special needs states, they can donate their own money to the cause.
George H. W. Bush's "Thousand points of light" never worked, at least not on the scale of a superstorm like Sandy. Above you said local emergency would fark over everybody, but now you're saying we should rely on peoples' altruism.

If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.
Right, we should depopulate both coasts from Mexico to Canada because they're hurricane and earthquake zones. What about tornado, drought, flood and wildfire zones? What does that leave... the Dakotas?
 
2012-10-30 01:36:34 PM  
Mitt is exactly the type of person we need as POTUS.

his commitment to his ideas and beliefs are unsurpassed by any other American.

you will know exactly what his positions are regardless of the situation or calls from the crowds.

He is resolute and let's be honest, he's so good looking!
 
2012-10-30 01:36:45 PM  

Skeptos: I'm going to echo what others have said recently: if this slimy, glad-handing bullsh*tter wins the election, the country deserves what it's going to get.


I seriously do not want to live in a country where Romney/Ryan can get elected. Either by fair means or foul.
 
2012-10-30 01:38:11 PM  

CeroX: huh... weird, fark stripped my link
here it is: http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm



Once again the people who complain most about government are the ones sucking the government's teat the hardest.
 
2012-10-30 01:38:28 PM  

CeroX: Headso: Noam Chimpsky: Headso: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.

I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?

not to mention in these "hurricane zones" they have some of the most fertile soil in all of America.

Good, then they can afford to manage their own disasters. If not, then the benefit side of the ledger doesn't balance out the risk side and they can move or deal with the consequences.

That's just one out of touch derpers opinion. IMO we should support people living in these areas when they are impacted by these storms so they can get back to contributing to the GPD of our nation and growing the foods we all eat.

Looking at the label of all the fruits and veggies i eat, seems most of the food i eat comes from California...
The fish comes from the pacific, so that conceivably comes from CA as well... I have no idea where my beef comes from...

Though i do eat a lot of shrimp... so... i guess we can keep Louisiana...


you're getting your food from an earthquake zone, those farmers should close up operations and move.
 
2012-10-30 01:38:51 PM  
Noam Chimpsky may be the dumbest motherfarker I've ever seen parading around as a "smart" person.
 
2012-10-30 01:39:03 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: I really want to vote for Mitt Romney, but since I won't know what his opinions will actually be on election day until election day I haven't actually made up my mind yet.


Maybe we could set up our elected offices with "like" and "dislike" buttons and keep a running tally on everyone. We'd see more flip-flopping than the lake where the dam just burst.
 
2012-10-30 01:40:15 PM  

verbaltoxin: Noam Chimpsky: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.

I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?

Are you claiming that all places have the same potential risk for catastrophic events? The liberal mind is a magical thing.

Are you going to respond to what he said, or what you imagined he said?

/Come to the Midwest!
//No hurricanes, but plenty of droughts, wildfires, floods, blizzards and tornadoes!
///Oh and we're right in Yellowstone's path of destruction if it ever goes off
////Plus we have fault lines too!


If Yellowstone goes off, we won't be financing a rebuild. The fact that disasters can happen everywhere is non sequitur since no one ever claimed they couldn't happen anywhere. If I say an alcoholic with 10 DUI should pay more in auto insurance than a careful driver with no DUI, the fact that "anyone can have a car accident!" would be a liberal and very lame response.
 
2012-10-30 01:41:57 PM  
i449.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-30 01:44:11 PM  

zarberg: lohphat: If "States' Rights" were really a GOP goal, they'd allow each state to decide on medical pot and marriage freedom...but they don't.

I lean Democrat the vast majority of the time, but the medical pot issue could have easily been solved (albeit temporarily) by Obama by simply telling the right authorities/agencies to not enforce the law in that specific instance. I blame him on this one.


With the GOP legislative presence he doesn't need to give them a reason to tar and feather him as "soft on crime" and "pro drugs".
 
2012-10-30 01:45:28 PM  
Ignoring the flip flop for the moment(We focus to much on these, and we forget to look at his actual "policies", at least the ones he has today), the problem with the whole 'Get rid of FEMA' mantra is that no state has consistent disasters. Sure, places like Florida have regular hurricanes, but some do significantly more damage than others. Then you have AZ, which has two FEMA requests, wildfires throughout the summer, and then a 10 year flood cycle. Otherwise, AZ's pretty quiet. The problem is when AZ has two years with flooding and two really big wildfire seasons. Suddenly they've gone through 8 or 10 years' worth of disasters in two. Where does the extra money come from? Make it a federal thing, and there's money there. Unless 25states are having disasters at the same exact time, they can get money and resources where they need it. You break it down to the states, and you'll have states with small budgets not recover from a flood ever. An entire city could just be left to rot because the state doesn't have the money.

Disasters are too random to narrow down the recovery funding like that. If Mitt actually listened to financial people, or stopped to think while waiting for the car elevator to bring up his SUV, he'd know this.
 
2012-10-30 01:52:04 PM  
Romney hasn't flipped on FEMA (yet). The statement in TFA comes from one of his advisers. Romney himself is talking to the press pool right now, and flat out refusing to answer any questions about whether or not he would eliminate FEMA. https://twitter.com/SabrinaSiddiqui 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/30/mitt-romney-fema_n_2044213.h t ml?1351617484
 
2012-10-30 01:53:37 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: If Yellowstone goes off, we won't be financing a rebuild. The fact that disasters can happen everywhere is non sequitur since no one ever claimed they couldn't happen anywhere. If I say an alcoholic with 10 DUI should pay more in auto insurance than a careful driver with no DUI, the fact that "anyone can have a car accident!" would be a liberal and very lame response.


While 9/11-scale terrorist attacks can happen anywhere, they are more likely to happen in places with large concentrations of people, i.e., cities. Why should I, living in a rural area, have my taxes go to fund counter-terrorism operations, post-attack relief and reconstruction, or legal/military action against the perpetrators? Cities can surely afford these things on their own. If not, then cities fail the cost/benefit equation. People who don't like it can move to the country.
 
2012-10-30 01:55:07 PM  

Mikey1969: Ignoring the flip flop for the moment(We focus to much on these, and we forget to look at his actual "policies", at least the ones he has today), the problem with the whole 'Get rid of FEMA' mantra is that no state has consistent disasters. Sure, places like Florida have regular hurricanes, but some do significantly more damage than others. Then you have AZ, which has two FEMA requests, wildfires throughout the summer, and then a 10 year flood cycle. Otherwise, AZ's pretty quiet. The problem is when AZ has two years with flooding and two really big wildfire seasons. Suddenly they've gone through 8 or 10 years' worth of disasters in two. Where does the extra money come from? Make it a federal thing, and there's money there. Unless 25states are having disasters at the same exact time, they can get money and resources where they need it. You break it down to the states, and you'll have states with small budgets not recover from a flood ever. An entire city could just be left to rot because the state doesn't have the money.

Disasters are too random to narrow down the recovery funding like that. If Mitt actually listened to financial people, or stopped to think while waiting for the car elevator to bring up his SUV, he'd know this.


Shouldn't FEMA be in charge of plowing our roads and bringing food to my house every time it blizzards here in Minnesota? Why should the people of Minnesota have to pay for all that equipment and labor on stand-by for half the year?
 
2012-10-30 01:55:58 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: I'm a herpin' and a-derpin'


We get such lame trolls these days. No love of the art.
 
2012-10-30 01:57:48 PM  

Mikey1969: Ignoring the flip flop for the moment(We focus to much on these, and we forget to look at his actual "policies", at least the ones he has today), the problem with the whole 'Get rid of FEMA' mantra is that no state has consistent disasters. Sure, places like Florida have regular hurricanes, but some do significantly more damage than others. Then you have AZ, which has two FEMA requests, wildfires throughout the summer, and then a 10 year flood cycle. Otherwise, AZ's pretty quiet. The problem is when AZ has two years with flooding and two really big wildfire seasons. Suddenly they've gone through 8 or 10 years' worth of disasters in two. Where does the extra money come from? Make it a federal thing, and there's money there. Unless 25states are having disasters at the same exact time, they can get money and resources where they need it. You break it down to the states, and you'll have states with small budgets not recover from a flood ever. An entire city could just be left to rot because the state doesn't have the money.

Disasters are too random to narrow down the recovery funding like that. If Mitt actually listened to financial people, or stopped to think while waiting for the car elevator to bring up his SUV, he'd know this.


He has to have the votes of the gibberish-spouting-insane-Government-Out-Of-Medicare votes, or he can't win. Talking to smart people doesn't endear you to those "people."
 
2012-10-30 01:58:58 PM  

Skeptos: Noam Chimpsky: If Yellowstone goes off, we won't be financing a rebuild. The fact that disasters can happen everywhere is non sequitur since no one ever claimed they couldn't happen anywhere. If I say an alcoholic with 10 DUI should pay more in auto insurance than a careful driver with no DUI, the fact that "anyone can have a car accident!" would be a liberal and very lame response.

While 9/11-scale terrorist attacks can happen anywhere, they are more likely to happen in places with large concentrations of people, i.e., cities. Why should I, living in a rural area, have my taxes go to fund counter-terrorism operations, post-attack relief and reconstruction, or legal/military action against the perpetrators? Cities can surely afford these things on their own. If not, then cities fail the cost/benefit equation. People who don't like it can move to the country.


For the same reasons cities subsidize all the flyover-country roads, bridges, phone service, rail service, bus service, and pretty much everything else?
 
2012-10-30 01:59:26 PM  
When Yellowstone goes, at least it will kill all the crappy trolls too.
 
2012-10-30 02:01:44 PM  
If you tape the Romney campaign logo onto a weathervane, it will start to spin so fast it will open up a dimensional portal to the Ogdru Jahad.
 
2012-10-30 02:03:55 PM  

leviosaurus: Romney hasn't flipped on FEMA (yet). The statement in TFA comes from one of his advisers. Romney himself is talking to the press pool right now, and flat out refusing to answer any questions about whether or not he would eliminate FEMA. https://twitter.com/SabrinaSiddiqui 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/30/mitt-romney-fema_n_2044213.h t ml?1351617484


OVERZEALOUS STAFFER
 
2012-10-30 02:04:18 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: If Yellowstone goes off, we won't be financing a rebuild. The fact that disasters can happen everywhere is non sequitur since no one ever claimed they couldn't happen anywhere. If I say an alcoholic with 10 DUI should pay more in auto insurance than a careful driver with no DUI, the fact that "anyone can have a car accident!" would be a liberal and very lame response.


And people who live in flood-prone areas (lower-order floodplains) pay more for flood insurance than those who live outside the 500-year floodplain. This already happens - and actually, the NFIP won't issue you a new policy if your home is in a 100-year floodplain. (Might be a different floodplain, like the 500-year, depending on who's underwriting the policy.)

I'm not a homeowner, but do you pay more to insure a home on the coast than you would to insure an inland home?

I know that people buy earthquake insurance (or is it a rider?) if they live in high-risk areas.

So, do you have any other suggestions for federal agencies that they're already following? I have a great idea for the government to start issuing loans to people with small business ideas...
 
2012-10-30 02:05:55 PM  

M-G: Obama campaign needs to hammer VA with ads of Mitt's quote about getting rid of FEMA. Sure, the right-wing pundits will cry foul, but they're going to biatch about whatever he does anyway.


I don't think people want to hear Obama talk about some Sandy Virginia.
 
2012-10-30 02:09:54 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Shouldn't FEMA be in charge of plowing our roads and bringing food to my house every time it blizzards here in Minnesota? Why should the people of Minnesota have to pay for all that equipment and labor on stand-by for half the year?


Because THAT is not a "disaster". That can be planned on for each year. Hell, the states even fark that up and plan it with too slim of a budget, so if it snows too much, they run out of salt. Can you imagine trying to plan ahead for something as variable as "disasters"?

Of course, you didn't want to actually have a discussion, I'm sure. You just wanted to get your "example" out there and try to sabotage me. Not the best I've seen on fark. Too weak of an argument, too obvious, and too off the point. I guess you deserve about a 3/10.
 
2012-10-30 02:09:59 PM  

bdub77: People don't understand, funding FEMA is immoral! It's immoral! See we should let the state's decide how to do it, that way it's not immoral.

You see how that works?

Federal Emergency Management Agency = immoral
State Emergency Management Agency = moral

See, states can do everything. They are magical AND moral. Except invading Iran. Then we will ask states to send their people to other countries to die for us. Which is absolutely the moral thing to do.

That's what people just don't understand in America. We are America! We live in a country that is made up of tiny countries! A union of tiny countries into one country that's the same country! It's brilliant, really. And we don't have to help each other out except to attack other countries. I mean sure, we mostly all speak the same language. And sure, we have the same currency. And our businesses are intertwined all over the country. And our systems of roads, bridges, and waterways span across different states, sure. Oh and people can move between countries and often do a lot. But we should let states each invent totally different rules so that we're confused by each state's rules and therefore we no longer function as a country but a set of independent countries where rape babies are OK in some places. That's how it works, people! America! Freedom! Eagles! Rape Babies!


This is why you're my favoritest favorite.
 
2012-10-30 02:12:44 PM  

verbaltoxin: Noam Chimpsky: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.

I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?

Are you claiming that all places have the same potential risk for catastrophic events? The liberal mind is a magical thing.

Are you going to respond to what he said, or what you imagined he said?

/Come to the Midwest!
//No hurricanes, but plenty of droughts, wildfires, floods, blizzards and tornadoes!
///Oh and we're right in Yellowstone's path of destruction if it ever goes off
////Plus we have fault lines too!


To be fair, pretty much all of North America is in Yelowstone's path of destruction. When that goes, it's going to have a global impact, but it's gonna flatten a good 2/3 of the US.

As for the rest of your post, Noam Chimpsky has no idea what end is up, let alone how disasters work.
 
2012-10-30 02:12:52 PM  
bmadore.squarespace.com

Just keep talking, Mitt. That'll work.
 
2012-10-30 02:15:21 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Stile4aly: In the event of a Hurricane, Mitt Romney will be sure to see which way the wind is blowing.

The fact that it's usually blowing in all directions will suit him nicely then.

 
2012-10-30 02:24:40 PM  

Dr Dreidel: I have a great idea for the government to start issuing loans to people with small business ideas...


That sounds kind of Sochulist. If somebody is supposed to be a business owner, they'd be rich enough to not need a loan, but they'd still get one at low interest from a banking buddy. Geez, don't you know nuthin bout finance?
 
2012-10-30 02:39:24 PM  

Aquapope: Dr Dreidel: I have a great idea for the government to start issuing loans to people with small business ideas...

That sounds kind of Sochulist. If somebody is supposed to be a business owner, they'd be rich enough to not need a loan, but they'd still get one at low interest from a banking buddy. Geez, don't you know nuthin bout finance?


no no no no.... if you need money for anything, houes, car, small business, college etc. you borrow the money from you parents but that's only if you've exhausted your ROI.
 
2012-10-30 02:47:06 PM  

Aquapope: Dr Dreidel: I have a great idea for the government to start issuing loans to people with small business ideas...

That sounds kind of Sochulist. If somebody is supposed to be a business owner, they'd be rich enough to not need a loan, but they'd still get one at low interest from a banking buddy. Geez, don't you know nuthin bout finance?


The bank will lend you money for your business idea if it looks like they will make a profit. If the government is handing out money for business ideas with no regard to its viability, like Solyndra, etc., then the country goes bankrupt and that doesn't benefit anyone. If they do consider the viability of your venture, then they are not needed because that is what banks are for. If you haven't worked for a while and accumulated some collateral and a worthy credit rating, then you probably aren't ready to run a business.
 
2012-10-30 02:54:07 PM  
The original over (or under) zealous staffer -

"One thing he's gonna be asked is, why did he jump on [the hurricane] so quickly and go back to D.C. so quickly"

- Michael "Brownie" Brown
 
2012-10-30 03:04:45 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Aquapope: Dr Dreidel: I have a great idea for the government to start issuing loans to people with small business ideas...

That sounds kind of Sochulist. If somebody is supposed to be a business owner, they'd be rich enough to not need a loan, but they'd still get one at low interest from a banking buddy. Geez, don't you know nuthin bout finance?

The bank will lend you money for your business idea if it looks like they will make a profit. If the government is handing out money for business ideas with no regard to its viability, like Solyndra, etc., then the country goes bankrupt and that doesn't benefit anyone. If they do consider the viability of your venture, then they are not needed because that is what banks are for. If you haven't worked for a while and accumulated some collateral and a worthy credit rating, then you probably aren't ready to run a business.


The government hands out SBA loans and loan guarantees to the tune of tens of billions a year. This is separate from tax credits, grants and tax breaks given to companies like ExxonMobil, BP, BoA, MorganStanleySmithBarneyFrankConnorRickBobJonesSteveEllen, Pfizer, GE, and any number of companies both big and small.

SBA's 8a program, for example, gives loans and other support for small, disadvantaged, and woman-owned businesses (my former employer, a super-biatch from the depths of hell, is about to let her first company go bankrupt so that she can start a new one - with her name not uttered to the many clients with whom she has burned bridges* - to take advantage of the 8a designation since the first company is both too big, and now, to tarred-with-her-reputation). The 8a designation puts companies in prime place for government contracts. Same deal with Native American-owned businesses.

They still examine your plan for viability, but as we all know from before we took ECON101 - investment carries risk. Even when it's the FedGov doing the lending, and even when they have 60+ years of their own lending data to help them determine who gets loans. They don't just hand every Sally Sobstory a huge check to start "hugabunny.com" (where you can click to send a virtual "hug" to Sally's pet rabbit, Mr. Cheesy) - there's an involved application/approval process.

But I've gotten sidetracked. You were supposed to suggest other things for FEMA to do that they're already doing.

*She once floated the idea of suing CBP - Customs and Border Protection - and wanted the IT department to secretly record several meetings with CBP people.
 
Bf+
2012-10-30 03:15:54 PM  
no no no I never said I'd eliminate FEMA. The states currently getting funds will see no change in their program.
The other states will be given vouchers for disaster relief, and they can go shopping to find the best disaster relief provider that's right for them!
 
2012-10-30 03:15:59 PM  

Mikey1969: Suddenly they've gone through 8 or 10 years' worth of disasters in two. Where does the extra money come from?


Where did the money that would have paid for them federally go?
 
2012-10-30 03:25:36 PM  

trappedspirit: Mikey1969: Suddenly they've gone through 8 or 10 years' worth of disasters in two. Where does the extra money come from?

Where did the money that would have paid for them federally go?


It goes into a pool. One year Florida might take more from that pool, another year New York. Another time it might be Arizona. That's how it works, otherwise we wouldn't even need states or counties. Hell, why don't we do it all at the city level? Better yet, let's knock it down to streets. If the folks over on Jackson street can't afford to pay the plow drivers, why should we?

Your anti-fed argument can just as easily be applied to anti-state, anti-county or anti-city, it won't make any less sense than it already does.
 
2012-10-30 03:30:41 PM  

GardenWeasel: Cletus C.: Has Obama declared this an act of nature yet?

Or is he blaming it on some incendiary hurricane-chasing youtube video?

Last I heard, Obama was blaming the gales of butthurt coming from your ass.


I don't know why, but this just caused me to laugh out loud at my desk for 5 minutes. Thank you. Thank you so much.
 
2012-10-30 03:32:03 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: I really want to vote for Mitt Romney,


This is the first time I've seen these words together. Fascinating.
 
2012-10-30 03:34:47 PM  
Dr Dreidel:

SBA's 8a program, for example, gives loans and other support for small, disadvantagedi>

I don't want to finance the ventures of someone who fits the definition of a nonsense word like "disadvantaged". It sounds like a losing proposition. You, on the other hand, are free to finance the ventures of this so-called "disadvantaged" person with your own wallet. Since you are a big believer in its potential, I'm sure it will benefit you greatly, and I'll be very happy for you and disadvantaged when the profits start rolling in.
 
2012-10-30 03:35:54 PM  
Oh, scuse my boldness.
 
2012-10-30 03:40:30 PM  

leviosaurus: Romney hasn't flipped on FEMA (yet). The statement in TFA comes from one of his advisers. Romney himself is talking to the press pool right now, and flat out refusing to answer any questions about whether or not he would eliminate FEMA. https://twitter.com/SabrinaSiddiqui 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/30/mitt-romney-fema_n_2044213.h t ml?1351617484


For a politician, he sure doesn't seem to like to discuss politics much.
 
2012-10-30 03:55:02 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Dr Dreidel:

SBA's 8a program, for example, gives loans and other support for small, disadvantaged

I don't want to finance the ventures of someone who fits the definition of a nonsense word like "disadvantaged". It sounds like a losing proposition. You, on the other hand, are free to finance the ventures of this so-called "disadvantaged" person with your own wallet. Since you are a big believer in its potential, I'm sure it will benefit you greatly, and I'll be very happy for you and disadvantaged when the profits start rolling in.


Also not the point.

You were supposed to come back with a list of things you want the government to do that they're already doing. I helpfully offered loans and loan guarantees to "small" businesses (including 8(a)s) to get you started. (Because making loans to help businesses get off the ground - without usurious fees or rates - is a good thing, and I'm all for the government getting involved. Show me the loan failure rates if you think it's a bad idea.)

// and "disadvantaged", IIRC, just means "not owned by a rich white man"
// meaning it's a small business (<$8m in revenue IIRC), not owned by a man or owned by a minority
// though I think there's a separate designation for "black-owned businesses" (or maybe it's just a subset?)
// but again, this was about how FEMA already does the things you want them to do, so SBA don't enter into it
 
Bf+
2012-10-30 03:58:13 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Dr Dreidel:

SBA's 8a program, for example, gives loans and other support for small, disadvantagedi>

I don't want to finance the ventures of someone who fits the definition of a nonsense word like "disadvantaged". It sounds like a losing proposition. You, on the other hand, are free to finance the ventures of this so-called "disadvantaged" person with your own wallet. Since you are a big believer in its potential, I'm sure it will benefit you greatly, and I'll be very happy for you and disadvantaged when the profits start rolling in.



That's a bold statement.
 
2012-10-30 04:32:50 PM  

Mikey1969: trappedspirit: Mikey1969: Suddenly they've gone through 8 or 10 years' worth of disasters in two. Where does the extra money come from?

Where did the money that would have paid for them federally go?

It goes into a pool. One year Florida might take more from that pool, another year New York. Another time it might be Arizona. That's how it works, otherwise we wouldn't even need states or counties. Hell, why don't we do it all at the city level? Better yet, let's knock it down to streets. If the folks over on Jackson street can't afford to pay the plow drivers, why should we?

Your anti-fed argument can just as easily be applied to anti-state, anti-county or anti-city, it won't make any less sense than it already does.


Well, I do agree that dividing this problem down to an absurd level does nothing to forward the point, and I do think improving the certain states' emergency response readiness is a good idea. Perhaps allowing states with special needs that feel they want more local readiness than FEMA has provided to not contribute as much to the fed but use that for additional resources. As far as I am concerned FEMA just has the spotlight for the moment and isn't one of the big problems with this candidacy.
 
2012-10-30 04:42:18 PM  
img255.imageshack.us
 
2012-10-30 04:44:26 PM  

mark12A: Big organizations are inherently dangerous,

Who certifies the quality and strength of materials and fasteners that hold virtually everything together? A private organization called ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials)

Why can't the functions of the FDA be provided by a similar organization? Who pioneered consumer safety? Not the government. Underwriters Labs (UL) did. Yeah, the little UL tag on your toaster cord.

We don't NEED the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It's a government boondoggle.


ASTM members = ~30,000
UL employees = ~10,000
CPSC employees = ~500
 
2012-10-30 07:31:27 PM  
There is at least one huge problem with devolving emergency response to the states:

Many of them must legally balance their budgets each year. They cannot deficit spend to recover from disasters. The federal government does that.

Also, states are not required to ask for federal assistance. They can try and handle it on their own if they want to.
 
2012-10-30 10:05:35 PM  

JAYoung: Since Obama still believes in responsible, effective government, when he needed an expert to run FEMA he called on Jeb Bush's hurricane expert, Craig Fugate.
Hell of a job, Craigie.
Sure beats a horsey guy political hack.


Makes sense, Florida knows its hurricanes. Although I suppose there was the risk of him assuming everyone else does.

From what I've heard that was ironically Micheal Brown's problem. There had been a Florida hurricane and summary FEMA response but for everyone involved it "wasn't their first rodeo" so they didn't need any command decisions, just to follow the already-laid-out patterns and scripts. Then New Orleans did NOT have that kind of organization and everybody in command central was too incompetent to give any guidance.
 
2012-10-30 10:43:22 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Noam Chimpsky: Good, then they can afford to manage their own disasters. If not, then the benefit side of the ledger doesn't balance out the risk side and they can move or deal with the consequences.

[www.ncdc.noaa.gov image 850x574]

Wyoming, Michigan, Vermont, Massachusettes, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, Hawaii and Alaska. Everybody pile in!

/ and I'm sure once that happens those states won't wind up being the most expensive disaster areas


With the obvious exception of the current hurricane, that graphic seems to show that Romney's original stance (dismantle FEMA) would likely have the most long-term adverse impact on states that support Romney.
 
2012-10-30 11:21:10 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: mark12A: Big organizations are inherently dangerous,

Who certifies the quality and strength of materials and fasteners that hold virtually everything together? A private organization called ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials)

Why can't the functions of the FDA be provided by a similar organization? Who pioneered consumer safety? Not the government. Underwriters Labs (UL) did. Yeah, the little UL tag on your toaster cord.

We don't NEED the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It's a government boondoggle.

ASTM members = ~30,000
UL employees = ~10,000
CPSC employees = ~500


I'm snapping in a Z formation.
 
2012-10-31 08:16:16 PM  

Skeptos: I'm going to echo what others have said recently: if this slimy, glad-handing bullsh*tter wins the election, the country deserves what it's going to get.


This this, a million times this.

I really think Mittens would shank his grandma if it advanced his personal goals, finances, or those of his wealthy friends he wants to please so badly.

O man hasn't been the golden boy I hoped, but maybe his domestic policy get kicked up a notch in term 2...
 
2012-11-01 08:47:20 PM  

Skeptos: Noam Chimpsky: If Yellowstone goes off, we won't be financing a rebuild. The fact that disasters can happen everywhere is non sequitur since no one ever claimed they couldn't happen anywhere. If I say an alcoholic with 10 DUI should pay more in auto insurance than a careful driver with no DUI, the fact that "anyone can have a car accident!" would be a liberal and very lame response.

While 9/11-scale terrorist attacks can happen anywhere, they are more likely to happen in places with large concentrations of people, i.e., cities. Why should I, living in a rural area, have my taxes go to fund counter-terrorism operations, post-attack relief and reconstruction, or legal/military action against the perpetrators? Cities can surely afford these things on their own. If not, then cities fail the cost/benefit equation. People who don't like it can move to the country.


This is what teatards actually believe. Traitors to their republic, and ignorant of the social contract they benefit from, as well as short sighted and narrow minded.
 
2012-11-02 04:09:35 AM  

Skeptos: Noam Chimpsky: If Yellowstone goes off, we won't be financing a rebuild. The fact that disasters can happen everywhere is non sequitur since no one ever claimed they couldn't happen anywhere. If I say an alcoholic with 10 DUI should pay more in auto insurance than a careful driver with no DUI, the fact that "anyone can have a car accident!" would be a liberal and very lame response.

While 9/11-scale terrorist attacks can happen anywhere, they are more likely to happen in places with large concentrations of people, i.e., cities. Why should I, living in a rural area, have my taxes go to fund counter-terrorism operations, post-attack relief and reconstruction, or legal/military action against the perpetrators? Cities can surely afford these things on their own. If not, then cities fail the cost/benefit equation. People who don't like it can move to the country.


Go back to 1870 Mr. Bootstrappy. I'm sure you can defend your patch of dustbowl from enemy attack with your assault rifle. You don't need clean air/water regulations, fire/police departments, roads, county hospitals or doctors, building codes, furniture, clothing, gas/oil/electricity, GPS, cell/landline/internet service, appliances, vehicles, mail service, building codes, FDA, USDA, FAA, etc. Anarchy solves all problems.

You're so special you don't need the trappings of civilization.

Welcome to The Congo.

Go build it yourself.
 
Displayed 254 of 254 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report