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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Jon Stewart rips House Republicans a new one for blocking aid to Hurricane Sandy victims   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 311
    More: Hero, GOP  
•       •       •

5191 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Jan 2013 at 12:46 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-08 09:46:39 AM
Jon Stewart and the hero tag NEVER belong together.
 
2013-01-08 09:49:18 AM
When it comes time for the northeast to pay for tornado/hurricane/wildfire relief for the red states in the midwest and south, both sides are OK with that. But when the northeast needs relief just once, the Republicans throw a hissy fit.

The best part is they won't realize they are on the wrong side of history for another decade or two.
 
2013-01-08 09:49:50 AM

jehovahs witness protection: Jon Stewart and the hero tag NEVER belong together.


I bet if you kick and scream just a little longer it'll undo the 2008 and 2012 elections.
 
2013-01-08 09:58:34 AM

jehovahs witness protection: Jon Stewart and the hero tag NEVER belong together.


It's reserved for real heroes like John Boehner, Todd Akin, and President Elect 2016 Sarah Palin.
 
2013-01-08 10:04:09 AM

jehovahs witness protection: Jon Stewart and the hero tag NEVER belong together.


awww, is someone still butthurt over Mitt Romney getting beast farked on Nov 6th?  did you bet your house on his victory and now live in a box under I-95?
 
2013-01-08 10:04:54 AM
Thank god this show is back.
 
2013-01-08 10:08:26 AM
Very well said at the end, there.
 
2013-01-08 10:22:37 AM
skewered with facts.
 
2013-01-08 10:29:30 AM

jehovahs witness protection: Jon Stewart and the hero tag NEVER belong together.


oi45.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-08 10:33:26 AM
And to the House Republicans who voted against the first round of funds last week, Stewart said: "If you guys can't vote for this, then we're farked

I have been waiting for this.  The ORIGINAL bill was $51B in pork for democratic pet projects and $9B in Sandy relief.  Jon Stewart is in full propaganda mode.  The democrats politicized an aid bill.  They loaded it up with 85% pork and then pillaged the GOP for being against Sandy Aid when they voted against it.  It should really be called the Democratic Pork with some Sandy Aid snuck in there bill.

And if the Republicans did the same exact thing to the Democrats, you should know Jon Stewart would have called them out on it.  He is a biased propagandist.  Nothing more.
 
2013-01-08 10:35:45 AM
I did miss this show. His humour (I'm not from the US) cuts to the heart of issues so succinctly you wonder what all the political commentators are actually doing.

I particularly loved his skewering of Paul Ryan and Steven Palazzo. How anyone can agree with the positions these men have taken on that the bill for the National Flood Insurance Program is totally beyond comprehension. If - by same bizarre chance - you do agree with them, then I suggest you go do a room filled with mirrors and have a good hard look at yourself.
 
2013-01-08 10:40:54 AM
Even Mayor Bloomberg criticized the pork in the Sandy Relief Bill, "packed with funding for unrelated items, such as commercial fisheries in American Samoa and roof repair of museums in Washington, D.C" according to Paul Ryan.

Or, here's a letter from a New Jersey resident criticizing all the pork in the bill.

I am sure Jon Stewart mentioned all that during his show too, right?
 
2013-01-08 10:41:25 AM
We need to make being a Republican the same kind of social disease that having leprosy is.  Just shun these assholes until they move to a colony in the South Pacific somewhere.
 
2013-01-08 10:41:49 AM

SlothB77: And to the House Republicans who voted against the first round of funds last week, Stewart said: "If you guys can't vote for this, then we're farked

I have been waiting for this.  The ORIGINAL bill was $51B in pork for democratic pet projects and $9B in Sandy relief.  Jon Stewart is in full propaganda mode.  The democrats politicized an aid bill.  They loaded it up with 85% pork and then pillaged the GOP for being against Sandy Aid when they voted against it.  It should really be called the Democratic Pork with some Sandy Aid snuck in there bill.

And if the Republicans did the same exact thing to the Democrats, you should know Jon Stewart would have called them out on it.  He is a biased propagandist.  Nothing more.


This is how I know you didn't watch the show or in fact know anything about this subject.  67 GOP House Representatives voted against the $9B bill which contained 0 pork.
 
2013-01-08 10:42:34 AM

SlothB77: Even Mayor Bloomberg criticized the pork in the Sandy Relief Bill, "packed with funding for unrelated items, such as commercial fisheries in American Samoa and roof repair of museums in Washington, D.C" according to Paul Ryan.

Or, here's a letter from a New Jersey resident criticizing all the pork in the bill.

I am sure Jon Stewart mentioned all that during his show too, right?


This would be interesting if there was any vote on that Bill.
 
2013-01-08 10:42:48 AM

SlothB77: Even Mayor Bloomberg criticized the pork in the Sandy Relief Bill, "packed with funding for unrelated items, such as commercial fisheries in American Samoa and roof repair of museums in Washington, D.C" according to Paul Ryan.

Or, here's a letter from a New Jersey resident criticizing all the pork in the bill.


Wow, Bloomberg and a single New Jersey resident. You sure convinced me.
 
2013-01-08 10:43:23 AM
mrshowrules: This is how I know you didn't watch the show or in fact know anything about this subject.  67 GOP House Representatives voted against the $9B bill which contained 0 pork.
 
2013-01-08 10:46:42 AM

mrshowrules: This is how I know you didn't watch the show or in fact know anything about this subject. 67 GOP House Representatives voted against the $9B bill which contained 0 pork.


The republican-controlled house passed this bill right?  So what's the problem?  The real Sandy Relief was passed and the pork was denied.  If only that could happen more often.
 
2013-01-08 10:49:01 AM
Jon really brought his A game for that.
 
2013-01-08 10:50:55 AM

Sock Ruh Tease: When it comes time for the northeast to pay for tornado/hurricane/wildfire relief for the red states in the midwest and south, both sides are OK with that. But when the northeast needs relief just once, the Republicans throw a hissy fit.

The best part is they won't realize they are on the wrong side of history for another decade or two.


FTFY.
 
2013-01-08 10:52:05 AM

SlothB77: mrshowrules: This is how I know you didn't watch the show or in fact know anything about this subject. 67 GOP House Representatives voted against the $9B bill which contained 0 pork.

The republican-controlled house passed this bill right?  So what's the problem?  The real Sandy Relief was passed and the pork was denied.  If only that could happen more often.


Only flood insurance was passed. There is an enormous amount of other stuff pending that is still "real" Sandy Relief.
 
2013-01-08 10:56:37 AM

kronicfeld: jehovahs witness protection: Jon Stewart and the hero tag NEVER belong together.

I bet if you kick and scream just a little longer it'll undo the 2008 and 2012 elections.


LET THE SOILING OF UNDERPANTS CONTINUE!
i1151.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-08 11:01:59 AM
of the original bill ...

... Only $1 out of every $6 - $9 billion of the $60 billion will be spent in 2013. That means 85 percent doesn't come until 2014 and beyond.

so obviously delaying the vote for the remaining $51B is a disaster for all the money that ... isn't slated to be spent until 2014 anyways.
 
2013-01-08 11:11:19 AM

SlothB77: Even Mayor Bloomberg criticized the pork in the Sandy Relief Bill, "packed with funding for unrelated items, such as commercial fisheries in American Samoa and roof repair of museums in Washington, D.C" according to Paul Ryan.

Or, here's a letter from a New Jersey resident criticizing all the pork in the bill.

I am sure Jon Stewart mentioned all that during his show too, right?


Say there. Remember in the last thread about this how I patiently explained to you that the original bill was a general disaster prevention and relief bill - not specifically a hurricane Sandy relief bill? And that the "pork" in this bill was all asked for by GOP senators? Remember that? It was just a couple days ago.

Because you seem to have forgotten that completely.

You know it is precisely this kind of amnesia that is killing the GOP because - really - how can anyone take anything you say in their defense seriously when you behave like an NPC in a video game?

You, as a GOP mouthpiece, say the same things over and over regardless of how foolish and thick-headed it makes you sound.

If your goal is to make the GOP sound really dense and out of touch then bravo. Job well done.
 
2013-01-08 11:15:06 AM
The easy part is honoring the contracts of people who were insured under the national flood insurance program.

The trouble is, the flood insurance program has been subsidizing a lot of stupid over the years, and now a lot of people want to rebuild on land that should never have been built on in the first place...and that's a lot of property-tax revenue the states are losing if there's no ratables there any more.

Most people with half a brain (even Congress) remember what a clusterfark NY/NJ made of things after 9/11...so yeah, I'd think long and hard before handing those farkwits $50 billion. Behind Christie and Cuomo are two royally sleazy state legislatures, plus two congressional delegations and a New York city council full of hacks, toadies and microphone hogs, if not outright crooks. Pretty soon "b-b-b-b-b-b-but Sandy" is going to be to these politicians what "b-b-b-b-b-but 9/11" is for Giuliani.

My non-porky solution would be to sweeten the pot for shore residents to move inland, and let the flood insurance program die off through attrition.
 
2013-01-08 11:16:15 AM

quickdraw: Say there. Remember in the last thread about this how I patiently explained to you that the original bill was a general disaster prevention and relief bill - not specifically a hurricane Sandy relief bill? And that the "pork" in this bill was all asked for by GOP senators?


I've been waiting for you to say that.

Here are the mental gymnastics you have proposed:

There was a Sandy Relief Bill with $9B in Sandy Relief.  Then the Republicans attached $51B of pork for their own pet projects to the bill.  Then the Republicans voted against this bill because of the $51B in pork that they themselves added.  That is what you are saying?

I just pwned you.
 
2013-01-08 11:18:06 AM

Sock Ruh Tease: The best part is they won't realize they are on the wrong side of history for another decade or two.


The entire history of conservatism summed up.
 
2013-01-08 11:19:42 AM

SlothB77: The ORIGINAL bill was $51B in pork for democratic pet projects and $9B in Sandy relief.


Perhaps, but as was pointed out, 67 GOP members of The House voted AGAINST even the $9B, non-pork bill.
 
2013-01-08 11:24:04 AM

Gecko Gingrich: Perhaps, but as was pointed out, 67 GOP members of The House voted AGAINST even the $9B, non-pork bill.


It still passed.  Its not like only 60% of the relief gets awarded if 67 people vote against it.  They passed it.  All that matters is if they get enough votes to pass it and they did.
 
2013-01-08 11:27:58 AM

SlothB77: I just pwned you.


I bet he has a little chalkboard right next to his desk so he can count off his crazy internet "victories".
 
2013-01-08 11:27:58 AM

SlothB77: I just pwned you.


Tipping your hand a bit with that line....
 
2013-01-08 11:30:32 AM

SlothB77: Or, here's a letter from a New Jersey resident

nowhere near the hurricane damage criticizing all the pork in the bill.
 
2013-01-08 11:30:39 AM

SlothB77: Gecko Gingrich: Perhaps, but as was pointed out, 67 GOP members of The House voted AGAINST even the $9B, non-pork bill.

It still passed.  Its not like only 60% of the relief gets awarded if 67 people vote against it.  They passed it.  All that matters is if they get enough votes to pass it and they did.


All that matters is that 67 asholes voted against hurricane relief for fellow Americans out of spite. You can keep trying to make everyone else thinks otherwise, you can keep trying to enforce your crazy logic that negates anything you don't agree with, but no one here is buying your shiat. Not one person.
 
2013-01-08 11:30:44 AM

SlothB77: quickdraw: Say there. Remember in the last thread about this how I patiently explained to you that the original bill was a general disaster prevention and relief bill - not specifically a hurricane Sandy relief bill? And that the "pork" in this bill was all asked for by GOP senators?

I've been waiting for you to say that.

Here are the mental gymnastics you have proposed:

There was a Sandy Relief Bill with $9B in Sandy Relief.  Then the Republicans attached $51B of pork for their own pet projects to the bill.  Then the Republicans voted against this bill because of the $51B in pork that they themselves added.  That is what you are saying?

I just pwned you.


aw Hon. You poor thing. Here ya go. See this is why you sound so silly.

"Most of the money in the $60.4 billion bill - $47.4 billion - is for immediate help for victims and other recovery and rebuilding efforts. The aid is intended to help states rebuild public infrastructure like roads and tunnels, and help thousands of people displaced from their homes."

I brought this up in the last thread but didnt provide a link so here you go. See disaster relief takes more than just coverage for flooding. It also covers wind, snow and fire damage.  The 9.1B was just the flooding portion of disaster relief and does not specifically target victims of hurricane Sandy.

/is this math that you, as a Republican, do to make yourself feel better?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-08 11:31:03 AM

ManateeGag: jehovahs witness protection: Jon Stewart and the hero tag NEVER belong together.

awww, is someone still butthurt over Mitt Romney getting beast farked on Nov 6th?  did you bet your house on his victory and now live in a box under I-95?


That poll was skewed.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-08 11:34:21 AM

SlothB77: And to the House Republicans who voted against the first round of funds last week, Stewart said: "If you guys can't vote for this, then we're farked

I have been waiting for this.  The ORIGINAL bill was $51B in pork for democratic pet projects and $9B in Sandy relief.  Jon Stewart is in full propaganda mode.  The democrats politicized an aid bill.  They loaded it up with 85% pork and then pillaged the GOP for being against Sandy Aid when they voted against it.  It should really be called the Democratic Pork with some Sandy Aid snuck in there bill.

And if the Republicans did the same exact thing to the Democrats, you should know Jon Stewart would have called them out on it.  He is a biased propagandist.  Nothing more.


Anything that doesn't go to special interests that back the GOP is pork to you guys.  And biased means "not pro GOP".
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-08 11:37:05 AM

neritz: Sock Ruh Tease: When it comes time for the northeast to pay for tornado/hurricane/wildfire relief for the red states in the midwest and south, both sides are OK with that. But when the northeast needs relief just once, the Republicans throw a hissy fit.

The best part is they won't realize they are on the wrong side of history for another decade or two.


Oh, I think they realize it.  That's why they brought out all the desperate crazy stuff.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-08 11:38:54 AM

SlothB77: Even Mayor Bloomberg criticized the pork in the Sandy Relief Bill, "packed with funding for unrelated items, such as commercial fisheries in American Samoa and roof repair of museums in Washington, D.C" according to Paul Ryan.

Or, here's a letter from a New Jersey resident criticizing all the pork in the bill.

I am sure Jon Stewart mentioned all that during his show too, right?


Mentioned what?  That NJ has teatards?  Of that one of them can write?
 
2013-01-08 11:39:33 AM

SlothB77: Gecko Gingrich: Perhaps, but as was pointed out, 67 GOP members of The House voted AGAINST even the $9B, non-pork bill.

It still passed.  Its not like only 60% of the relief gets awarded if 67 people vote against it.  They passed it.  All that matters is if they get enough votes to pass it and they did.


So if I publicly threaten your family with bodily harm and economic destitution - but it doesnt happen - then were still all cool right?  Political parties must be popular in order to thrive. They cant act like 4th grade bullies and then expect to make new friends.

But hey you go ahead and keep promoting the image of the GOP as dense and poorly informed. I cant imagine a better spokesperson.
 
2013-01-08 11:45:15 AM

quickdraw: "Most of the money in the $60.4 billion bill - $47.4 billion - is for immediate help for victims and other recovery and rebuilding efforts. The aid is intended to help states rebuild public infrastructure like roads and tunnels, and help thousands of people displaced from their homes."


And you can put a shiatload of pork in that, especially if it's for rebuilding in a place where there there's no contractual obligation to rebuild and plenty of environmental reasons NOT to rebuild.

But I get it: not giving a shiat about the environment is okay because point-scoring and the acquisition of power takes precendence.

And when the shore gets hammered by another storm five, ten, 40 years down the road, then what?
 
2013-01-08 11:46:08 AM

SlothB77: according to Paul Ryan.


Oh, well then...  Since Paul Ryan is such an honest and decent person who's never lied about anything...
 
2013-01-08 11:58:03 AM

SlothB77: It still passed. Its not like only 60% of the relief gets awarded if 67 people vote against it. They passed it. All that matters is if they get enough votes to pass it and they did.


The point of this thread, and Stewart's rage, was that 67 GOP members of The House are assholes, many of them hypocritical assholes. The passage of the bill is not germane to the discussion, no matter how much you try to steer the discussion in that direction.
 
2013-01-08 12:06:48 PM

Gulper Eel: quickdraw: "Most of the money in the $60.4 billion bill - $47.4 billion - is for immediate help for victims and other recovery and rebuilding efforts. The aid is intended to help states rebuild public infrastructure like roads and tunnels, and help thousands of people displaced from their homes."

And you can put a shiatload of pork in that, especially if it's for rebuilding in a place where there there's no contractual obligation to rebuild and plenty of environmental reasons NOT to rebuild.

But I get it: not giving a shiat about the environment is okay because point-scoring and the acquisition of power takes precendence.

And when the shore gets hammered by another storm five, ten, 40 years down the road, then what?


If you want to change zoning laws congress is not the place to start. Congress has zero jurisdiction over local zoning and planning. If you want to get zoning changed then the place to start is the insurance industry. When insurance companies refuse to cover a specific area then nothing gets built there.

Or you can go the regular route of proposing changes to zoning and attend like a million city council meetings. But there is nothing congress can do to prevent people from building on land they own if they are permitted to do so by local zoning and the insurance industry.

Whether or not this aid goes through buildings will eventually go up. Its just a question of whether the local residents get to rebuild or if they have sell to vulture style developers.
 
2013-01-08 12:15:09 PM

Gulper Eel: The easy part is honoring the contracts of people who were insured under the national flood insurance program.

The trouble is, the flood insurance program has been subsidizing a lot of stupid over the years, and now a lot of people want to rebuild on land that should never have been built on in the first place...and that's a lot of property-tax revenue the states are losing if there's no ratables there any more.

Most people with half a brain (even Congress) remember what a clusterfark NY/NJ made of things after 9/11...so yeah, I'd think long and hard before handing those farkwits $50 billion. Behind Christie and Cuomo are two royally sleazy state legislatures, plus two congressional delegations and a New York city council full of hacks, toadies and microphone hogs, if not outright crooks. Pretty soon "b-b-b-b-b-b-but Sandy" is going to be to these politicians what "b-b-b-b-b-but 9/11" is for Giuliani.

My non-porky solution would be to sweeten the pot for shore residents to move inland, and let the flood insurance program die off through attrition.


There are scientific ways to diminish or even prevent such flooding. It would require that the government fund public works and infrastructure. This is called pork, despite a very real need for it.

These sort of storms are becomimg more and more common due to Climate Change.
 
2013-01-08 12:15:31 PM

Gulper Eel: My non-porky solution would be to sweeten the pot for shore residents to move inland


How?
 
2013-01-08 12:16:24 PM

quickdraw: When insurance companies refuse to cover a specific area then nothing gets built there.


Thus the point of ditching the flood insurance program. Let the feds buy up the land so that it remains publicly accessible, but that's pretty much it. Anybody who wants to build new in vulnerable spots can insure it their own damn selves.

A deal's a deal, but that doesn't mean the federal government needs to keep entering into dumb deals in perpetuity.

Just look at what happened in Ocean City, MD as opposed to Assateague Island right next door. Ocean City got hit...not like NY/NJ, of course, but there was considerable damage and but for the whims of the storm they could have been in the Jersey shore's situation.

Mainly-undeveloped Assateague did fine. Even the ponies had no problem.
 
2013-01-08 12:18:53 PM

Darth_Lukecash: There are scientific ways to diminish or even prevent such flooding. It would require that the government fund public works and infrastructure. This is called pork, despite a very real need for it.

These sort of storms are becomimg more and more common due to Climate Change.


All the more reason to discourage redevelopment on the shore and encourage it elsewhere. There are plenty of inland communities who would welcome people with money to spend on housing. Coincidentally, those communities could use...infrastructure help.

Besides, why would we need the pre-storm level of infrastructure in a place where nobody should be living?
 
2013-01-08 12:27:22 PM

quickdraw: But there is nothing congress can do to prevent people from building on land they own if they are permitted to do so by local zoning and the insurance industry.


Except that the national flood insurance program means that the federal government is part of the insurance industry, under statutory direction of Congress. This means it seems within the potential scope of Congressional power (though not necessarily good or equitable use of it) to limit federal flood insurance in USGS designated century flood plains to agricultural facilities; or to limit coverage of damage to building improvements, capping at some (nigh-unary) multiple of the assessed land value. There's probably other ways they can obstruct it also, such as prohibiting FDIC insurance to mortgages on buildings in such areas.

(Politically, those are non-starters.)
 
2013-01-08 12:32:04 PM

quickdraw: When insurance companies refuse to cover a specific area then nothing gets built there.


This assumes an insurance company acting in their long term best interest.  A insurance company can very easily decide to run the risk of selling insurance and a huge profit in a 40 year flood/hurricane zone.  There will always be a company willing to do that if we've learned nothing from the the subprime mortgage scandal.

A) stop building there or only give permits for better hurricane proof buildings/communities
B) Grandfather existing properties with mandatory State/Federal insurance on the first $250K of property value only. Municipalities should also have Government insurance at a fixed amount per citizen.
 
2013-01-08 12:45:16 PM

Gulper Eel: .

All the more reason to discourage redevelopment on the shore and encourage it elsewhere. There are plenty of inland communities who would welcome people with money to spend on housing. Coincidentally, those communities could use...infrastructure help.

Besides, why would we need the pre-storm level of infrastructure in a place where nobody should be living?




Following your line of thought, if a window got broke on a house-you'd abandoned it and build a new house.

There are economic reasons why we have coastal cities. It's ridiculousness to say you'd throw away centuries of social and economic development. Why spend hundreds of trillions of dollars when you'd you could spend a few billion and save what's in place?

Not only that there is no place safe from natural disaster. So better shore up the shore.
 
Displayed 50 of 311 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report