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)   Sen. Jim Inhofe: "The tornado aid which my state desperately needs is completely different than the hurricane aid in NJ and NY I voted against, because greedy Northeasterners and pork and futhermore comma"   (salon.com) divider line 299
    More: Dumbass, Inhofe, Hurricane Sandy, Republican, federal funding, Virgin Islands  
•       •       •

4100 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 May 2013 at 3:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-21 04:30:30 PM

steverockson: Don't get me wrong, they're both huge embarrassments (and I know Coburn personally, wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire), but Inhofe is probably the more dangerous of the two.


No contest, since Coburn isn't running for re-election.
 
2013-05-21 04:31:26 PM

flondrix: To The Escape Zeppelin!: Power lines are the responsibility of the power company.

And if the power company doesn't have the money, what then?  Oklahoma goes back to the 19th century?


You're telling me a utility company would spend the capital to build and maintain a vast infrastructure needed to service tens if not hundreds of thousands of clients and then not insure it?  Are the shareholders aware of this?
 
2013-05-21 04:31:38 PM
"Everybody was getting in and exploiting the tragedy that took place."

He's just mad because of the dumb idea that the Obama/Christie photo-op sunk Romney.
 
2013-05-21 04:32:12 PM

Zeppelininthesky: skullkrusher: Chewb1zz: skullkrusher: ...12-12-12 concert raised $30,000,000 for relief not to mention all the smaller "capitalist" charities...... these "capitalist" charities have done more for Sandy relief than the well-meaning but far smaller and less well funded, disorganized "leftist" efforts.

You mean the 12-12-12 concert funded by the Robin Hood Foundation? Which is specifically dedicated to alleviating the problems caused by the poor? The organization the George Soros donated 50 million to? The charity? It's not "capitalistic", it's a freaking charity not interested in generating wealth for itself, but for fomenting social well being.  Do you even know what capitalism means?

note the use of quotes? Note the use of the word "capitalist" in the post to which I was responding, conflating non-"leftist" charitable institutions with "capitalism" ones? Done noting that? Now shut up

"Lefist" dollars are different than "capitalist" dollars?


Perhaps I see the disconnect. He has referred to the Red Cross and other large charities as profit driven organizations trying to make a buck on human suffering in the past while making this very same dubious claim about how Occupy Sandy "lead the effort" in relief.  I see now that he did not explicitly do that in this case. He also bizarrely doesn't regard the charity work done by Occupy Sandy and other volunteers as "charity".

For reference:

http://www.fark.com/comments/7429849/80647562#c80647562
 
2013-05-21 04:32:15 PM

skullkrusher: Granny_Panties: Liberals: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Republicans: Me. It's all about me.

I'll go ahead and post this twice in one day...

first of all, that's vulcans. Second of all, strict utilitarianism is an abomination.


That's in Leviticus, right?
 
2013-05-21 04:32:49 PM

skullkrusher: neversubmit: skullkrusher: Granny_Panties: Liberals: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Republicans: Me. It's all about me.

I'll go ahead and post this twice in one day...

first of all, that's vulcans. Second of all, strict utilitarianism is an abomination.

You are the one that brought strict utilitarianism in to it. Are you having an argument with yourself?

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or that one" is a absolutist statement. If you subscribe to that, I encourage you to donate both lungs, heart, kidneys, liver, eyes and skin post haste so that no time would be wasted in serving the needs of the many.


You point being that you don't know the meaning of an absolutist statement. I encourage you to look it up.
 
2013-05-21 04:32:57 PM

Zeppelininthesky: skullkrusher: Zeppelininthesky: skullkrusher: Zeppelininthesky: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Leftist activists operating through the existing Occupy and other networks > FEMA > Red Cross > Everyone and everything else in the known universe > Capitalist anything

yeah you keep saying that. No one believes you.
Occupy Sandy did not do more good than the Red Cross and FEMA. It is simply not true. The only people who WOULD accept that are idiots and liars.

This is not to diminish the incredible generosity of the people involved with Occupy Sandy and other grassroots efforts - they gave out of the goodness of their hearts and made a difference in the places they served. It is to diminish bald faced liars like you.

Stop making a farking ass of yourself.

Just because *you* say this, does not make it true.

no, just because *I* said it doesn't make it true.

The fact that the Red Cross has spent $200,000,000 on relief efforts, 1700 volunteers across 16 states and sheltered 11,000 people and STILL are working with 9,000 families to help them get back on their feet while the 12-12-12 concert raised $30,000,000 for relief not to mention all the smaller "capitalist" charities that have also taken part in the efforts allows me to say with a high degree of certainty that these "capitalist" charities have done more for Sandy relief than the well-meaning but far smaller and less well funded, disorganized "leftist" efforts.

I doubt the victims care if the donations were coming from the left or right. It is not a contest. The federal money is welcome because it can go to places that really need the funding.

gee, maybe you should talk to the guy who thinks it IS a contest - as opposed to me who notes the generosity of all those who gave time and money, large institutions and grassroots efforts alike, while keeping two feet in farking reality?

You are the one making an unfair comparison and acting like it is a contest.


what's the unfair comparison that I am making and why is it unfair?
 
2013-05-21 04:33:40 PM
Why is american politics full of so many people that are just so punchable, and more to the point, why hasn't anyone exercised this punchability yet? Seriously, you were here the whole time, I swear.
 
2013-05-21 04:33:52 PM

theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: Granny_Panties: Liberals: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Republicans: Me. It's all about me.

I'll go ahead and post this twice in one day...

first of all, that's vulcans. Second of all, strict utilitarianism is an abomination.

That's in Leviticus, right?


the Lord spake thusly, "Live long and prosper and John Stuart Mills is a poopoohead"
 
2013-05-21 04:34:25 PM

skullkrusher: neversubmit: skullkrusher: Granny_Panties: Liberals: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Republicans: Me. It's all about me.

I'll go ahead and post this twice in one day...

first of all, that's vulcans. Second of all, strict utilitarianism is an abomination.

You are the one that brought strict utilitarianism in to it. Are you having an argument with yourself?

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or that one" is a absolutist statement. If you subscribe to that, I encourage you to donate both lungs, heart, kidneys, liver, eyes and skin post haste so that no time would be wasted in serving the needs of the many.


If you were to do that, you would be completely incapable of giving anything else to anybody for all eternity. If you could make more valuable donations over the rest of your life than you could by committing suicide and donating all of your organs, then killing yourself would be self-defeating.
 
2013-05-21 04:35:18 PM
The aid to Oklahoma should be made contingent on those Representatives and Senators from Oklahoma who voted against aid for Hurricane Sandy having to stand on the floor of Congress and openly admit that they are hateful douchebag assholes who shouldn't be in government in any capacity for their votes against disaster relief.
 
2013-05-21 04:35:34 PM
I'm going to turn a blind eye & a deaf ear to the Inhofe shenanigans so that the we can get Oklahoma the Socialisms they need & such as!

/Fark this guy, fark anyone who goes blatant hypocrisy.
//I hope you're paying attention Oklahoma voter!
 
2013-05-21 04:37:00 PM
At least Inhofe is just a straight-up hypocrite. Coburn is crazy enough to deny his own constituents disaster relief if he can't do so while maintaining his ideological purity. And his constituents are crazy enough to reelect him even as they freeze in the dark. Go figure.
 
2013-05-21 04:38:37 PM

neversubmit: skullkrusher: neversubmit: skullkrusher: Granny_Panties: Liberals: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Republicans: Me. It's all about me.

I'll go ahead and post this twice in one day...

first of all, that's vulcans. Second of all, strict utilitarianism is an abomination.

You are the one that brought strict utilitarianism in to it. Are you having an argument with yourself?

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or that one" is a absolutist statement. If you subscribe to that, I encourage you to donate both lungs, heart, kidneys, liver, eyes and skin post haste so that no time would be wasted in serving the needs of the many.

You point being that you don't know the meaning of an absolutist statement. I encourage you to look it up.


ab·so·lut·ism
n.1. a. A political theory holding that all power should be vested in one ruler or other authority.b. A form of government in which all power is vested in a single ruler or other authority.2. An absolute doctrine, principle, or standard.ab·so·luteadjective \ˈab-sə-ˌlüt, ˌab-sə-ˈ\Definition of ABSOLUTE1a : free from imperfection
...4: having no restriction, exception, or qualification no charge.
 
2013-05-21 04:38:49 PM
skullkrusher:  note the use of quotes? Note the use of the word "capitalist" in the post to which I was responding, conflating non-"leftist" charitable institutions with "capitalism" ones? Done noting that? Now shut up

Noted. And no I don't see those quotes around leftist in the original post, or capitalist. you used those, positing the idea that the charities that donated were capitalist. And the Robin Hood Foundation is the polar opposite of what you tried to describe it as. The Red Cross is not a "capitalist" institution, FEMA isn't either, 12-12-12 was not a "capitalist" event, hell every volunteer that showed up was not engaging in a "capitalist" activity. It was a community of individuals, a society if you will, banding together, pooling their resources for the common good. So no, I won't shut up when you say something that stupid.
 
2013-05-21 04:39:02 PM

Serious Black: skullkrusher: neversubmit: skullkrusher: Granny_Panties: Liberals: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Republicans: Me. It's all about me.

I'll go ahead and post this twice in one day...

first of all, that's vulcans. Second of all, strict utilitarianism is an abomination.

You are the one that brought strict utilitarianism in to it. Are you having an argument with yourself?

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or that one" is a absolutist statement. If you subscribe to that, I encourage you to donate both lungs, heart, kidneys, liver, eyes and skin post haste so that no time would be wasted in serving the needs of the many.

If you were to do that, you would be completely incapable of giving anything else to anybody for all eternity. If you could make more valuable donations over the rest of your life than you could by committing suicide and donating all of your organs, then killing yourself would be self-defeating.


So you didn't think that was a winning argument? Lets put it another way "if you don't agree with me you should die" how was that?
 
2013-05-21 04:39:12 PM

clambam: At least Inhofe is just a straight-up hypocrite. Coburn is crazy enough to deny his own constituents disaster relief if he can't do so while maintaining his ideological purity. And his constituents are crazy enough to reelect him even as they freeze in the dark. Go figure.


Coburn is retiring. So his denial is easy.
 
2013-05-21 04:39:46 PM

Serious Black: skullkrusher: neversubmit: skullkrusher: Granny_Panties: Liberals: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Republicans: Me. It's all about me.

I'll go ahead and post this twice in one day...

first of all, that's vulcans. Second of all, strict utilitarianism is an abomination.

You are the one that brought strict utilitarianism in to it. Are you having an argument with yourself?

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or that one" is a absolutist statement. If you subscribe to that, I encourage you to donate both lungs, heart, kidneys, liver, eyes and skin post haste so that no time would be wasted in serving the needs of the many.

If you were to do that, you would be completely incapable of giving anything else to anybody for all eternity. If you could make more valuable donations over the rest of your life than you could by committing suicide and donating all of your organs, then killing yourself would be self-defeating.


directly being the literal difference between life and death for a dozen or so people is more than most people are going to accomplish.
 
2013-05-21 04:41:07 PM

skullkrusher: neversubmit: skullkrusher: neversubmit: skullkrusher: Granny_Panties: Liberals: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Republicans: Me. It's all about me.

I'll go ahead and post this twice in one day...

first of all, that's vulcans. Second of all, strict utilitarianism is an abomination.

You are the one that brought strict utilitarianism in to it. Are you having an argument with yourself?

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or that one" is a absolutist statement. If you subscribe to that, I encourage you to donate both lungs, heart, kidneys, liver, eyes and skin post haste so that no time would be wasted in serving the needs of the many.

You point being that you don't know the meaning of an absolutist statement. I encourage you to look it up.

ab·so·lut·ism
n.1. a. A political theory holding that all power should be vested in one ruler or other authority.b. A form of government in which all power is vested in a single ruler or other authority.2. An absolute doctrine, principle, or standard.ab·so·luteadjective \ˈab-sə-ˌlüt, ˌab-sə-ˈ\Definition of ABSOLUTE1a : free from imperfection
...4: having no restriction, exception, or qualification no charge.


Yes I know you don't know what an absolutist statement is and now I know you don't know look stuff up. Were you trying to make some other point?
 
2013-05-21 04:42:04 PM

Chewb1zz: skullkrusher:  note the use of quotes? Note the use of the word "capitalist" in the post to which I was responding, conflating non-"leftist" charitable institutions with "capitalism" ones? Done noting that? Now shut up

Noted. And no I don't see those quotes around leftist in the original post, or capitalist. you used those, positing the idea that the charities that donated were capitalist. And the Robin Hood Foundation is the polar opposite of what you tried to describe it as. The Red Cross is not a "capitalist" institution, FEMA isn't either, 12-12-12 was not a "capitalist" event, hell every volunteer that showed up was not engaging in a "capitalist" activity. It was a community of individuals, a society if you will, banding together, pooling their resources for the common good. So no, I won't shut up when you say something that stupid.


sorry, I was too harsh earlier. I see now that I read something into his post that was not there because I was drawing on previous comments he's made on the topic. He is the one talking about "leftist" vs "capitalist" charities. I think that is an absurd distinction. I also know that it is absurd to say that the efforts of Occupy Sandy and the like exceeded those of the Red Cross and FEMA. Of course, he's since tried to pretend he was saying something else entirely but he wasn't. He is just embarrassed that someone quoted my post and therefore his ignore filter couldn't save his ego.
 
2013-05-21 04:42:16 PM
Now I'm wondering WTF is happening in north Dallas. A friend just wrote me to tell me that they were moving into the basement at her office building, and I'm getting voice mail when I call her.
 
2013-05-21 04:43:06 PM

ItchyMcDoogle: I hear this argument all the time from my GOP and Libertarian friends. Esp on health care. Oh the community will help! churches, corporations won't let people suffer. Cooperations are better at running things then the government.

All I have to say to them is Put up or shut up. Show me where that has happened on a mass scale. Show me where churches and or corporations pay for medical treatments for cancer patients without insurance and help rebuild with no profit to think about.

What comes back every time is * Crickets * or Fark you commie lib.



During the last "great one" I was living in Norman Oklahoma so this is a first hand eye witness account. When you say "the government" I'm going to break this up into two categories: local and Federal. Local was excellent! On the job getting things done. Federal? Showed up the next day to do press conferences.
How why was the local so excellent? Because local businesses threw open their doors and allowed the local people access to the tools, material and equipment needed to get the job done. Not to mention all the stupid SOBs like me that showed up ready to listen and do what we were told. And that's the model on how to get stuff done. It was that way in Midwest City and Moore and it was that way in Nashville. You only get into trouble when you wait on the federal guys to come save you ie:New Orleans and New York.
 
2013-05-21 04:43:21 PM

Hobodeluxe: clambam: At least Inhofe is just a straight-up hypocrite. Coburn is crazy enough to deny his own constituents disaster relief if he can't do so while maintaining his ideological purity. And his constituents are crazy enough to reelect him even as they freeze in the dark. Go figure.

Coburn is retiring. So his denial is easy.


Oh really? Sorry Oklahoma, your'e screwed.
 
2013-05-21 04:43:36 PM
Pardon me... That they were *TALKING* about moving to the basement. Do not want to cause panic.
 
2013-05-21 04:43:42 PM
Oh look, a hypocritical sack of crap Midwesterner.  What a surprise!  The reason God punished them with bad weather is that people from the Midwest have turned their backs on God and worship Satan.  There can be no other logical reason for this sort of thing.
 
2013-05-21 04:44:01 PM
images.jambase.com
 
2013-05-21 04:44:26 PM

neversubmit: skullkrusher: neversubmit: skullkrusher: neversubmit: skullkrusher: Granny_Panties: Liberals: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Republicans: Me. It's all about me.

I'll go ahead and post this twice in one day...

first of all, that's vulcans. Second of all, strict utilitarianism is an abomination.

You are the one that brought strict utilitarianism in to it. Are you having an argument with yourself?

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or that one" is a absolutist statement. If you subscribe to that, I encourage you to donate both lungs, heart, kidneys, liver, eyes and skin post haste so that no time would be wasted in serving the needs of the many.

You point being that you don't know the meaning of an absolutist statement. I encourage you to look it up.

ab·so·lut·ism
n.1. a. A political theory holding that all power should be vested in one ruler or other authority.b. A form of government in which all power is vested in a single ruler or other authority.2. An absolute doctrine, principle, or standard.ab·so·luteadjective \ˈab-sə-ˌlüt, ˌab-sə-ˈ\Definition of ABSOLUTE1a : free from imperfection
...4: having no restriction, exception, or qualification no charge.

Yes I know you don't know what an absolutist statement is and now I know you don't know look stuff up. Were you trying to make some other point?


Absolutist statement. A statement without qualification. Why are you insisting on kicking your own ass here man?
Again:

ab·so·lut·ism  (
n.1. a. A political theory holding that all power should be vested in one ruler or other authority.b. A form of government in which all power is vested in a single ruler or other authority.2. An absolute doctrine, principle, or standard.Would you have preferred I'd said "absolutistic"? Is that the great internet victory you're going for?
 
2013-05-21 04:44:49 PM

skullkrusher: Chewb1zz: skullkrusher:  note the use of quotes? Note the use of the word "capitalist" in the post to which I was responding, conflating non-"leftist" charitable institutions with "capitalism" ones? Done noting that? Now shut up

Noted. And no I don't see those quotes around leftist in the original post, or capitalist. you used those, positing the idea that the charities that donated were capitalist. And the Robin Hood Foundation is the polar opposite of what you tried to describe it as. The Red Cross is not a "capitalist" institution, FEMA isn't either, 12-12-12 was not a "capitalist" event, hell every volunteer that showed up was not engaging in a "capitalist" activity. It was a community of individuals, a society if you will, banding together, pooling their resources for the common good. So no, I won't shut up when you say something that stupid.

sorry, I was too harsh earlier. I see now that I read something into his post that was not there because I was drawing on previous comments he's made on the topic. He is the one talking about "leftist" vs "capitalist" charities. I think that is an absurd distinction. I also know that it is absurd to say that the efforts of Occupy Sandy and the like exceeded those of the Red Cross and FEMA. Of course, he's since tried to pretend he was saying something else entirely but he wasn't. He is just embarrassed that someone quoted my post and therefore his ignore filter couldn't save his ego.


happens to the best of us.
 
2013-05-21 04:45:12 PM

skullkrusher: brigid_fitch: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Leftist activists operating through the existing Occupy and other networks > FEMA > Red Cross > Everyone and everything else in the known universe > Capitalist anything

yeah you keep saying that. No one believes you.
Occupy Sandy did not do more good than the Red Cross and FEMA. It is simply not true. The only people who WOULD accept that are idiots and liars.

This is not to diminish the incredible generosity of the people involved with Occupy Sandy and other grassroots efforts - they gave out of the goodness of their hearts and made a difference in the places they served. It is to diminish bald faced liars like you.

Stop making a farking ass of yourself.

This.  I'm only a few miles from Manasquan, NJ, where Sandy completely flattened dozens of houses--not counting 3 blocks' worth that burned to the ground because the firetrucks couldn't get past the farking Atlantic Ocean streaming across the road.  I've been in a number of charity events since then, since I miraculously had zero damage.  In fact, I was in a charity event for Sandy just this past Saturday that was the culmination of months of planning and marketing, coupled with aggressive recruiting.  They got an estimated 1600-1900 motorcycles, at least another 1,000 people who came to the barbecue afterwards, and raised...$27,695.

If for some reason you think that's better than what FEMA could do, you're seriously deluded.

people of all sorts have been amazingly compassionate and giving, especially in the immediate aftermath. Their help and generosity of time and money was certainly appreciated by those impacted by the storm. They brightened many a day or at least made it seem less hopeless. Why someone would make laughable claims to build up that which doesn't need building up is baffling. Those lefties were awesome in what they did (and the righties who took part as well). It really should be enough to laud their efforts rather than embarrass them ...


I know quite a few people involved in the Sandy relief efforts for Red Cross, FEMA, and Occupy.  All of them did good work.  To be frank, Sandy was a very well handled disaster, compared to the incredibly low bar that Bush set with Katrina.

I was at one point the safety director for all of the faith based relief groups for the entire Mississippi Gulf Coast after Katrina. I was there for 11 months, and have friends that are still down there.  Interestingly, I was a Republican back then, but no longer am.

Want to know why I left that party, and what the difference is between the parties, and the different types of relief groups?  Back in the days of Katrina, we had a party in power that believed that the federal government had no business conducting disaster relief.  So, they went out of their way to prove that point.  Unfortunately, MEMA and GOHSEP followed FEMA's lead, and were largely ineffectual due to their limited operating scope.

Due to the huge power vacuum left by having no federal or state effective coordination for relief efforts, chuckleheads like myself with almost no experience rose incredibly high in the ranks of the relief effort because no one else was doing the work.  It was very empowering for average volunteers, but very damaging to the long term relief effort.  Salvation Army and Red Cross also had very limited operating parameters (handing out food, first aid, temporary housing), that were very helpful in the immediate relief effort, but woefully inadequate for the rebuilding effort.

As a result, smaller, newer organizations leveraged meager budgets into much greater impact than the big dogs for Katrina.  Organizations like Hands On USA (now All Hands Volunteers), Burners Without Borders, Common Ground, Architecture for Humanity, and Can-do.org far outperformed organizations and federal agencies with budgets many orders of magnitude larger than theirs.

However, things have changed since then.

Obama, and the governors of the states such as New York and New Jersey, are eager to prove their competence.  The Red Cross and some of the larger groups have re-focused onto larger relief and rebuilding efforts.  FEMA coordinates effectively both governmental and NGO resources.  So, as a result, the little guys like Occupy and Hands On still had a great impact after Sandy, but not as markedly superior to the big boys.

TL:DR
You're kinda right, they all did great work, but under Obama FEMA is much more agile and effective than it was under Bush, and as a result many of the larger NGOs are more effective as well.
 
2013-05-21 04:45:43 PM

maxheck: Now I'm wondering WTF is happening in north Dallas. A friend just wrote me to tell me that they were moving into the basement at her office building, and I'm getting voice mail when I call her.


Big storm running through north Texas. We were under a tornado warning for a bit, but nothing materialized, everyone in tornado alley is just a bit freaked out right now.
 
2013-05-21 04:47:01 PM
I'm really hoping Chuck Schumer kicks his media whoring into high gear. Stuff the OK relief bill with "pork" like additional relief funding for Sandy victims. Then head to Oklahoma with state emergency management from NY, who have previous relief experience from six months ago, to help out. And of course the whole thing would be capped by a special Schumer press conference amid the destroyed homes talking about how NY stands with them. And throw in Peter King for good measure. Passive aggressive at its best!
 
2013-05-21 04:47:02 PM

skullkrusher: Zeppelininthesky: skullkrusher: Chewb1zz: skullkrusher: ...12-12-12 concert raised $30,000,000 for relief not to mention all the smaller "capitalist" charities...... these "capitalist" charities have done more for Sandy relief than the well-meaning but far smaller and less well funded, disorganized "leftist" efforts.

You mean the 12-12-12 concert funded by the Robin Hood Foundation? Which is specifically dedicated to alleviating the problems caused by the poor? The organization the George Soros donated 50 million to? The charity? It's not "capitalistic", it's a freaking charity not interested in generating wealth for itself, but for fomenting social well being.  Do you even know what capitalism means?

note the use of quotes? Note the use of the word "capitalist" in the post to which I was responding, conflating non-"leftist" charitable institutions with "capitalism" ones? Done noting that? Now shut up

"Lefist" dollars are different than "capitalist" dollars?

Perhaps I see the disconnect. He has referred to the Red Cross and other large charities as profit driven organizations trying to make a buck on human suffering in the past while making this very same dubious claim about how Occupy Sandy "lead the effort" in relief.  I see now that he did not explicitly do that in this case. He also bizarrely doesn't regard the charity work done by Occupy Sandy and other volunteers as "charity".

For reference:

http://www.fark.com/comments/7429849/80647562#c80647562


I still don't see your point.
 
2013-05-21 04:47:24 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: ItchyMcDoogle: I hear this argument all the time from my GOP and Libertarian friends. Esp on health care. Oh the community will help! churches, corporations won't let people suffer. Cooperations are better at running things then the government.

All I have to say to them is Put up or shut up. Show me where that has happened on a mass scale. Show me where churches and or corporations pay for medical treatments for cancer patients without insurance and help rebuild with no profit to think about.

What comes back every time is * Crickets * or Fark you commie lib.


During the last "great one" I was living in Norman Oklahoma so this is a first hand eye witness account. When you say "the government" I'm going to break this up into two categories: local and Federal. Local was excellent! On the job getting things done. Federal? Showed up the next day to do press conferences.
How why was the local so excellent? Because local businesses threw open their doors and allowed the local people access to the tools, material and equipment needed to get the job done. Not to mention all the stupid SOBs like me that showed up ready to listen and do what we were told. And that's the model on how to get stuff done. It was that way in Midwest City and Moore and it was that way in Nashville. You only get into trouble when you wait on the federal guys to come save you ie:New Orleans and New York.


Really? So those businesses just gave away the tools and equipment, took the financial hit for the benefit of their neighbors? No? They got reimbursed by the federal government you say? Actually I doubt they did because I suspect you just made the whole story up. Because if you're going to be a greedy self-serving hypocrite, you might as well go whole hog and be a lying greedy self-serving hypocrite.
 
2013-05-21 04:47:26 PM

Ayn Rand's Social Worker: I know quite a few people involved in the Sandy relief efforts for Red Cross, FEMA, and Occupy. All of them did good work. To be frank, Sandy was a very well handled disaster, compared to the incredibly low bar that Bush set with Katrina.

I was at one point the safety director for all of the faith based relief groups for the entire Mississippi Gulf Coast after Katrina. I was there for 11 months, and have friends that are still down there. Interestingly, I was a Republican back then, but no longer am.

Want to know why I left that party, and what the difference is between the parties, and the different types of relief groups? Back in the days of Katrina, we had a party in power that believed that the federal government had no business conducting disaster relief. So, they went out of their way to prove that point. Unfortunately, MEMA and GOHSEP followed FEMA's lead, and were largely ineffectual due to their limited operating scope.

Due to the huge power vacuum left by having no federal or state effective coordination for relief efforts, chuckleheads like myself with almost no experience rose incredibly high in the ranks of the relief effort because no one else was doing the work. It was very empowering for average volunteers, but very damaging to the long term relief effort. Salvation Army and Red Cross also had very limited operating parameters (handing out food, first aid, temporary housing), that were very helpful in the immediate relief effort, but woefully inadequate for the rebuilding effort.

As a result, smaller, newer organizations leveraged meager budgets into much greater impact than the big dogs for Katrina. Organizations like Hands On USA (now All Hands Volunteers), Burners Without Borders, Common Ground, Architecture for Humanity, and Can-do.org far outperformed organizations and federal agencies with budgets many orders of magnitude larger than theirs.

However, things have changed since then.

Obama, and the governors of the stat ...


see, there is nothing in here I find disagreeable. Charities are great as long as they do what their claim. Big, small, religious, rabidly atheist lefties, whatever. Helping people good. Making stuff up that no one in their right mind would find even plausible? Bizarre.
 
2013-05-21 04:47:36 PM
Chewb1zz:

maxheck: Now I'm wondering WTF is happening in north Dallas. A friend just wrote me to tell me that they were moving into the basement at her office building, and I'm getting voice mail when I call her.

Big storm running through north Texas. We were under a tornado warning for a bit, but nothing materialized, everyone in tornado alley is just a bit freaked out right now.


Thank you. Means a lot.
 
2013-05-21 04:48:52 PM

MrSteve007: One would think that in an area of the country dubbed "Tornado Alley" - that you guys would at least build elementary schools with basements or some form of a shelter, other than an interior hallway.

While folks lobby for gun legislation in this country in an attempt to prevent another Sandyhook - why aren't folks demanding a basic change to the way we design and build public schools - to prevent another Plaza Towers?

[i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x360]

/oh, that's right - demanding better building codes for public structures isn't nearly as sexy as "assault" weapons.


Because nobody has fantasies where they get to stand up to a horde of high winds armed with better weather forcasting and proper building codes.
 
2013-05-21 04:49:00 PM

skullkrusher: see, there is nothing in here I find disagreeable. Charities are great as long as they do what their claim. Big, small, religious, rabidly atheist lefties, whatever. Helping people good. Making stuff up that no one in their right mind would find even plausible? Bizarre.


and what they claim is not "protecting the sanctity of marriage" and shiat like that. Figured I'd qualify it. Wouldn't want to be caught making an absolutist absolutistic AbsolutTM statement
 
2013-05-21 04:49:53 PM

Chewb1zz: maxheck: Now I'm wondering WTF is happening in north Dallas. A friend just wrote me to tell me that they were moving into the basement at her office building, and I'm getting voice mail when I call her.

Big storm running through north Texas. We were under a tornado warning for a bit, but nothing materialized, everyone in tornado alley is just a bit freaked out right now.


be safe dudes
 
2013-05-21 04:50:18 PM
nocturnal001:

MrSteve007: One would think that in an area of the country dubbed "Tornado Alley" - that you guys would at least build elementary schools with basements or some form of a shelter, other than an interior hallway.

While folks lobby for gun legislation in this country in an attempt to prevent another Sandyhook - why aren't folks demanding a basic change to the way we design and build public schools - to prevent another Plaza Towers?

[i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x360]

/oh, that's right - demanding better building codes for public structures isn't nearly as sexy as "assault" weapons.

Because nobody has fantasies where they get to stand up to a horde of high winds armed with better weather forcasting and proper building codes.


/ slinks away, not saying anything.
 
2013-05-21 04:52:10 PM
www.nasa.gov

From NASA - http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/archives/2012/h2012_Sand y .html

Early in the morning on October 25, 2012, the Suomi NPP satellite passed over Hurricane Sandy after it made landfall over Cuba and Jamaica, capturing this highly detailed infrared imagery, showing areas of deep convection around the central eye. Besides the highly detailed infrared imagery, the satellite's day night band captured detailed visible-like imagery of the cloud tops, along with the city lights of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
 
2013-05-21 04:53:31 PM

skullkrusher: Serious Black: skullkrusher: neversubmit: skullkrusher: Granny_Panties: Liberals: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Republicans: Me. It's all about me.

I'll go ahead and post this twice in one day...

first of all, that's vulcans. Second of all, strict utilitarianism is an abomination.

You are the one that brought strict utilitarianism in to it. Are you having an argument with yourself?

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or that one" is a absolutist statement. If you subscribe to that, I encourage you to donate both lungs, heart, kidneys, liver, eyes and skin post haste so that no time would be wasted in serving the needs of the many.

If you were to do that, you would be completely incapable of giving anything else to anybody for all eternity. If you could make more valuable donations over the rest of your life than you could by committing suicide and donating all of your organs, then killing yourself would be self-defeating.

directly being the literal difference between life and death for a dozen or so people is more than most people are going to accomplish.


If we assume that all those organ donations really do save a life (I'd dispute it in some of the organs you named), I agree that could be true, but we really have no idea which people will fall on either side of the spectrum until their life is over. Even then, history remembers people differently at different times or based on different viewpoints, so person X could be viewed as saving hundreds of lives or as killing hundreds of lives.
 
2013-05-21 04:54:13 PM
The only funding I would have voted against would have been the bulk of post-Katrina money.

The levee system was so underbuilt and corruptly-run I would have never allowed the city to rebuild until they gave total control of the whole schmear to the Governor's office.  The local control going back generations was a disaster waiting to happen, and it did.
 
2013-05-21 04:55:07 PM

Serious Black: If we assume that all those organ donations really do save a life (I'd dispute it in some of the organs you named), I agree that could be true, but we really have no idea which people will fall on either side of the spectrum until their life is over. Even then, history remembers people differently at different times or based on different viewpoints, so person X could be viewed as saving hundreds of lives or as killing hundreds of lives.


lungs (2)
kidneys (2)
liver (several depending but for the average Farker, probably better off skipping the liver)
skin (multiple)
heart (1)

maybe just shy of a dozen. Still a ton of people.
 
2013-05-21 04:55:54 PM

Zeppelininthesky: skullkrusher: Chewb1zz: skullkrusher: ...12-12-12 concert raised $30,000,000 for relief not to mention all the smaller "capitalist" charities...... these "capitalist" charities have done more for Sandy relief than the well-meaning but far smaller and less well funded, disorganized "leftist" efforts.

You mean the 12-12-12 concert funded by the Robin Hood Foundation? Which is specifically dedicated to alleviating the problems caused by the poor? The organization the George Soros donated 50 million to? The charity? It's not "capitalistic", it's a freaking charity not interested in generating wealth for itself, but for fomenting social well being.  Do you even know what capitalism means?

note the use of quotes? Note the use of the word "capitalist" in the post to which I was responding, conflating non-"leftist" charitable institutions with "capitalism" ones? Done noting that? Now shut up

"Lefist" dollars are different than "capitalist" dollars?


Yes. Leftist dollars spend like this, and capitalist dollars spend like this.
 
2013-05-21 04:56:23 PM

BMulligan: Zeppelininthesky: skullkrusher: Chewb1zz: skullkrusher: ...12-12-12 concert raised $30,000,000 for relief not to mention all the smaller "capitalist" charities...... these "capitalist" charities have done more for Sandy relief than the well-meaning but far smaller and less well funded, disorganized "leftist" efforts.

You mean the 12-12-12 concert funded by the Robin Hood Foundation? Which is specifically dedicated to alleviating the problems caused by the poor? The organization the George Soros donated 50 million to? The charity? It's not "capitalistic", it's a freaking charity not interested in generating wealth for itself, but for fomenting social well being.  Do you even know what capitalism means?

note the use of quotes? Note the use of the word "capitalist" in the post to which I was responding, conflating non-"leftist" charitable institutions with "capitalism" ones? Done noting that? Now shut up

"Lefist" dollars are different than "capitalist" dollars?

Yes. Leftist dollars spend like this, and capitalist dollars spend like this.


it's true, it's true. We're so lame.
 
2013-05-21 04:58:32 PM

skullkrusher: Serious Black: If we assume that all those organ donations really do save a life (I'd dispute it in some of the organs you named), I agree that could be true, but we really have no idea which people will fall on either side of the spectrum until their life is over. Even then, history remembers people differently at different times or based on different viewpoints, so person X could be viewed as saving hundreds of lives or as killing hundreds of lives.

lungs (2)
kidneys (2)
liver (several depending but for the average Farker, probably better off skipping the liver)
skin (multiple)
heart (1)

maybe just shy of a dozen. Still a ton of people.


Fine. So what about the rest of my comment? Should we force people that we deem unable to save a dozen people outside of forcible organ donation to die even though we almost certainly can't judge that?
 
2013-05-21 05:00:13 PM
Serious Black:

This article explains the problems with getting people underground in Oklahoma better than I could in two lines.

FTA...If the suburbs keep expanding, Paul Douglas put it, "we're going to see more of this."

Sooo many cheap suburban housing developments around Central Texas. When we get hit (not if), there will be considerable carnage.
 
2013-05-21 05:00:33 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: You only get into trouble when you wait on the federal guys to come save you ie:New Orleans and New York.


LOL. Don't stop believing.
 
2013-05-21 05:00:57 PM

Dog Welder: s2s2s2: So what of this Virgin Islands pork he mentioned?

Are these so-called Virgin Islands anywhere near Whore Island?


Yeah, but you gotta go through the Virgin Islands a whole bunch of times to get to 'em.
 
2013-05-21 05:01:54 PM
Fark off you welfare-state asshole. The libruls in the Northeast are tired of funding your tornado and hurricane relief efforts and paying more taxes than they get back, only to be kicked in the face the one farking time in ages they needed help.

http://underthemountainbunker.com/2013/02/28/24-hour-warning-by-the- wa y-red-states-take-in-more-federal-money-than-they-pay-in-taxes/
 
Displayed 50 of 299 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report