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  
•       •       •

4102 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 05:02:31 PM  

MindStalker: The Virgin Islands pork was in an initial version but not in the final legislation. The final legislation did include paying for some damages to Smithsonian museums in DC.


Reasonable, in MY* GOP? I think NOT!

*Not mine at all.
 
2013-05-21 05:03:23 PM  

ItchyMcDoogle: With all that said the people of Oklahoma deserve every bit of help from the Govt and everyone. Just because they have a bunch of GOP cockbags representing them in Washington is no reason to let them suffer at all. Even though I really really doubt it I do hope that the Senators who cut and tried to deny funding for Sandy see how hypocritical they are when the vote for funds to help the people of Oklahoma


i disagree with that. They vote every year to try and make it so the government isn't there to help them, then they come crying for a hand out everytime something happens and the rest of us dig in and help. I say this time, we don't. If you have a spoiled child, you dont keep rewarding their bad behavior. these people are spoiled children. If they had to reap what they sowed, maybe they'd stop sowing it
 
2013-05-21 05:03:44 PM  

clambam: 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.


Project much?

I know it's hard to understand people helping other people. I know you believe that someone in the federal government has to take from someone to give to another. But when you have people trapped in a building and the local Ace Hardware has a load of shovels and pickaxes the math becomes very simple. The local Denny's throws up the doors and starts cooking eggs and hamburgers as fast as they can and generally people get down to work. Next thing you know tractor trailers full of baby formula, diapers and bottled water. It's really heart warming.
 
2013-05-21 05:04:40 PM  
FWIW I don't think anyone should be playing politics with disaster relief. Just saying that Inhofe and Coburn are two of the biggest cock-bags in govt. and they should be publicly shamed.
 
2013-05-21 05:05:44 PM  

Serious Black: 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?


no, why would we do that?
 
2013-05-21 05:06:27 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.


Here's how crazy Coburn is.  Back in '99 when the GOP primary was in full swing I asked Coburn (who was our representative at the time) who he was supporting for president.  His answer? Alan Keyes!  I did a double-take and backed slowly away.

/csb
 
2013-05-21 05:07:58 PM  
Meh, one law/provision per bill would solve most of the problems in this farked up country.

/pork spoils a lot of legislation
 
2013-05-21 05:08:22 PM  

skullkrusher: Serious Black: 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?

no, why would we do that?


Because it serves as a nice way to call out your comment as being stupid.
 
2013-05-21 05:09:47 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: clambam: 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.

Project much?

I know it's hard to understand people helping other people. I know you believe that someone in the federal government has to take from someone to give to another. But when you have people trapped in a building and the local Ace Hardware has a load of shovels and pickaxes the math becomes very simple. The local Denny's throws up the doors and starts cooking eggs and hamburgers as fast as they can and generally people get down to work. Next thing you know tractor trailers full of baby formula, diapers and bottled water. It's really heart warming.


Assholes don't understand good hospitality.
 
2013-05-21 05:12:41 PM  

theorellior: LOL. Don't stop believing.


So you don't remember the people getting pulled off the roofs in New Orleans or the people living in their own filth in New York?
 
2013-05-21 05:12:48 PM  
Maud Dib:

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.


Having done work for a friend and her sons in that general area, yeah. Evidently you guys lived under Somali rules for a while.

From what I understand you guys actually have gotten together to accept building codes recently, but yeah.
 
2013-05-21 05:12:51 PM  

Serious Black: skullkrusher: Serious Black: 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?

no, why would we do that?

Because it serves as a nice way to call out your comment as being stupid.


how so? It is certainly a most rare breed of person who will be directly responsible for saving 12 people's lives over the course of their own. So even if we do wind up killing off a few people who might save 25 people from a burning building or something similar, on net the needs of the many will have been outweighed by the needs of the few. Perhaps we could just breed specific people for such a purpose? See, the statement you're defending is incredibly dumb and, by association, your defense of it is also incredibly dumb but I guess we can pretend you won if it increases your utility.
 
2013-05-21 05:14:35 PM  

basemetal: The Stealth Hippopotamus: clambam: 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.

Project much?

I know it's hard to understand people helping other people. I know you believe that someone in the federal government has to take from someone to give to another. But when you have people trapped in a building and the local Ace Hardware has a load of shovels and pickaxes the math becomes very simple. The local Denny's throws up the doors and starts cooking eggs and hamburgers as fast as they can and generally people get down to work. Next thing you know tractor trailers full of baby formula, diapers and bottled water. It's really heart warming.

Assholes don't understand good hospitality.


i.qkme.me

/obscure?
//if so, see Troll 2
 
2013-05-21 05:19:16 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: theorellior: LOL. Don't stop believing.

So you don't remember the people getting pulled off the roofs in New Orleans or the people living in their own filth in New York?


In a disaster area there's so much to pick and choose from. There were also orders of magnitude more people affected in both NOLA and NYC than in Oklahoma, so the response logistics are quite a bit different. You just happen to pick the bootstrappy portions of your disaster experience and the lazy moocher portions of disasters you didn't have any personal experience with. It's something called selection bias. It's especially prevalent when it just happens to align with your ideological mythologies.

Anyway, I bet you've been meaning to go sling hash at the local Denny's for free instead of arguing on the Internet, we know how caring and compassionate you are. When the Red Cross arrives, be sure to let them know my donation money should be used elsewhere, since you've got it all covered.
 
2013-05-21 05:20:31 PM  

skullkrusher: Serious Black: skullkrusher: Serious Black: 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?

no, why would we do that?

Because it serves as a nice way to call out your comment as being stupid.

how so? It is certainly a most rare breed of person who will be directly responsible for saving 12 people's lives over the course of their own. So even if we do wind up killing off a few people who might save 25 people from a burning building or something similar, on net the needs of the many will have been outweighed by the needs of the few. Perhaps we could just breed specific people for such a purpose? See, the statement you're defending is incredibly dumb and, by association, your defense of it is also incredibly dumb but I guess we can pretend you won if it increases your utility.


I don't think it's a dumb statement. I do think reducing it to only life-and-death terms is pretty ridiculous though. William Shakespeare arguably enriched millions, if not billions, of lives through his writings, but I doubt he saved even one life directly (unless you count stopping the Carrionites from taking over Earth and murdering all mankind). Would the world have been better off if he had instead killed himself and given his organs to a dozen people?
 
2013-05-21 05:21:55 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: But when you have people trapped in a building and the local Ace Hardware has a load of shovels and pickaxes the math becomes very simple


Here's a case in point: I'm sure this works wonders for a single-story building surrounded by lots of land. But try digging people out of a collapsed multi-story urban apartment building with shovels and pickaxes and get back to me.
 
2013-05-21 05:23:44 PM  

Serious Black: I don't think it's a dumb statement. I do think reducing it to only life-and-death terms is pretty ridiculous though. William Shakespeare arguably enriched millions, if not billions, of lives through his writings, but I doubt he saved even one life directly (unless you count stopping the Carrionites from taking over Earth and murdering all mankind). Would the world have been better off if he had instead killed himself and given his organs to a dozen people?


maybe? Because maybe one of those 12 would have gone on to give rise to the person who cures cancer?
Or maybe we can just agree that absolute utilitarianism is immoral horseshiat? Let's just do that.
 
2013-05-21 05:24:26 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Jackson Herring: it's weird to see one's catchphrase turned into a headline

Ha, I assumed it was your submission.

But yeah, fark this dipshiat.

Thankfully the people of Oklahoma can always rely on the superior morality of non-republicans.


Pretty much that.  What I hope, however, is that someone makes a speech in Congress effectively telling Inhofe and Coburn to go fark themselves because, unlike the both of them, the American people have a bigger heart.
 
2013-05-21 05:25:17 PM  
theorellior:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: But when you have people trapped in a building and the local Ace Hardware has a load of shovels and pickaxes the math becomes very simple

Here's a case in point: I'm sure this works wonders for a single-story building surrounded by lots of land. But try digging people out of a collapsed multi-story urban apartment building with shovels and pickaxes and get back to me.


The math *is* simple. He's a LSoS, and speaks loudly about things he knows nothing about.
 
2013-05-21 05:25:27 PM  

tlchwi02: ItchyMcDoogle: With all that said the people of Oklahoma deserve every bit of help from the Govt and everyone. Just because they have a bunch of GOP cockbags representing them in Washington is no reason to let them suffer at all. Even though I really really doubt it I do hope that the Senators who cut and tried to deny funding for Sandy see how hypocritical they are when the vote for funds to help the people of Oklahoma

i disagree with that. They vote every year to try and make it so the government isn't there to help them, then they come crying for a hand out everytime something happens and the rest of us dig in and help. I say this time, we don't. If you have a spoiled child, you dont keep rewarding their bad behavior. these people are spoiled children. If they had to reap what they sowed, maybe they'd stop sowing it


Perhaps we should recite the parable about the grasshopper and the ant for these guys?

People love being all bootstrappy until they get themselves into trouble.  Then suddenly it's gimme gimme gimme. I'd bet my retirement savings that there isn't more than a handful of those types of people out there who refused food stamps, or emergency health care, or unemployment checks when they found themselves in trouble.
 
2013-05-21 05:26:29 PM  

Serious Black: unless you count stopping the Carrionites from taking over Earth and murdering all mankind


To be fair, he only deserves part of the credit for that. Still worth at least three livers, though, I'd say.
 
2013-05-21 05:26:38 PM  

Muta: I sooooo hope someone puts does one of those anonymous filibusters on the bill just for the lolz.


I thought about this, but thinking WWJD overcame my more base instincts. That would be wrong. Even though the Republicans don't get it and will NEVER get it, that doesn't matter. Those folks need our help.
 
2013-05-21 05:26:49 PM  

steverockson: It woudl be awesome if a Democratic senator put a hold on the Oklahoma tornado relief bill with the stipulation that if Inhofe get on his knees in front of the senate and beg forgiveness for being a complete asshole to the people in the Northeast that the bill would be allowed to pass.

/Infhofe is my senator.
//He's a complete embarrassment to the state.


Nah, I'll be happy with a Democratic Senator making a speech in Congress showing how hypocritical both Inhofe and Coburn are.

Better yet, let Murkowski from Alaska pwn the both of them.
 
2013-05-21 05:27:25 PM  

s2s2s2: 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.


i.qkme.me
 
2013-05-21 05:27:56 PM  

Serious Black: 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?


I think it's best to just agree with skullkrusher that the original summary of the liberal point of view was stupid.  I mean, when I read it I cringed at how stupid it was.
 
2013-05-21 05:28:51 PM  

lennavan: Serious Black: 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?

I think it's best to just agree with skullkrusher that the original summary of the liberal point of view was stupid.  I mean, when I read it I cringed at how stupid it was.


it's always best to just agree with me. Wouldn't you agree?

/do it, whore
 
2013-05-21 05:30:58 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 vulcan.


Yet, still appropriate because it's about helping everyone.  Something utterly alien in Republicans.

Second of all, strict utilitarianism is an abomination.

That.
 
2013-05-21 05:31:21 PM  

skullkrusher: how so? It is certainly a most rare breed of person who will be directly responsible for saving 12 people's lives over the course of their own. So even if we do wind up killing off a few people who might save 25 people from a burning building or something similar, on net the needs of the many will have been outweighed by the needs of the few. Perhaps we could just breed specific people for such a purpose? See, the statement you're defending is incredibly dumb and, by association, your defense of it is also incredibly dumb but I guess we can pretend you won if it increases your utility.


You're ignoring the premise of the statement as generally presented by socialist theorists, which is that the many and the few or the one must all have roughly equal interest in the outcome for the statement to apply. You're presenting a situation where the interests in the  outcome are decidedly unequal, even on a hypothetical basis. Certain otherwise-unecessary death for one is not equivalent to the increased risk of death of another due to disease, or even of several others. There are always going to be organs available from death due to mischance that don't require deliberately murdering someone; it's riskier, but not a guaranteed death sentence.

Even still there have been cases where people have made that choice, as when one soldier jumps on a grenade, guaranteeing his own death to spare his compatriots - an action which is perfectly sensible from a utilitarian perspective, but irrational from self-serving one.

So no, the statement is not incredibly dumb. It just isn't a simplistic talking point, and requires that the context in which it is presented not as what is effectively a strawman argument. Unequal interests in the outcomes mean a more complex analysis based on an elaboration of the basic concept is necessary - and utilitarianism does allow for that. Note that I am not myself a utilitarian, but you are nonetheless misrepresenting the philosophy in a much too simplistic fashion.
 
2013-05-21 05:32:53 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.


What makes you think I haven't already done that with my driver's license?
 
2013-05-21 05:33:32 PM  

skullkrusher: it's always best to just agree with me. Wouldn't you agree?

/do it, whore


Shiat kills my soul.
 
2013-05-21 05:33:35 PM  
God destroys you and the feds bail you out.  Perhaps your priorities could stand some scrutiny.
 
2013-05-21 05:34:10 PM  

lennavan: Serious Black: 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?

I think it's best to just agree with skullkrusher that the original summary of the liberal point of view was stupid.  I mean, when I read it I cringed at how stupid it was.


I have no idea what that summary is. Should I religiously read every single post in a thread before I make a comment?
 
2013-05-21 05:34:44 PM  

Rwa2play: What makes you think I haven't already done that with my driver's license?


He means right now.  Unless of course you think your personal needs outweigh the needs of 12 people currently waiting on organ transplants.  What kind of jackass are you?!
 
2013-05-21 05:34:54 PM  

lennavan: Serious Black: 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?

I think it's best to just agree with skullkrusher that the original summary of the liberal point of view was stupid.  I mean, when I read it I cringed at how stupid it was.


He also gets bonus points for saying "bald faced liar".

For some reason a large number of people think it's "bold faced".
 
2013-05-21 05:38:52 PM  

theorellior: In a disaster area there's so much to pick and choose from. There were also orders of magnitude more people affected in both NOLA and NYC than in Oklahoma, so the response logistics are quite a bit different. You just happen to pick the bootstrappy portions of your disaster experience and the lazy moocher portions of disasters you didn't have any personal experience with. It's something called selection bias. It's especially prevalent when it just happens to align with your ideological mythologies.


You also have orders of magnitude more local structure and (should) have orders of magnitude more helpers. I'm not calling the people who need help moochers, that's you, I'm saying that local government in connection with average citizens are the primary and best way to handle these things.

And Ace Hardware wasn't the only company to step to the plate. United Equipment was there as well with the heavy equipment. But since you're an expert on search and rescue you know that the first thing you do is get the bulldozer in there and start throw large pieces of concrete around! Yes siree!! You get those big pieces of equipment in there and start bringing it out by the bucket full.

img5.imageshack.us
 
2013-05-21 05:39:15 PM  

Serious Black: I have no idea what that summary is. Should I religiously read every single post in a thread before I make a comment?


Whoa WTF dude?  I'll spare you the snark.  Search the thread for "Liberals: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. "  See how many times it was quoted in your own posts.

I'm not demanding you religiously read every single post in the thread.  But it'd be good if you read your own.
 
2013-05-21 05:39:29 PM  

KiltedBastich: skullkrusher: how so? It is certainly a most rare breed of person who will be directly responsible for saving 12 people's lives over the course of their own. So even if we do wind up killing off a few people who might save 25 people from a burning building or something similar, on net the needs of the many will have been outweighed by the needs of the few. Perhaps we could just breed specific people for such a purpose? See, the statement you're defending is incredibly dumb and, by association, your defense of it is also incredibly dumb but I guess we can pretend you won if it increases your utility.

You're ignoring the premise of the statement as generally presented by socialist theorists, which is that the many and the few or the one must all have roughly equal interest in the outcome for the statement to apply. You're presenting a situation where the interests in the  outcome are decidedly unequal, even on a hypothetical basis. Certain otherwise-unecessary death for one is not equivalent to the increased risk of death of another due to disease, or even of several others. There are always going to be organs available from death due to mischance that don't require deliberately murdering someone; it's riskier, but not a guaranteed death sentence.

Even still there have been cases where people have made that choice, as when one soldier jumps on a grenade, guaranteeing his own death to spare his compatriots - an action which is perfectly sensible from a utilitarian perspective, but irrational from self-serving one.

So no, the statement is not incredibly dumb. It just isn't a simplistic talking point, and requires that the context in which it is presented not as what is effectively a strawman argument. Unequal interests in the outcomes mean a more complex analysis based on an elaboration of the basic concept is necessary - and utilitarianism does allow for that. Note that I am not myself a utilitarian, but you are nonetheless misrepresenting the philosophy in a much t ...


upload.wikimedia.org

Ergo, vis-a-vis...
 
2013-05-21 05:42:38 PM  

maxheck: Maud Dib:

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.

Having done work for a friend and her sons in that general area, yeah. Evidently you guys lived under Somali rules for a while.

From what I understand you guys actually have gotten together to accept building codes recently, but yeah.


It's not that they are below "code" , it's that they are close together, and 90% of them are crap siding, no brick or stone for protection.

Kinda like these...all former pasture with no wind breaks.



img.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-21 05:43:33 PM  

lennavan: Serious Black: I have no idea what that summary is. Should I religiously read every single post in a thread before I make a comment?

Whoa WTF dude?  I'll spare you the snark.  Search the thread for "Liberals: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. "  See how many times it was quoted in your own posts.

I'm not demanding you religiously read every single post in the thread.  But it'd be good if you read your own.


Meh. I skimmed over that statement that is no more or less controversial than many political talking points. I instead focused on his ridiculous call for people to commit seppuku because they'll never be able to directly save 12 lives and that's the benchmark for having a worthwhile life.
 
2013-05-21 05:43:48 PM  

nocturnal001: Perhaps we should recite the parable about the grasshopper and the ant for these guys?

People love being all bootstrappy until they get themselves into trouble. Then suddenly it's gimme gimme gimme. I'd bet my retirement savings that there isn't more than a handful of those types of people out there who refused food stamps, or emergency health care, or unemployment checks when they found themselves in trouble.


its not that i am unsympathetic to their plight in general terms... its just hard to have them screaming about small government come election time or anytime we in the northeast would like to do something, and then screaming that i need to give them money to rebuild them and if i object (because they said my area wasn't good enough to get money when we had troubles) i'm the jerk. As far as i'm concerned, if they're so bootstrappy when a hurricane hits the coast, you can be just as bootstrappy when a tornado hits the plains. Otherwise why would they ever stop?
 
2013-05-21 05:45:26 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I'm not calling the people who need help moochers, that's you, I'm saying that local government in connection with average citizens are the primary and best way to handle these things.


Called on your bullshiat, and you try to put it on me? I don't think so. In every post you've been smugly patting yourself and your locale on the back with being so much better than those East Coast liberals living in filth until the feds came to bail them out. FOAD, and EABOD while you're at it.

Look, pardner, local efforts are fine and dandy, but the whole point of a disaster is that it's bigger than one community can deal with. That's what government is for--to concentrate capital and funds to a level unavailable by any individual entity. And, like it or not, United Equipment isn't gonna run their earth movers for long without some kind of help, either in money, fuel or relief. I'll gladly help them out with my tax dollars. Just make sure you're well out of the way so you don't accidentally receive any help from a liberal.
 
2013-05-21 05:45:59 PM  
 

skullkrusher: 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.


img825.imageshack.us
 
2013-05-21 05:47:03 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.


The only thing that stops a bad guy with a tornado is a good guy with a tornado.

Seriously, though:

In Oklahoma, safe rooms can save lives

Nearly 100 men, women and children crowded shoulder-to-shoulder into a six-year-old, above-ground, concrete-reinforced safe room adjacent to the Tushka pre-school. A block away, about 100 other residents, their kids and their dogs in tow, rushed into the 90-year-old, below-ground, public shelter -- 45-feet long and shaped like a tube, with dirt floors and steel doors at either end.
 
2013-05-21 05:49:22 PM  
Maud Dib:

maxheck: Maud Dib:

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.

Having done work for a friend and her sons in that general area, yeah. Evidently you guys lived under Somali rules for a while.

From what I understand you guys actually have gotten together to accept building codes recently, but yeah.

It's not that they are below "code" , it's that they are close together, and 90% of them are crap siding, no brick or stone for protection.

Kinda like these...all former pasture with no wind breaks.


So, what you're saying that they're close together, crap-sided, unprotected former pasture with no wind breaks AND below code?
 
2013-05-21 05:52:43 PM  
This is a great opportunity for New Jersey's senators to get even.  They should stand in front of the senate and say, "Despite the extremist and hateful attitudes of Oklahoma's senators directed at the people of the Northeast during their hour of need, we believe that all unfortunate people are deserving of help, so of course we will vote for a generous aid package for the victims of the recent Oklahoma tornado".

That'll teach 'em.

/Whom am I kidding?
 
2013-05-21 05:52:57 PM  

Serious Black: lennavan: Serious Black: I have no idea what that summary is. Should I religiously read every single post in a thread before I make a comment?

Whoa WTF dude?  I'll spare you the snark.  Search the thread for "Liberals: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. "  See how many times it was quoted in your own posts.

I'm not demanding you religiously read every single post in the thread.  But it'd be good if you read your own.

Meh. I skimmed over that statement that is no more or less controversial than many political talking points. I instead focused on his ridiculous call for people to commit seppuku because they'll never be able to directly save 12 lives and that's the benchmark for having a worthwhile life.



His "ridiculous call" was a tongue-in-cheek attempt at demonstrating how stupid the original summary of the liberal viewpoint really was.  If you actually believe that summary, then it would reason liberals would be killing themselves.  They aren't, that's stupid, therefore the original summary is stupid.
 
2013-05-21 05:56:56 PM  

The Why Not Guy: Muta: I sooooo hope someone puts does one of those anonymous filibusters on the bill just for the lolz.

No. People need that help right now. We're better than Republicans. Let's stay that way.


Republicans need to experience negative consequences to their douchebaggery.  I fully approve of Oklahoma tornado relief being blocked as punishment for Sandy.  If Republicans want politics to be a zero-sum game, that's how we have to play it.  To hell with all of them.
 
2013-05-21 05:59:39 PM  
 
2013-05-21 06:01:02 PM  
JesusJuice:

The Why Not Guy: Muta: I sooooo hope someone puts does one of those anonymous filibusters on the bill just for the lolz.

No. People need that help right now. We're better than Republicans. Let's stay that way.

Republicans need to experience negative consequences to their douchebaggery. I fully approve of Oklahoma tornado relief being blocked as punishment for Sandy. If Republicans want politics to be a zero-sum game, that's how we have to play it. To hell with all of them.


I wouldn't go that far, but if it were entered into the congressional record ever after as the "Jim Inhoef is a hypocritcal slut Act" I wouldn't complain.
 
2013-05-21 06:02:01 PM  

EvilEgg: Yeah, a tornado is completely different from a hurricane.


And pork is completely different than steak.  How about we just apportion it to death toll?
 
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 »
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