- Posts: 11074
- Thank you received: 147
The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:
Science Chic wrote: Melodramatic much?
This isn't about dead children
At this point IT'S ALL ABOUT DEAD CHILDREN and nothing else. Convenient on your part to forget that was the EXACT same expressions by the left after the Newtown shooting... the gun issue was ALL ABOUT THE CHILDREN.
Your hypocrisy is showing.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
homeagain wrote:
The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:
Science Chic wrote: Melodramatic much?
This isn't about dead children
At this point IT'S ALL ABOUT DEAD CHILDREN and nothing else. Convenient on your part to forget that was the EXACT same expressions by the left after the Newtown shooting... the gun issue was ALL ABOUT THE CHILDREN.
Your hypocrisy is showing.
I posted on that thread......this is a NATURAL disaster and the OTHER catastrophic occurrence was MADE BY MAN.....BIG difference.
That being said....here's the metaphysical POV (which I ALSO posted on the Newtown thread)......there are SEVERAL "exit" points in
an individual's lifetime....the "exit" point may be selected (or by passed for another)......depending upon what life lesson is required at
that time.....the phrase "it wasn't his/her time" is pertinent because there is always free will in the decision.....HOWEVER, when the
"last" exit point arrives you will "exit" ....it can not be avoided/altered. (I know, w-a-y too "out there" in concept).....JMO
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:
I know... hugging tree crap again. I don't care about entries/exits or metacraphics. This thread is about making the use of a natural disaster and peoples deaths to promote a political issue... which JMO... is vile and disgusting. Is that "real" enough for you?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Science Chic wrote:
Cool, thanks for that point. I agree somewhat that money needs to be allocated responsibly, but you can't plan for how many disasters/year and how bad they will be - they are an unknown when planning a budget. So while something can be put aside for a rainy day, it may not always cover the cost and we need to take care of those who need help. Yes, that should mean prudent spending cuts and allocations from elsewhere, and saving up during good years to use during extra-bad ones, but we've seen how that will never happen b/c each special interest will cry foul and plead their case of why everyone else should be cut except them and nothing ever changes.FredHayek wrote: But they weren't hypocritical Senators. They just thought any new aid for disaster victims should come out of the current budget. LJ whines about an unpaid war, but just throwing money we don't have at disasters isn't fiscally prudent.
When I have a problem come up at work, my budget doesn't automatically increase, I have to allocate resources from other, less critical areas.
One of my biggest issues with every administration and Congress up to this point is that they, each and every last one of 'em don't care which political affiliation, are sticking their heads in the sand and not adequately planning for the future and the increasingly expensive and frequent disasters we'll incur. They ignore scientists who've told them again and again that we are creating drought and mega-Dust Bowl-conditions, fresh water supplies will become more scarce, sea level rise means that any storms will be pushed further inland and cause more damage, and increasing temps means stronger hurricanes... [/b][/i]yet, we do nothing to prepare or mitigate for that. We aren't trying to reduce our carbon emissions on anything close to an effective amount, we aren't reducing our energy use, or changing our land use to absorb carbon. We send billions of dollars in disaster relief that mandates that rebuilding must occur in the exact same spot that has already proved to be a beyond-stupid area to rebuild in so we will continue to throw away taxpayer dollars until we are bankrupt. We need to start proactively planning, not retroactively reacting, or our economy is in for a sh** storm far worse than we've experienced.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Science Chic wrote: Are you just spoiling for a fight so you're reading what you think I'm saying, not what I actually said? Go back and check my post - I said, and provided a link from a "biased" pro-climate change source to back that up, there is no correlation demonstrated between global warming and tornadoes, even the climate scientists say so. If you think I'm going to own what political hacks and environmental extremists who grab anything they think they can to prove otherwise, you've got another think coming Darlin'.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Science Chic wrote:
Cool, thanks for that point. I agree somewhat that money needs to be allocated responsibly, but you can't plan for how many disasters/year and how bad they will be - they are an unknown when planning a budget. So while something can be put aside for a rainy day, it may not always cover the cost and we need to take care of those who need help. Yes, that should mean prudent spending cuts and allocations from elsewhere, and saving up during good years to use during extra-bad ones, but we've seen how that will never happen b/c each special interest will cry foul and plead their case of why everyone else should be cut except them and nothing ever changes.FredHayek wrote: But they weren't hypocritical Senators. They just thought any new aid for disaster victims should come out of the current budget. LJ whines about an unpaid war, but just throwing money we don't have at disasters isn't fiscally prudent.
When I have a problem come up at work, my budget doesn't automatically increase, I have to allocate resources from other, less critical areas.
One of my biggest issues with every administration and Congress up to this point is that they, each and every last one of 'em don't care which political affiliation, are sticking their heads in the sand and not adequately planning for the future and the increasingly expensive and frequent disasters we'll incur. They ignore scientists who've told them again and again that we are creating drought and mega-Dust Bowl-conditions, fresh water supplies will become more scarce, sea level rise means that any storms will be pushed further inland and cause more damage, and increasing temps means stronger hurricanes...yet, we do nothing to prepare or mitigate for that. We aren't trying to reduce our carbon emissions on anything close to an effective amount, we aren't reducing our energy use, or changing our land use to absorb carbon. We send billions of dollars in disaster relief that mandates that rebuilding must occur in the exact same spot that has already proved to be a beyond-stupid area to rebuild in so we will continue to throw away taxpayer dollars until we are bankrupt. We need to start proactively planning, not retroactively reacting, or our economy is in for a sh** storm far worse than we've experienced.
Late last year, Inhofe and Coburn both backed a plan to slash disaster relief to victims of Hurricane Sandy. In a December press release, Coburn complained that the Sandy Relief bill contained "wasteful spending," and identified a series of items he objected to, including "$12.9 billion for future disaster mitigation activities and studies."
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.