Oklahoma Senators Repeatedly Opposed Disaster Relief Funds

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

What I just read...all the posters are concerned about Oklahoma...some are dealing with it differently than others. I read fear, anger, pain, more anger, and even a little hope.

What God reminded me of yesterday was that a little snow at the end of May isn't nearly as bad as what could have happened!

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

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?

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?

Finally a little truth from you, all you care about is finding an excuse to attack LJ and any other liberals that you can include in your vendetta. That's as real as it gets....

Several posts were split out and moved here: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href=" www.285bound.com/285forum/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=27650 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=29&t=27650<!-- l -->

Good going SC.

Science Chic wrote:

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.

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.

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.

How come there wasn't anything about tornado's in your post above?

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'.

Don't call me Darlin'... if your kids get wind of it... you know one of them will trip me at the VFW breakfast.

Science Chic wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Which was part of the original post, and the original point about the usual screaming about "pork" in the disaster-relief bill these two hypocritical senators voted against:

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."

So, let me see if I understand this... They objected to spending "$12.9 Billion for FUTURE DISASTER MITIGATION ACTIVITIES AND STUDIES"...that was "wasteful"? But now they object because the money wasn't "set aside" in advance to pay for future disasters? But now that a disaster has heppened in Oklahoma, they want to find something else to CUT to pay for it, when they would have set aside $12.9 BILLION in advance if they'd voted for the other bill"???? (Of course, the real point is that they would rather cut the social services and social safety-net programs rather than pay into an emergency-mitigation fund.... Why am I not surprised?) You can't make this stuff up.