Sandy Aid Package

[notyou2]

Repugnatants

[Phatscotty]

True story.

Liberal media, liberal promotion in the education system for children entire youth, it's a shame with all the control that it's only 65% who think that about Republicans.

That about as pointless as saying a majority in a Conservative dominated culture think of Liberals negatively....

well duhhh. Whoever made that into a picture wasted their time

[Phatscotty]

If you knew what trolling was, you would have stopped by now

I get it now. You were just trolling as usual, so I should not have responded?

No, you should post about the topic, or at least something related, rather than post annoying insults. What are you even doing here? If you brought something to the table, related to the topic, that says why I am convoluted, I wouldn't say anything about that and I would deal with that. But your style here represents a troll-by shooting

[stahrgazer]

Okay, Phatscotty, here's how it works:

X disaster occurs. After the states have done some initial clearing, FEMA steps in to indicate what government programs are available to help recover; and usually provides things like fresh water, sometimes ice, for a few days or weeks - but mainly, FEMA identifies what government assistance programs are available and tries to expedite people's applications for those programs. FEMA is not designed for "immediate relief" but for assistance with longer term recovery, within whatever budgets are assigned for those available government programs.

In some cases, the available government programs are insufficient. When that happens, the states can request more.

BUT

More has to be budgeted by Congress.
More has to be paid by taxpayers.
More will (currently) increase the national debt.
More is perfectly fine with Obama and he didn't realize that in the case of national disaster, more wouldn't be fine with (at least the Republican part of) Congress when he said, "we got this."

In other words, hurricane recovery will cost more than the funds currently budgeted, so Congress has to allocate "more," so when the Republicans refused to vote it in, the governor got a bit irate against those who did the refusing.

The "refusal" was because so many Republicans believe the US should be assisting people "less" not "more" to reduce the debt.

Got it?

[Juan_Bottom]

Guys, really? The picture source is in the left side of the pic - Politics Nation, the colors are also a give away. The results are from a single poll, but they're still pretty striking.

Liberal media, liberal promotion in the education system for children entire youth, it's a shame with all the control that it's only 65% who think that about Republicans.

Current TV - Hard Liberal leaning, but they were just bought out by Al-Jazeera, so let's give them some time before we form opinions on their journalism.

MSNBC - Liberal

Fox News - 1790's style Conservative

Everyone else - Center

[thegreekdog]

Okay, Phatscotty, here's how it works:

X disaster occurs. After the states have done some initial clearing, FEMA steps in to indicate what government programs are available to help recover; and usually provides things like fresh water, sometimes ice, for a few days or weeks - but mainly, FEMA identifies what government assistance programs are available and tries to expedite people's applications for those programs. FEMA is not designed for "immediate relief" but for assistance with longer term recovery, within whatever budgets are assigned for those available government programs.

In some cases, the available government programs are insufficient. When that happens, the states can request more.

BUT

More has to be budgeted by Congress.
More has to be paid by taxpayers.
More will (currently) increase the national debt.
More is perfectly fine with Obama and he didn't realize that in the case of national disaster, more wouldn't be fine with (at least the Republican part of) Congress when he said, "we got this."

In other words, hurricane recovery will cost more than the funds currently budgeted, so Congress has to allocate "more," so when the Republicans refused to vote it in, the governor got a bit irate against those who did the refusing.

The "refusal" was because so many Republicans believe the US should be assisting people "less" not "more" to reduce the debt.

Got it?

No, he really doesn't get it.

[saxitoxin]

Guys, really? The picture source is in the left side of the pic - Politics Nation, the colors are also a give away. The results are from a single poll, but they're still pretty striking.

OK, here it is bullet-pointed ...

1. The source for the stat is NBC News / Wall Street Journal ... you know, the names that follow the word "SOURCE."



2. The origin of the colorful, pretty cartoon drawing of the mopey cartoon elephant is "Politics Nation with Al Sharpton."

3. The source says the result of their poll was 45%. (see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50189568/t/ ... OZDtnewWSo)

4. "Politics Nation with Al Sharpton" changed the figure to 65%.

5. "Politics Nation with Al Sharpton" figured we'll put the source right there so it looks legit - no one will actually check it.

6. They were right - "Politics Nation with Al Sharpton" fans were so delighted to see a funny cartoon animal that none of actually checked the source. Instead, they giggled in delight with blank eyed rictus grins across their faces then ran to post it to message boards to prove the team they picked was winning.

7. "Politics Nation with Al Sharpton" gets their for-profit product promoted by unpaid volunteers. Once in awhile a few of the the unpaid volunteers will be embarrassed when they post the pretty cartoon picture to a message board and someone actually checks the "SOURCE" listed but, you know, Al is a businessman and the people distributing his promotional materials are replaceable props ... you can't make sausage without grinding some meat!

Everyone's making money off the USA, Juan - everyone's carving off a piece of the pie before it's all gone ... the only people who are starving are the ones who believe the pieces of pie Al Sharpton is grabbing are to share with them later on. The system works because that's most people.

"Hi, I'm Al Sharpton. I am a believer in social justice and progressive ideals. That's why I drive the new Ford F-150 with dual-axle suspension. It has the cargo room working families need to achieve their dreams and comes in four different colors that gives you four different options to express your individuality! Plus, if you apply for Ford Financing through the end of February, Ford will offer 1.5% APR to qualified applicants. Some restrictions apply so check with your local Ford dealer today!"

[Phatscotty]

Okay, Phatscotty, here's how it works:

X disaster occurs. After the states have done some initial clearing, FEMA steps in to indicate what government programs are available to help recover; and usually provides things like fresh water, sometimes ice, for a few days or weeks - but mainly, FEMA identifies what government assistance programs are available and tries to expedite people's applications for those programs. FEMA is not designed for "immediate relief" but for assistance with longer term recovery, within whatever budgets are assigned for those available government programs.

In some cases, the available government programs are insufficient. When that happens, the states can request more.

BUT

More has to be budgeted by Congress.
More has to be paid by taxpayers.
More will (currently) increase the national debt.
More is perfectly fine with Obama and he didn't realize that in the case of national disaster, more wouldn't be fine with (at least the Republican part of) Congress when he said, "we got this."

In other words, hurricane recovery will cost more than the funds currently budgeted, so Congress has to allocate "more," so when the Republicans refused to vote it in, the governor got a bit irate against those who did the refusing.

The "refusal" was because so many Republicans believe the US should be assisting people "less" not "more" to reduce the debt.

Got it?

No, he really doesn't get it.

that helped!

[Juan_Bottom]

Guys, really? The picture source is in the left side of the pic - Politics Nation, the colors are also a give away. The results are from a single poll, but they're still pretty striking.

OK, here it is bullet-pointed ...

1. The source for the stat is NBC News / Wall Street Journal ... you know, the names that follow the word "SOURCE."



2. The origin of the colorful, pretty cartoon drawing of the mopey cartoon elephant is "Politics Nation with Al Sharpton."

3. The source says the result of their poll was 45%. (see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50189568/t/ ... OZDtnewWSo)

4. "Politics Nation with Al Sharpton" changed the figure to 65%.

5. "Politics Nation with Al Sharpton" figured we'll put the source right there so it looks legit - no one will actually check it.

6. They were right - "Politics Nation with Al Sharpton" fans were so delighted to see a funny cartoon animal that none of actually checked the source. Instead, they giggled in delight with blank eyed rictus grins across their faces then ran to post it to message boards to prove the team they picked was winning.

7. "Politics Nation with Al Sharpton" gets their for-profit product promoted by unpaid volunteers. Once in awhile a few of the the unpaid volunteers will be embarrassed when they post the pretty cartoon picture to a message board and someone actually checks the "SOURCE" listed but, you know, Al is a businessman and the people distributing his promotional materials are replaceable props ... you can't make sausage without grinding some meat!

Everyone's making money off the USA, Juan - everyone's carving off a piece of the pie before it's all gone ... the only people who are starving are the ones who believe the pieces of pie Al Sharpton is grabbing are to share with them later on. The system works because that's most people.

"Hi, I'm Al Sharpton. I am a believer in social justice and progressive ideals. That's why I drive the new Ford F-150 with dual-axle suspension. It has the cargo room working families need to achieve their dreams and comes in four different colors that gives you four different options to express your individuality! Plus, if you apply for Ford Financing through the end of February, Ford will offer 1.5% APR to qualified applicants. Some restrictions apply so check with your local Ford dealer today!"

Yeah, I got that when you posted it before. The numbers for the favorable/unfavorable aren't what are in the picture; the 65% is the number of responders who had a negative comment to make about the Republican party. 65% of the poll's word-cloud was negative.

EDIT: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 ... cliff?lite

What’s more, asked to give a word or short phrase to describe the Republican Party, 65 percent offered a negative comment, including more than half of Republicans.

Some of the responses: “Bad,” “weak,” “negative,” “uncompromising,” “need to work together,” “broken,” “disorganized” and “lost.”

By contrast, 37 percent gave negative descriptions of the Democratic Party, while 35 percent were positive.

[BigBallinStalin]

"65% of Americans have nothing positive to say about the Democratic Party."

[insert childish MS Paint pic]
[enrage anti-Democratics, who then post the crap on message boards]
[lol at how easily manipulated some people are]

[saxitoxin]

Guys, really? The picture source is in the left side of the pic - Politics Nation, the colors are also a give away. The results are from a single poll, but they're still pretty striking.

OK, here it is bullet-pointed ...

1. The source for the stat is NBC News / Wall Street Journal ... you know, the names that follow the word "SOURCE."



2. The origin of the colorful, pretty cartoon drawing of the mopey cartoon elephant is "Politics Nation with Al Sharpton."

3. The source says the result of their poll was 45%. (see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50189568/t/ ... OZDtnewWSo)

4. "Politics Nation with Al Sharpton" changed the figure to 65%.

5. "Politics Nation with Al Sharpton" figured we'll put the source right there so it looks legit - no one will actually check it.

6. They were right - "Politics Nation with Al Sharpton" fans were so delighted to see a funny cartoon animal that none of actually checked the source. Instead, they giggled in delight with blank eyed rictus grins across their faces then ran to post it to message boards to prove the team they picked was winning.

7. "Politics Nation with Al Sharpton" gets their for-profit product promoted by unpaid volunteers. Once in awhile a few of the the unpaid volunteers will be embarrassed when they post the pretty cartoon picture to a message board and someone actually checks the "SOURCE" listed but, you know, Al is a businessman and the people distributing his promotional materials are replaceable props ... you can't make sausage without grinding some meat!

Everyone's making money off the USA, Juan - everyone's carving off a piece of the pie before it's all gone ... the only people who are starving are the ones who believe the pieces of pie Al Sharpton is grabbing are to share with them later on. The system works because that's most people.

"Hi, I'm Al Sharpton. I am a believer in social justice and progressive ideals. That's why I drive the new Ford F-150 with dual-axle suspension. It has the cargo room working families need to achieve their dreams and comes in four different colors that gives you four different options to express your individuality! Plus, if you apply for Ford Financing through the end of February, Ford will offer 1.5% APR to qualified applicants. Some restrictions apply so check with your local Ford dealer today!"

Yeah, I got that when you posted it before. The numbers for the favorable/unfavorable aren't what are in the picture; the 65% is the number of responders who had a negative comment to make about the Republican party. 65% of the poll's word-cloud was negative.

EDIT: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 ... cliff?lite

What’s more, asked to give a word or short phrase to describe the Republican Party, 65 percent offered a negative comment, including more than half of Republicans.

Some of the responses: “Bad,” “weak,” “negative,” “uncompromising,” “need to work together,” “broken,” “disorganized” and “lost.”

By contrast, 37 percent gave negative descriptions of the Democratic Party, while 35 percent were positive.

I didn't read any of the links you posted and I'm unlikely to do so because after your last pic I found on the Internet debacle, and the few before that, it seems a more reasonable approach to simply dismiss all Picture-Debate efforts once a poster hits a certain threshold of unreliability. In all fairness, I have applied the same standard to Scott after his, similar, one million Executive Orders miscue.

However, even a stopped watch is right twice per day so, if two trusted posters are willing to provide unambiguous affirmation that they have thoroughly reviewed your latest link and you hit pay dirt on this one I will be willing to retract 100% of my post and absolutely endorse you and your pictures and your work building brand loyalty and customer base for Comcast/General Electric and their "Politics Nation with Al Sharpton" product, Juan.

That's the best I can offer you at this time, but I think you'll agree I'm being more than fair.

[stahrgazer]

Okay, Phatscotty, here's how it works:

X disaster occurs. After the states have done some initial clearing, FEMA steps in to indicate what government programs are available to help recover; and usually provides things like fresh water, sometimes ice, for a few days or weeks - but mainly, FEMA identifies what government assistance programs are available and tries to expedite people's applications for those programs. FEMA is not designed for "immediate relief" but for assistance with longer term recovery, within whatever budgets are assigned for those available government programs.

In some cases, the available government programs are insufficient. When that happens, the states can request more.

BUT

More has to be budgeted by Congress.
More has to be paid by taxpayers.
More will (currently) increase the national debt.
More is perfectly fine with Obama and he didn't realize that in the case of national disaster, more wouldn't be fine with (at least the Republican part of) Congress when he said, "we got this."

In other words, hurricane recovery will cost more than the funds currently budgeted, so Congress has to allocate "more," so when the Republicans refused to vote it in, the governor got a bit irate against those who did the refusing.

The "refusal" was because so many Republicans believe the US should be assisting people "less" not "more" to reduce the debt.

Got it?

No, he really doesn't get it.

that helped!

The really interesting part is that a Rebublican (against assisting people "more," but instead wants to assist people "less" because the deficit is huge from assisting folks during various disasters including loss of job/economic disaster) governor is now upset with members of his Republican party for initially adhering to the principles they supposedly espouse.

What's good for the goose (hundreds of thousands or is it millions, of folks who lost their jobs and sometimes their homes and ability to feed themselves asking for a little cash and some food stamps but the Republicans want to continue saying NO) isn't good for the gander (thousands of folks who lost their homes asking for a little cash to help rebuild but the Republicans said: No, well, maybe, yes here's some, and maybe more.)

Maybe those people should be told, "there are organizations that help rebuild, go see those charities and your churches if you want your house back," like so many unemployed/unable to buy food folks have been hearing that there are charities for the homeless and very poor to have food and shelter.

[Phatscotty]

It's a matter of whether we have the money or not. If we have to borrow the money, then we don't have the money. All the pressure is on Republicans to borrow the money, without any mention of what it means or the consequences of borrowing money at a time we can't even make the interest payments on yesterday's borrowing.

This is exactly the reason I was against yesterday's borrowing yesterday, and this is exactly the position we are in as a consequence of borrowing too much yesterday and 1.4 trillion dollar annual federal deficits.

We are getting a whiff of what it looks like when the borrowing comes home to roost

[patches70]

It's a matter of whether we have the money or not. If we have to borrow the money, then we don't have the money. All the pressure is on Republicans to borrow the money, without any mention of what it means or the consequences of borrowing money at a time we can't even make the interest payments on yesterday's borrowing.

This is exactly the reason I was against yesterday's borrowing yesterday, and this is exactly the position we are in as a consequence of borrowing too much yesterday and 1.4 trillion dollar annual federal deficits.

We are getting a whiff of what it looks like when the borrowing comes home to roost

Aww, we'll be sitting at $22 trillion in debt this time four years from now, what's another $60 billion?

[stahrgazer]

It's a matter of whether we have the money or not. If we have to borrow the money, then we don't have the money. All the pressure is on Republicans to borrow the money, without any mention of what it means or the consequences of borrowing money at a time we can't even make the interest payments on yesterday's borrowing.

This is exactly the reason I was against yesterday's borrowing yesterday, and this is exactly the position we are in as a consequence of borrowing too much yesterday and 1.4 trillion dollar annual federal deficits.

We are getting a whiff of what it looks like when the borrowing comes home to roost

Yes; it's just a little odd that it's a Republican who's squawking because he wants money for his folks that we'd have to borrow to give.

We're also getting a whiff of what it looks like when we reduced taxes on those able to afford it for too many decades; just like we're getting a whiff of what it looks like when we allow big businesses to run rampant without considering patriotic consequences.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's a matter of whether we have the money or not. If we have to borrow the money, then we don't have the money. All the pressure is on Republicans to borrow the money, without any mention of what it means or the consequences of borrowing money at a time we can't even make the interest payments on yesterday's borrowing.

This is exactly the reason I was against yesterday's borrowing yesterday, and this is exactly the position we are in as a consequence of borrowing too much yesterday and 1.4 trillion dollar annual federal deficits.

We are getting a whiff of what it looks like when the borrowing comes home to roost

Yes; it's just a little odd that it's a Republican who's squawking because he wants money for his folks that we'd have to borrow to give.

It's not odd at all; it makes perfect sense. It's a politician spending other people's money in order to increase his chances of getting re-elected, what else did you expect?

[stahrgazer]

It's a matter of whether we have the money or not. If we have to borrow the money, then we don't have the money. All the pressure is on Republicans to borrow the money, without any mention of what it means or the consequences of borrowing money at a time we can't even make the interest payments on yesterday's borrowing.

This is exactly the reason I was against yesterday's borrowing yesterday, and this is exactly the position we are in as a consequence of borrowing too much yesterday and 1.4 trillion dollar annual federal deficits.

We are getting a whiff of what it looks like when the borrowing comes home to roost

Yes; it's just a little odd that it's a Republican who's squawking because he wants money for his folks that we'd have to borrow to give.

It's not odd at all; it makes perfect sense. It's a politician spending other people's money in order to increase his chances of getting re-elected, what else did you expect?

LOL so true, thanks for putting that back into perspective for me!

[thegreekdog]

Okay, Phatscotty, here's how it works:

X disaster occurs. After the states have done some initial clearing, FEMA steps in to indicate what government programs are available to help recover; and usually provides things like fresh water, sometimes ice, for a few days or weeks - but mainly, FEMA identifies what government assistance programs are available and tries to expedite people's applications for those programs. FEMA is not designed for "immediate relief" but for assistance with longer term recovery, within whatever budgets are assigned for those available government programs.

In some cases, the available government programs are insufficient. When that happens, the states can request more.

BUT

More has to be budgeted by Congress.
More has to be paid by taxpayers.
More will (currently) increase the national debt.
More is perfectly fine with Obama and he didn't realize that in the case of national disaster, more wouldn't be fine with (at least the Republican part of) Congress when he said, "we got this."

In other words, hurricane recovery will cost more than the funds currently budgeted, so Congress has to allocate "more," so when the Republicans refused to vote it in, the governor got a bit irate against those who did the refusing.

The "refusal" was because so many Republicans believe the US should be assisting people "less" not "more" to reduce the debt.

Got it?

No, he really doesn't get it.

that helped!

The really interesting part is that a Rebublican (against assisting people "more," but instead wants to assist people "less" because the deficit is huge from assisting folks during various disasters including loss of job/economic disaster) governor is now upset with members of his Republican party for initially adhering to the principles they supposedly espouse.

What's good for the goose (hundreds of thousands or is it millions, of folks who lost their jobs and sometimes their homes and ability to feed themselves asking for a little cash and some food stamps but the Republicans want to continue saying NO) isn't good for the gander (thousands of folks who lost their homes asking for a little cash to help rebuild but the Republicans said: No, well, maybe, yes here's some, and maybe more.)

Maybe those people should be told, "there are organizations that help rebuild, go see those charities and your churches if you want your house back," like so many unemployed/unable to buy food folks have been hearing that there are charities for the homeless and very poor to have food and shelter.

I would give the governor's response to these questions, which he was asked on the Daily Show by Jon Stewart, but I wouldn't do them justice. So, I would direct you to the Daily Show's website which has an extended interview with Governor Christie. It's quite good and his answer actually appears to appease Stewart.

[Juan_Bottom]

There's just certain members of Congress, that you just have to hate. She really believes that taking a 34th or 35th (I can't remember) vote to repeal Obamacare is more important that Sandy relief? Jesus, It's winter up there.

[karel]

you fucking left wing nut jobs,stop blaming the prez for everything,why dont you dicks take a good look in the mirror,why dont you fix your own fucking party first,1st thing i would of done is kick the speaker of the house out to the curb,thats a good start,blame him,since he is the one who seems like is holding everything up,what a retard

[stahrgazer]

I would give the governor's response to these questions, which he was asked on the Daily Show by Jon Stewart, but I wouldn't do them justice. So, I would direct you to the Daily Show's website which has an extended interview with Governor Christie. It's quite good and his answer actually appears to appease Stewart.

I'm sure it boils down to what BBS said.

[thegreekdog]

I would give the governor's response to these questions, which he was asked on the Daily Show by Jon Stewart, but I wouldn't do them justice. So, I would direct you to the Daily Show's website which has an extended interview with Governor Christie. It's quite good and his answer actually appears to appease Stewart.

I'm sure it boils down to what BBS said.

He basically said, to really paraphrase (since that's what they spent 15 minutes or more talking about): There are certain issues that need federal government support, like natural disasters. It is not anathema to the Constitution because the federal government is supposed to protect the people of the various states. And we've done it before so let's do it again. Stewart was trying to make a link between the Sandy natural disaster and not having health insurance to be a personal disaster.

Ultimately, I think Governor Christie is positioning himself for a 2016 presidential run. He's trying to show he's not a divider (and he's actually not) and that he's a compromiser (he actually is, working pretty well with a Democratic statehouse). The problem he's going to have is that he's not as conservative as Rubio or Ryan or anyone else the Republicans will throw out there so it's going to be hard for him to win the nomination. Giuliani was wildly popular too, but he was out after a few months.