Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 118

Thread: House Scraps Vote on Hurricane Sandy Aid

  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    One house burning down is not a state of emergency.

    Several counties flooding that affects a few million people is.


    You shouldn't stand behind your high horse so much. Your completely covered in sh*t.

    If YOUR house burned it would be an emergency.

    Hey PK ease up on the meth. You'll lose what little of your brain is left.
    And before you call names, YOU"RE the plumber crawling in SH**.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Why were 9/11 victims paid out by taxpayers? Shouldn't a person who goes to war bring their own weapons and amo? (Based on the 2nd amendment they should)

    Emergency aid is not a structurial issue with our debt. Rebuilding "productive" communities that have been wiped out reduces long term structural debt.

    I had a problem with the "9/11 widows". They got millions. Why?
    If a cabbie is shot does the state pay his widow?

    As far as war - combat weapons ARE NOT available to the general public. Nor is combat grade ammunition.
    I did bring my own purchased combat knife (as an extra to the issued one).

    Rebuild and clean up communities is my point. Schools, roads, hospitals etc.
    My basement is MY problem.

    BTW, I think Quantum is fine. If the government offered ME money, I'd take it. It's the gov that is too free with money. Hence $16.5 trill in debt and counting rapidly toward $21 trill. Obama's goal for 2017.

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetworks View Post
    I will say that those of you taking such a hardline about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps should be so fortunate to never have to put that to the test. The resolve needed to overcome misfortune, true hardship, is more than you would ever wish to bear. Trust me, I know that which I speak
    Assumes we havn't already been put to that test, multiple times, in multiple ways.

    Of course, when one defends themselves and their view, they are decried as horrible people on a "high horse", they're called liars, and are denounced as heartless evil bastards.

    It's pretty clear, one aspect of Liberalism/Big Govt. Support is that even asking questions about what the State does and why it does it is verboten. Question the State and what it does with my money, and you are rounding denounced as "selfish", "greedy", etc, etc, etc.

    So I agree with PK on this count, **** it, why bother. I support our friend Quantum, and I will not have other posters wargarbly misrepresent my viewpoint on the greater concept of aid vs. insurance as being critical of him personally during his time of need, because thats simply not the case.

    When you cannot question something without being destroyed for it, there is no freedom of speech.

  4. #84
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,957
    @PD- ultimately, I suppose that one could argue the 9/11 widows got paid as there was a systemic failure on the part various government agencies that resulted in the deaths if their loved ones.

    @Warfish- I get where you're at, and you're right that I am being presumptuous. I'll add that in my experience there are those who put forth their arguments with respectful commentary demonstrating a degree of empathy (which shows perspective) while others froth at the e-mouth about how they think "things should be!". You are pretty far from the latter, at least in this debate.

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    If YOUR house burned it would be an emergency..
    It would be an emergency for me and my family. Not for the city/state/country (beyond the element of putting the fire out before it burned others).

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    It would be an emergency for me and my family. Not for the city/state/country (beyond the element of putting the fire out before it burned others).

    Hence the nuance of my point, doggin.
    The fire at my house is MY problem. If we had a California situation and 20,000 acres burned including schools, public buildings, utilities and recreation areas - that's where the gov comes in. In my opinion. Covering not my house but all the other environs.

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetworks View Post
    @PD- ultimately, I suppose that one could argue the 9/11 widows got paid as there was a systemic failure on the part various government agencies that resulted in the deaths if their loved ones.

    @Warfish- I get where you're at, and you're right that I am being presumptuous. I'll add that in my experience there are those who put forth their arguments with respectful commentary demonstrating a degree of empathy (which shows perspective) while others froth at the e-mouth about how they think "things should be!". You are pretty far from the latter, at least in this debate.

    Do the movie goers in Colorado get money from the gov. Columbine victims. Fort Hood victims. There are numerous examples. All with government flaws?
    It seems an uneven application depending on the perception of the moment.
    As far as empathy (which I guess wf has) so do I. But I still believe in personal accountability. And yes, there are ways that "things should be." There are divergent thoughts out there. Is that bad?

  8. #88
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,653
    I'm not opposed to FEMA money to those in areas that were deemed to be non-flood zones and had no flood insurance - I think the above post re: systemic issues that should be resolved for the greater good of the area make sense. My question, though, is: if you're in a non-flood zone, shouldn't the rates be ridiculously low, on account of the low risk?

  9. #89
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,957
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    Do the movie goers in Colorado get money from the gov. Columbine victims. Fort Hood victims. There are numerous examples. All with government flaws?
    It seems an uneven application depending on the perception of the moment.
    As far as empathy (which I guess wf has) so do I. But I still believe in personal accountability. And yes, there are ways that "things should be." There are divergent thoughts out there. Is that bad?
    The government is tasked with guarding movie theaters and high schools? I had no idea. The Ft. Hood victims would be in play here but I will assume there is some military process that subverts the typical legal one. Feel free to shift the argument with more of your "numerous examples."

    Nothing is wrong with divergent thoughts. What you are seeking to do, however, is impose your own moral philosophy upon that which a large majority happens to disagree. So any scorn you receive, as dictated by the moral majority, is self-imposed and therefore warranted. If you accept that then you are truly a centered person. Most people can't and that is where the derision comes from.

    I'm fine with personal accountability. However, there exists in this country quite a bit of (legal) deceitful dodging of accountability on the parts of those who can afford it, if not outright malfeasance. Insurance companies and pharmaceutical conglomerates spring to mind. So with that sanctioned, diminished accountability comes the need for the slack to be picked up, and that is where the gubbmint steps in. Pretty straightforward. Don't like it, then cry to the lawmakers, but don't debase yourself by warblgarbling someone's situation you couldn't possibly know. That's the part that reeks of a lack of empathy.

  10. #90
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,653
    It's hard to say where the government responsibility comes in - in a sense, they are responsible to protect the citizens in theaters and schools and other places via the police force (locally, anyway), Federal crime/intelligence agencies, etc. - but that protection is a 'best effort' task, there's no guarantee of success, and any remediation to an individual would come via the court process where there is perceived negligence (or a lack of 'best effort'). Is protection from flooding in areas not specified (by the government) as flood zones in this same 'best effort' category? I think it's not/shouldn't be a matter of fault or negligence - that should still be a matter for the courts - but rather, as was said above, FEMA paying Fed money out where/when the community is best served.

    From FEMA's site: FEMA’s mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from and mitigate all hazards.

  11. #91
    What I don't understand is how the conversation became about how many people involved does it require to constitute a disaster.

    I thought this money was to aid victims of a natural disaster; not victims from human action or negligence.

    The idea that a car accident and a monster storm like Sandy are somehow equivalent displays either intellectual dishonesty or such a lack of common sense that I wouldn't know where to begin explaining how ridiculous the analogy is.

    Sadly, someone having their house burn down because of a discarded cigarette is not the same as thousands of homes getting wiped out if say tornados ripped through Long Island.

  12. #92
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,021
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    Hence the nuance of my point, doggin.
    The fire at my house is MY problem. If we had a California situation and 20,000 acres burned including schools, public buildings, utilities and recreation areas - that's where the gov comes in. In my opinion. Covering not my house but all the other environs.
    Bingo.

    So why are you against flood aid to an area where more than 20,000 people's homes have been destroyed?


    Doesn't matter. Dude is gonna get his home fixed regardless of South Caro-yeehawism.


    Sent from a phone using an app

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetworks View Post
    The government is tasked with guarding movie theaters and high schools? I had no idea. The Ft. Hood victims would be in play here but I will assume there is some military process that subverts the typical legal one. Feel free to shift the argument with more of your "numerous examples."

    Nothing is wrong with divergent thoughts. What you are seeking to do, however, is impose your own moral philosophy upon that which a large majority happens to disagree. So any scorn you receive, as dictated by the moral majority, is self-imposed and therefore warranted. If you accept that then you are truly a centered person. Most people can't and that is where the derision comes from.

    I'm fine with personal accountability. However, there exists in this country quite a bit of (legal) deceitful dodging of accountability on the parts of those who can afford it, if not outright malfeasance. Insurance companies and pharmaceutical conglomerates spring to mind. So with that sanctioned, diminished accountability comes the need for the slack to be picked up, and that is where the gubbmint steps in. Pretty straightforward. Don't like it, then cry to the lawmakers, but don't debase yourself by warblgarbling someone's situation you couldn't possibly know. That's the part that reeks of a lack of empathy.
    Schools and theaters? How about the World Trade Center?
    Perhaps I am now in the minority on personal responsibility. It seems that many Americans have become dependant on the big brother government.
    Weak and soft. "Not my problem. Take care of me. I can't do it. I am weak. It's your fault." This has become the litany. We sound like Europeans. Eneryone defaulting on loans and expecting others to carry the load.
    Laughable. And now insurance companies and Big Pharma is allso to blame? Didn't you forget EVIL BIG OIL.

  14. #94
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,957
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    Schools and theaters? How about the World Trade Center?
    Perhaps I am now in the minority on personal responsibility. It seems that many Americans have become dependant on the big brother government.
    Weak and soft. "Not my problem. Take care of me. I can't do it. I am weak. It's your fault." This has become the litany. We sound like Europeans. Eneryone defaulting on loans and expecting others to carry the load.
    Laughable. And now insurance companies and Big Pharma is allso to blame? Didn't you forget EVIL BIG OIL.
    So much ignorance and fail in once post. Is the government not tasked with anticipating the threat of domestic terrorism? Or the presence of individuals on watch lists? Big swings and misses with regards to 9/11 on both counts. Not sure how you are missing that.

    Pharma is completely exempt from ANY liability with regards to GOVERNMENT mandated vaccines, as per the GOVERNMENT. They also have a cozy relationship with "big brother" when it comes to safety and efficacy of their drugs via PDUFA.

    Again, you refuse to acknowledge the facts of the matter and instead insist on putting forth the same tired quatrain that those who suffer should "man-up." There's a lot of shady sh!t going on out there, but since it doesn't affect you, who cares. Good for you, I hope that stays that way, because your current attitude would suck if it changed for the worse. Weak and soft applies to people who don't experience hardship. Those that do are galvanized under the common flag of defending the rights and needs of those who cannot do so for themselves.

    Thing is, there's a much bigger hand waiting for hand-outs from the private sector than there is from poor shlubs who lose their houses to natural disasters.
    Last edited by Jetworks; 01-10-2013 at 10:16 AM. Reason: removed my sh!ttiness

  15. #95
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,472
    My question is if this is such a straightforward attemp to help the people affected by Sandy, why does it include spending for unrelated events in other parts of the country?
    [and yes that is rhetorical]

  16. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetworks View Post
    Is the government not tasked with anticipating the threat of domestic terrorism?
    Not, in my view, to the point of liabillity.

    In the same vein, the federal Government is not liable for a suprise millitary attack on the United States either.

    I am uncomfortable with laying liabillity on the Government for failing to forsee every possible action that could be aken against us, and hence rewarding (fiscally) the victims of international terrorism or foreign millitary action.

    The liable party is the perpetrator of the action.

    For example, I don't believe we could or should hold a Medical Doctor personally liable for failing to predict I might get Cancer. Even if he has tests (a "watchlist" for Cancer) and even if I see him regularly and tell him some of my risk factors. He did not give me Cancer.

    And the U.S. Government did not kill the victims of 9/11. The U.S. taxpayer does not (IMO) owe the victims of that attack recompense. Conversely, we DO owe the first responders, as they were Govt. Employees doing Govt. work at Govt. direction,a nd labor law applies to them and their employer, i.e. us, being liable.

    End of the day, what these issues and this trhead show is it is vastly better to be the victim of something big than something small, and it is vastly better to have your loved one die as a result of terrorism than any other factor. If you loved one is simply murdered in the street, and you lose your home to a small-scale disaster, then you're on your own.
    Last edited by Warfish; 01-10-2013 at 11:29 AM.

  17. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Not, in my view, to the point of liabillity.

    In the same vein, the federal Government is not liable for a suprise millitary attack on the United States either.

    I am uncomfortable with laying liabillity on the Government for failing to forsee every possible action that could be aken against us, and hence rewarding (fiscally) the victims of international terrorism or foreign millitary action.

    The liable party is the perpetrator of the action.

    For example, I don't believe we could or should hold a Medical Doctor personally liable for failing to predict I might get Cancer. Even if he has tests (a "watchlist" for Cancer) and even if I see him regularly and tell him some of my risk factors. He did not give me Cancer.

    And the U.S. Government did not kill the victims of 9/11. The U.S. taxpayer does not (IMO) owe the victims of that attack recompense. Conversely, we DO owe the first responders, as they were Govt. Employees doing Govt. work at Govt. direction,a nd labor law applies to them and their employer, i.e. us, being liable.

    End of the day, what these issues and this trhead show is it is vastly better to be the victim of something big than something small, and it is vastly better to have your loved one die as a result of terrorism than any other factor. If you loved one is simply murdered in the street, and you lose your home to a small-scale disaster, then you're on your own.

    Good post. But I guess you're still not as big of an SOB as I am. LOL.

  18. #98
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,642
    well this took a weird series of turns.

    First, props to both PK and palmetto for sticking to their beliefs and despite that, defending a conservative, and attacking a conservative, respectively.

    Second, now that I know that being outside of a govt-determined flood zone guarantees nothing (I should known not to trust a flood zone map from the govt! ), I have looked into flood insurance via the National Flood Insurance Program and have gotten a very good quote for insurance. And this was NOT guilt from palmetto's posts - this was from talking to the nice FEMA people back in December.

    Third, I don't know if conservatives actually think I'm conservative anymore, but there MUST be some midway point between "you're on your own" and "here's thousands of dollars for strippers and booze". As Obi-wan said "only the Sith speak in absolutes".

    To be honest, I encounter this a lot with people in my local Tea Party, which I find very disturbing.
    Last edited by quantum; 01-11-2013 at 08:47 AM. Reason: added the word NOT

  19. #99
    I think most conservatives are in favor of disaster relief, actually.

    Quote Originally Posted by quantum View Post
    As Obi-wan said "only the Sith speak in absolutes".

    To be honest, I encounter this a lot with people in my local Tea Party, which I find very disturbing.
    I find this sentiment interesting though. It's a common thought, but one i can't find the logic in. Aren't most things (that matter anyway) black or white?

    I've always been of the opinion that if you're seeing somthing as grey, you haven't broken down the components far enough. At certain level of granularity, everything is black or white.

  20. #100
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Not, in my view, to the point of liabillity.

    In the same vein, the federal Government is not liable for a suprise millitary attack on the United States either.

    I am uncomfortable with laying liabillity on the Government for failing to forsee every possible action that could be aken against us, and hence rewarding (fiscally) the victims of international terrorism or foreign millitary action.

    The liable party is the perpetrator of the action.

    For example, I don't believe we could or should hold a Medical Doctor personally liable for failing to predict I might get Cancer. Even if he has tests (a "watchlist" for Cancer) and even if I see him regularly and tell him some of my risk factors. He did not give me Cancer.

    And the U.S. Government did not kill the victims of 9/11. The U.S. taxpayer does not (IMO) owe the victims of that attack recompense. Conversely, we DO owe the first responders, as they were Govt. Employees doing Govt. work at Govt. direction,a nd labor law applies to them and their employer, i.e. us, being liable.

    End of the day, what these issues and this trhead show is it is vastly better to be the victim of something big than something small, and it is vastly better to have your loved one die as a result of terrorism than any other factor. If you loved one is simply murdered in the street, and you lose your home to a small-scale disaster, then you're on your own.
    All very fair points, but in the case of 9/11, there were clear intelligence indicators that an attack was imminent. Therefore, the government is liable for failing to act in an appropriate manner. Just as a doctor would be for missing the signs that someone had cancer, not for failing to predict it. But yes, ultimately the offending party is liable for the action. I suppose "martyrdom" makes that concept harder to digest.

    As for first responders such as myself, the government would owe us nothing as that was what we signed on for (more or less). Their culpability lies in putting forth official statements by the regulatory bodies that stated the conditions were safe to work in, or short of that, providing the necessary equipment to function in a hazardous area.

    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    Good post. But I guess you're still not as big of an SOB as I am. LOL.
    Guess I really hit a nerve. Sorry, but I stand by everything I said. Your failure to address even one point I raised speaks volumes, imho. Kudos on holding the line, tenuous as it is.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us