DescentBB

Funny how little coverage of the aftermath from hurricane Sandy there is. I thought when Obama said they were going to cut thru the red tape to help folks and by the lack of coverage from the main news organs...that all is well. Then I read this:

"NEW YORK (MYFOXNY) -

For months Donna Graziano has been traveling from Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, to Staten Island every day to provide a tent with heaters and food to folks in New Dorp Beach who are still struggling with the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy.

The food is donated from people who live and work in the area.

Early Thursday, the fierce winds damaged the tent. Now she says there isn't anywhere for people to go locally for food and warmth."

Wait a minute, people are living in tents in the dead of winter? Why aren't the newsy's all over this? At least after Katrina FEMA doled out trailers for people to live in. But Sandy victims get tents? WTF are we, some third world country setting up tent cities for the refugees? Illegal immigrants here get better housing than tents. So again, where are the serious news reporters like the ones who for months were covering the Katrina victims plight? So let me repeat a Obama mantra:

Where's yo dollah

You ain't watching the right news. I keep seeing the problem reported quite frequently, especially after the House was embarrassed after having taken too long to pass a relief bill on time. I guess government spending is so evil to their mindset, even if it's for disaster relief, they'll stick to their principles and say no every time.

Funny how Bush was able to get the Katrina victims housed

having funding allocated within two weeks probably helped that process, wouldn't you suspect, Woody?

Yeah Slick, I guess Bush was the better president after all

woodchip wrote:Yeah Slick, I guess Bush was the better president after all

no, he had a Congress that got him the money. Love how you love to make stuff up, it's hilarious,and always amuses me.

Well while you're rolling around laughing, Bush got the money to go thru, Obama failed. I bet those people living in tents aren't laughing.

woodchip wrote:Well while you're rolling around laughing, Bush got the money to go thru, Obama failed. I bet those people living in tents aren't laughing.

I'll bet they aren't, either, and I'll bet they will never vote for a Republican congressperson again, in most cases. The Tea Party is the issue here, along with the Southern wing of the GOP. And, pay the price, they will in the long run.

Right, they think Glorious Leader, like Pontius Pilot, has clean hands.

nah, they've just come to realize that nitwits who insult the twice-elected sitting President with dumbass remarks aren't a valid source of information. And, they're smart enough to see who,exactly, held up the money without the likes of you trying to put a bizarre spin on it.

Well all those uninformed voters shore nuff believed all those nitwits who bashed bush. Nice try. +10 for effort

Bush denying a problem for a week likely contributed to that....nice of you to declare the voters uninformed only when things don't go your way.....

woodchip wrote:Funny how Bush was able to get the Katrina victims housed

You mean those real nice toxic trailers that made their temporary residents sick? That were used after Katrina AND Rita, even though FEMA knew they were out-gassing formaldehyde? Nice work Bushie.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-575 ... iler-suit/

callmeslick wrote:nah, they've just come to realize that nitwits who insult the twice-elected sitting President with dumbass remarks aren't a valid source of information.

are you willing to say that about the current and former members of congress who did that to Bush and continue to say it till this day?? and also current members of this board who do the same thing???

/me points to the poster above him.

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:nah, they've just come to realize that nitwits who insult the twice-elected sitting President with dumbass remarks aren't a valid source of information.

are you willing to say that about the current and former members of congress who did that to Bush and continue to say it till this day?? and also current members of this board who do the same thing???

/me points to the poster above him.

wasn't here to read this board at the time, but on the 'other' board, I did call out folks who went way off the rails. OK to disagree with a President's policy decisions, War decisions, etc, but when one has to sink to(in the case of Bush) blabbering about drinking and drugs from the past, bad cowboy jokes or stupidity jokes, you are being disrespectful for it's own sake, and not contributing to the discussion. Likewise, calling Obama 'Glorious Leader', or questioning his birthplace, or the other sorts of blatant disrespect(in far higher volume that Bush got, which was unacceptable) that Woody and other intellectual lightweights aim at Obama serves our nation badly. At least, I sense that by now, most thinking Americans are fed up with that garbage.

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:Funny how Bush was able to get the Katrina victims housed

You mean those real nice toxic trailers that made their temporary residents sick? That were used after Katrina AND Rita, even though FEMA knew they were out-gassing formaldehyde? Nice work Bushie.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-575 ... iler-suit/

Yeah having a well ventilated tent and freezing your ass off is so much better

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:nah, they've just come to realize that nitwits who insult the twice-elected sitting President with dumbass remarks aren't a valid source of information.

are you willing to say that about the current and former members of congress who did that to Bush and continue to say it till this day?? and also current members of this board who do the same thing???

/me points to the poster above him.

wasn't here to read this board at the time, but on the 'other' board, I did call out folks who went way off the rails. OK to disagree with a President's policy decisions, War decisions, etc, but when one has to sink to(in the case of Bush) blabbering about drinking and drugs from the past, bad cowboy jokes or stupidity jokes, you are being disrespectful for it's own sake, and not contributing to the discussion. Likewise, calling Obama 'Glorious Leader', or questioning his birthplace, or the other sorts of blatant disrespect(in far higher volume that Bush got, which was unacceptable) that Woody and other intellectual lightweights aim at Obama serves our nation badly. At least, I sense that by now, most thinking Americans are fed up with that garbage.

How can they be fed up when all the uniformed voter is exposed to are puff pieces by 5th column main stream press? In Bush's case the derogatory comments were coming from the press, Dan Rather being right on top. So please don't shed any crocodile tears or feigned Hillary type indignation on this board. When Romney was running, just look at the "Romney killed a man's wife" or "Romney is a felon" stories the press ran gleefully with. See any derogatory stories like that from the same news outlets?

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:Funny how Bush was able to get the Katrina victims housed

You mean those real nice toxic trailers that made their temporary residents sick? That were used after Katrina AND Rita, even though FEMA knew they were out-gassing formaldehyde? Nice work Bushie.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-575 ... iler-suit/

Yeah having a well ventilated tent and freezing your ass off is so much better

Well, let's see. Slow death by poisoning because some a company cut a few corners and ripped off the taxpayers by dumping, cheap, substandard toxic trailers on FEMA, that they probably OVERCHARGED them for in the first place or freezing to death because the weather turns cold. What a choice.

Thats our govt in all its glory. Just wait until the horror stories about Obamacare start rolling in

woodchip wrote:Thats our govt in all its glory. Just wait until the horror stories about Obamacare start rolling in

Yea? Published in the Now That Pigs Fly We Report Gazzette maybe.

woodchip wrote:Thats our govt in all its glory. Just wait until the horror stories about Obamacare start rolling in

whee!! More gloom and doom......get over it, Obama won, the healthcare bill is the law.

Getting a little repetitious with the "get over it" remark aren't you?

not half so much as you with the predictions of gloom and knee-jerk whining about everything that the Obama administration does.

callmeslick wrote:not half so much as you with the predictions of gloom and knee-jerk whining about everything that the Obama administration does.

Well lets see:
Obama added 6 trillion to the debt, more that all the combined presidents before him

Unemployment jumped up a point this last month, never dropping below 7.8% for his 4 years of "Focusing like a razor on the economy"

Missed submitting yet another budget

Signed a health care bill into law without reading it

Says how he'd like a son that jumps a guy, tries bashing his head into the concrete and gets killed for his effort

Gives no support to a uprising in Iran, but tells a long time ally in Egypt he should step down.

Whats there to love?

love, no, respect, yes. He is your second-term elected national head-of-state. Whining about that reality changes nothing. Making exaggerated claims about that reality merely weakens your already shaky credibility. Just looking at your little list above shows one of two options: That you don't understand how government works, or how a President doesn't tightly control an economy or you like to repeat misinformation to justify your dislike and lack of respect. You just posted a list of untruths, half-truths and outright falsehoods to 'bolster' your case. Nice work!

woodchip wrote:Well lets see:

let's, shall we.....?

Obama added 6 trillion to the debt, more that all the combined presidents before him

Presidents don't add to the debt. They aren't the branch that dictates the spending.

Unemployment jumped up a point this last month, never dropping below 7.8% for his 4 years of "Focusing like a razor on the economy"

Presidents don't have much control over the pace of recovery, especially in light of sharing power with a do-nothing Congress. He can focus all he wants but if the House insists on slashing spending, you aren't going to see a Keynsian recovery, which is the classically successful model

Missed submitting yet another budget

they've been submitted every year....once again, see Congress as to why they don't get passed.

Signed a health care bill into law without reading it

and, you are certain that no one on his staff was tasked with reading it. Especially the legal staff? Wow, I never knew you were such an insider!

Says how he'd like a son that jumps a guy, tries bashing his head into the concrete and gets killed for his effort

here we have a flat out, disgusting, lie. Apparently, you are so ethically small that you can turn the words, 'would LOOK like me' into liking to be him.
Is there no limit to the extent that you will spread bull★■◆● as a substitute for nuanced thought? Don't answer, it was a rhetorical question.

Gives no support to a uprising in Iran, but tells a long time ally in Egypt he should step down.

once again, you lack any inside knowledge to do anything but make a goofy guess at what transpired. Further, you demonstrate a complete lack of grasp on regional diplomacy in the Middle East. See above for manure spreading analogy, because this is simply another layer of the same.

Whats there to love?

I love that when you have no real facts, you have the moxie to simply make stuff up.

So Slick we are to take you on your word that my list has untruths, half truths and falsehoods (aren't untruths and falshood the same thing)? Saying it's so don't make it so. Give proofs or stops poasting on the big boy board.

woodchip wrote:So Slick we are to take you on your word that my list has untruths, half truths and falsehoods (aren't untruths and falshood the same thing)? Saying it's so don't make it so. Give proofs or stops poasting on the big boy board.

ummm, did you not read the breakdown above? Apparently not. Put your big shovel down, manure boy, and put your reading glasses on.

Are you boys done?

woodchip wrote:Thats our govt in all its glory. Just wait until the horror stories about Obamacare start rolling in

Oh, the real horrors will show up when the "free market" begins to run things after the next Republican president finally repeals that mess of a bloated idea, Obamacare. The free market has no compassion nor does it care. It only likes "choice" and "profit". I guess you'll get your "choice"........if you can afford it.

Remember this TC, for a company to make a profit, it has to have customers. To have customers a company must put a competitive product on the market. Insurance is no different. The problem many people have is their state will not open their door to unlimited insurance competition, allowing only a few to offer policies in their state. As a result premiums are high. When Obamacare fully kicks in, the question will be...how many insurance companies will end up in business. The fear is we will wind up with a single payer situation where the govt is in control. Thats control of what doctors get paid and what services are needed. I don't know about you, but I'd trust more competition between providers in lieu of a govt controlled program. Time of course will tell how this all shakes out.

I wouldn't trust competition either. Look at the phone company as an example. The government broke up the Bell Telephone System years ago and a whole slew of Baby Bells was born. Competition thrived and innovation took off. Great! The technology prospered. But look what's happened over the intervening years. The maturation and conglomeration phase has occurred. All those small companies have slowly merged into fewer and fewer big companies. Any small companies left can no longer compete because they don't have the market share anymore. What are we down to now, 3 or 4 major telecoms now? Do they even compete with each other on price, or have they, "wink, wink", set things up so that we're all paying the highest prices the market will bear? They've essentially colluded to fix prices at high levels because there are only a few companies, little competition and no one to tell them otherwise, not the customer, not the market. If you don't like what they're peddling, your screwed, because there are no better options, take it or leave it. They've got plenty of other customers willing to put up with their crap.

I'm betting the same thing will happen with health insurance companies. Let's say Obamacare went away today and the free market was given total control and free reign with no federal or state mandates or controls. Then a whole bunch of new insurance companies came into existence to provide health insurance on the open market with this sudden, big new opportunity, all with the idea of making a big profit, beating out the other guy on prices and providing more choices. Sure, that would work at first, no argument there, but as the market matured, as has happened throughout history by the way, the larger companies would slowly begin buying out the smaller ones to get a bigger market share and more control on pricing. Over time, we'd end up with a few very large health insurance companies that would end up controlling everything and fixing prices at a level they deem best for their bottom line, with no concern about who can or can't afford health care. The market has no feelings, no humanity, no compassion. Granted, neither does the government's present system right now. But a free market system may seem more fair because everyone has a "choice" and "free will", but the only "choice" or "free will" people will have is only whether they can afford health care at all. It's just a form of rationing by wealth. Why is that better than say a single payer system?

The free market has it's warts just the like government has it's warts. Human nature is human nature, so any system will be subject to the whims and foibles of those same said corruptible humans. You say the government is corrupted, I agree. But I think the free market just as corruptible too. There is no perfect system, they all have their pluses and minuses. The question is all about balance, and for who that balance benefits.