Forums | MacLife

ShnickyShnack wrote:

So once again, I'm forced to ask ... if it's not the job of the US Government to fix the lives of average Americans, what's it doing injecting democracy into the body politic of Iraq?

uh... because they need to make up a Happy Talk excuse once no WMDs were found

bratboy wrote:

NokX wrote:

hospitals don't own helicopters?  i know a hospital in knoxville sent a couple their way.  $0 taxpayer money.

So is it your position that emergency rescue after a disaster should be organized and performed not by "THE GOVERNMENT" (either federal, state, or local) but should be conducted by cobbling together civilian resources?

cobbling together?  you mean like fema did and it took them days to respond while the "cobbling" local civilian resources were acting right away?

bratboy wrote:

yes, because that's exactly what i've been saying the whole time.  actually, in really small text in my first post i said "all old people and babies should die".

again - dunno where some of you all are pulling these things...

we shouldn't leave those people stranded on the street.  my church here opened it's extra rooms in the school to house people and we had a program going on to house stranded people.  that's 10-12 hours away from louisana and we were doing that.  $0 taxpayer money and that's us helping out others.  not just sitting back expecting government to do a job it shouldn't be doing anyway.

You giving an example of how non-governmental groups helped aid victims of a disaster does not answer my question.  What if your local churches are also destroyed?  What if local groups are short on funds or short on manpower or short on resources?  In your estimate THE GOVERNMENT (I'm not quite certain WHO you think "THE GOVERNMENT" is) should stand by and say "sooner or later some church will organize a disaster rescue plan and get you off the roof of your flooded house and get you some food and shelter, so just sit tight?"

if the whole US is demolished we're just screwed...but...last time i checked we're allowed to help out others that don't live in our city.  unless that's been banned for some reason.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I guess the bottom line is, it's okay to spend hundreds of billions (and counting) on helping Iraqis by ousting their dictator, but it's not okay to spend a dime on helping Americans by rebuilding their towns.

It's not okay to reconstruct levees or schools, but it's okay to spend $700 million on a "railway to nowhere.

Is that supposed to make sense?

spend money on ousting a dictator and keeping order (not buying them things) until the iraqi's get back on their feet.  any money spent otherwise isn't the governments job.

let american's rebuild their towns.  there are construction companies for that.

i don't agree with how the government spends money 90% of the time.

bratboy wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Is that supposed to make sense?

NokX's vision of the 'proper' GOVERNMENT would require completely gutting the Constitution.

how?  where does it say in the constitution we're entitled to "things" by the government?!

bedstuy wrote:

NokX wrote:

the government never does anything right.

Uh, no.  That should read "Republicans never do anything right.

[insert cronies on]

no, because when democrats are in power things aren't any better

bratboy wrote:

I like the implication that someone who accepts a trailer to live in after their home is demolished is somehow neither a "taxpayer" nor a "productive member of society."

you're implying that, not me

So what happens when Knoxville is hit by a nuclear device by radical clerics?  Nuffin'?  I mean, it's your decision to live in the United States during a war.

Oh, and at least The White House is being sane for once and saying that abolishing FEMA is a dumb idea.  Frankly I don't see what abolishing it and turning around and making a new agency would accomplish except for wasting money.  Why not reform FEMA?  Surely there are SOME things there that work?

We could start by teaching Chertoff to use email.

NokX wrote:

cobbling together?  you mean like fema did and it took them days to respond while the "cobbling" local civilian resources were acting right away?

Hey, I never claimed that FEMA did a good job.  But in such a disaster, you're going to need the full manpower of the local police, fire, and possibly national guard.  This silly notion that the local church is going to borrow the hospital's helicopter and fly around picking people up is absurd.

bratboy wrote:

if the whole US is demolished we're just screwed...but...last time i checked we're allowed to help out others that don't live in our city.  unless that's been banned for some reason.

You cannot leave disaster rescue missions to the whim of whomever volunteers to help out that day!  That you're even suggesting it blow my mind.

how?  where does it say in the constitution we're entitled to "things" by the government?!

You repeatedly claim that the ONLY job of the government is to "protect people."  I suggest you take another look at that Constitution and discover all of those 'other' duties that the federal government is responsible for––not to mention the fact that local and state governments are organized around the needs of the people who live in those areas.

you're implying that, not me

Take a good look at the image you posted in your first post.

bratboy wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

So what happens when Knoxville is hit by a nuclear device by radical clerics?  Nuffin'?  I mean, it's your decision to live in the United States during a war.

The local church members (and NokX, of course) are going to go knocking on the doors of the local construction businesses and ask them if they can borrow their equipment so that they can go digging for survivors.

Edit, again: No personal slams, please. KF

Why does FEMA exist?

To subsidize rich republican developers.

Does "I'm" count as one word or two?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I actually agree that FEMA is beyond repair. Their smurf in New Orleans (and surrounding area) are bad enough to give up on it, but the fact that their bumbling is continuing puts it beyond the pale.

Indeed I agree that it's time to wake up and realize the feds aren't able or willing to be there in times of crisis. That's not the way it should be. But it is the way it is.

FEMA worked quite well before the Bushies turned it into a hotbed of cronyism, incompetence and corruption. It was one of the best managed and most competent federal agencies.

The problem is not FEMA (leaving aside NokX's idiocy), the problem, as we see so much these days, is Republicans.

NokX, it is the Fed. goverment's purvue to coordinate interstate operations. Which is exactly what happened. It is the Fed. goverments purvue to establish trafficability on the nations waterways and highways (national interest). It is the within the Fed. governments purvue to provide food, clothing, shelter for citizens when the resources needed are beyond the capabilities of the state government. It is within the governments purvue to provide those services.

The government is an extension of the will of the populace in an elective democracy. Therefore, a lot is within it's purvue. If you lived in a nation that did not provide those services, but only the ones you have briefly mentioned, you would be very upset. Look at sub-saharan africa. Those governments operate more on the scale you are advocating. NOTE: I am not saying they are a model of what you advocate. They do provide the types and scales of services to thier population in disasters that you are advocating though, which is squat.

NokX wrote:

that was a joke...  ha.  jeez...  can i mix jokes and serious discussion or no?

It was inflammatory and inappropriate.

NokX, you have quite a long history of posting inflammatory bullsmurf and then returning with a "but I was just joking!" line when other posters take offense to it.

You should have absolutely expected the response you got.  Perhaps what you're missing is that your "joke" is actually fairly insulting (and was intended to be that way by whomever created it).  It purports to make a "point."

don't go islamic on me and hold protests cause of a political joke.

That seems beyond the bounds of acceptability.

Probably a simple cut/paste error via FreeRepublic

Farmerkev wrote:

kb5zhh wrote:

don't go islamic on me and hold protests cause of a political joke.

That seems beyond the bounds of acceptability.

nah. it's not

Long as he doesn't make any head wear comments.