Now THIS probably deserves a mild pitting. (Mild, because SI has not historically been disaster prone, so some people are less inclined to “believe” evacuation notices or understand how serious they are. Plus, Irene last year turned out to be rather LESS powerful/destructive than anticipated. Cry wolf and all that.)
But, prr, this is not one of your more justified pittings. I usually agree with you on just about anything, and I felt the same twinge of “oh, shut up!” when I saw those same folks on CNN you did, but later I realized that the various levels of authority (including FEMA) really do seem to have failed a bit in making SI as high a priority as it likely should have been.
Why limit it to Staten Island? I am quite certain there are more than a handful of people living on the coast between North Carolina and Rhode island who match your cartoon Republican concept. The voting pattern of a district is not a sure determination of how any given individual feels on political subjects, and so I am surprised you are not gloating over *all *the conservatives who have lost property and lives on the East Coast this week.
Not arguing that point–I support a functioning and robust FEMA. Whether this means more employees, more resources, a better evaluation system, I’m for it. If it can be done cheaper, I’m for that, but usually improving something has a cost, and I’m fine with that too.
The people I’m pitting are not fine with it, though, except when it’s them who needs governmental help.
Okay, what’s YOUR opinion of a die-hard objector to federally funded disaster relief who complains bitterly when he’s not getting the governmental help he suddenly needs, and who continues to object to federal assistance for anyone who happens not to be him?
Okay, what’s YOUR opinion of a die-hard objector to federally funded disaster relief who complains bitterly when he’s not getting the governmental help he suddenly needs, and who continues to object to federal assistance for anyone who happens not to be him?
Well, I do know that they were told to evacuate and those who are still there bitching about lack of support now should’ve gotten their asses out when they were told to. Is it okay if I’m pissed that they’ve actually made recovery harder for the first (second and third) responders because they didn’t follow instructions?
Maybe. But it’s also a good time, when this issue is in the news, and people are thinking and talking a lot about disaster relief. It’s not like there’s a funeral, and I’m interrupting it and laughing, is it? This is an on-line discussion, and I’m not addressing anyone who’s been personally affected. It’s a public policy issue, and I’m raising it.
It is truly tragic what happened on that island. The one woman in the video segment linked in that article who I feel most devastated for is the one who evacuated as she was instructed, only to come back to “look for” her house, since it had been lifted off its foundation and flung across town, scattering her entire life’s belongings into the debris and devastation. My heart breaks for her and her family.
As it does for all the victims there. But especially after Katrina, if you’re told to get out, get the hell out!
And that’s my point. You’re heaping it up on people who have just taken a lot of abuse and are still hurting.
And your argument has a flaw too.
Look at it this way. These people pay taxes and get services. They don’t agree that the taxes should be spent on certain services but, since the money hads already been allocated, they expect the service to work for them.
I once lived in the city limits of Kansas City and had an imposed earnings tax of 1% of my earnings. I disagreed that my tax money was being used to fund trash pickup as I thought trash pickup could be funded privately for less money. Even though I disagreed with the allocation I was still pissed if my trash wasn’t picked up.
Yeah but I’d to think we liberals are better than Rush Limbaugh being an asshole and critizing Gov Christie for daring to make nice-nice with the president. There’s a time and a place. This isn’t really it.
I seem to have gotten several people discussing the pros and cons of it, though, haven’t I? The problem with the thinking of people like BubbaDog, though, which I understand and have a certain amount of sympathy for, is that a lot of things they these people (Tea Party nutbags, that is, not Staten Islanders) say about recepients of federal relief doesn’t apply to them. You know: lazy, undeserving, handout, blablabla. When they’re demanding federal relief money–and FAST!!!–it’s something they’ve earned. When other people accept it, well, that’s a PRINCIPLE they can’t support.
Well thanks. I always appreciate getting sympathy from a dipshit, even if he hasn’t a clue about what I believe.
PRR, if you want to hate me, don’t hate me for being a Teabagger, because I’m not. I have as much disdain for right wing nutjobs as I do the left wing nutjobs. I can’t even claim the middle of the road any more because that might imply that I think there is hope of ever achieving sanity within our political structure.
In my perfect world all of you liberal and conservative finger pointers quit pointing your fingers at each other and have them surgically placed up your collective asses.
pseudotriton ruber ruber, how do you know that the particular people complaining on TV are Tea Party Republicans who want to defund FEMA? I’m all for pointing out people’s hypocrisy, but I’d like to know that we are doing so accurately concerning the circumstances.
I also don’t think that this is the time and the place to be making such accusations considering how recent the storm is, the amount of damage done, and the deaths. I would hope that this would make people opposed to funding FEMA change their minds based on the situation.
pseudotriton ruber ruber, allow me to point out that you are:
(1) Creating a strawman,
(2) Engaging in demonization,
(3) Engaging in class demonization,
(4) Projecting (specifically, imputing the way you view people as the way they see themselves and/or their arguments),
(5) Inventing viewpoints entirely and ascribing them to people,
(6) Ignoring actual people in favor of largely hypothetical beings you created in your own mind.
First, let’s assume down at the bottom, but sans any emotional or moral judgement, that all the things you’ve said which could be factually verified are completely factually accurate.
(1) They don’t like how the federal government is spending the tax money in a specific case.
(2) As a consequence, they think the service should be cancelled or altered in some way because they believe it ineffective or inefficient.
(3) They have personally experienced a considerable disaster which is directly within that specific case.
(4) As a consequence, they have confirmed their opinion that the current service is ineffective or inefficient.
So what? Oh, I can understand you don’t agree with their conclusions. Fine. I might or might not myself. That said, I don’t disagree with their stated principle (point 1) and even if I did, couldn’t blame them for holding those views. And this is the most generous I can be to you. You aren’t making an argument. This is simply your personal Two Minute Hate. Are you honestly suprised it didn’t go very far? And have you noiced that even people sympathetic to your political views seem to think you’re acting like a complete idiot?
The purpose of evacuations is to save lives, not property. Even if people all evacuated, they weren’t bringing their homes with them. They would still be in the exact same situation they are currently in, with their houses and property destroyed.