He's just playing the jerk. Houston is a major trans-shipment point for container freight of every sort, a major hub for both the BNSF & the UP not to mention trucking.
Why is foreign tonnage not important to Americans?
How are you defining 'large port' and how are you determining their importance?
Oil companies should not pay for disaster relief, that is the purpose of the federal government. This thread is filled with some of the dumbest shit I have ever read on here.
I don't think you understand logical fallacies very well as I explicitly stated why I thought it was true:
1) States can't raise large amounts of funds on short notice like the Feds can. That delays disaster response, which costs lives.
2) Bond issuance equal to 50% of a state's total budget will cause large future reductions in services, which will lead to excess mortality.
If you disagree with either of those, explain how and be as specific as you can. If you don't, stop being so stubborn.
Also, still waiting on that straw man.
By all means prove my 'idiotic' assertion wrong then! There's a previous post to him that you conveniently ignored that provides you with ample opportunity to do so.
Since it's so easy you should be able to do so in no time. I eagerly await it!
i just want to point something out to you that you will not understand or take responsibility for...
the oil industry is demand driven. oil companies carbon emissions are mostly in the use phase. which means, you and everyone else here, are creating those emissions by their demand for oil. YOU are causing climate change. not the people supplying the demand. Myself, an engineer in the oil industry, has solar and an electric car. I am doing something about my causing climate change. Are you?
ok.. back on topic...
Texas is one of the wealthiest states in the nation. I have no objection to helping them out because of this natural disaster. But we have to remember Texas competes with the rest of us for job producing businesses and that should be taken into account when drawing up the relief package.
As a resident of a blue state I'm getting mighty sick of subsidizing the GOP controlled states and then enduring endless lectures that the reasons they have job growth is not the benevolent socialistic handouts and grants they give to businesses.
Also, this disaster happened because of an increasing hotter Gulf of Mexico and that issue should stop be denied and start being addressed. It's past time to face up to the costs of the damage we are causing.
First off we aren't talking about federal disaster response we are talking about additional federal aid so I'm not sure what you are referring to when talking about raising funds in a short amount of time. The aid for Katrina took years for some victims to receive, did that result in excess deaths? You should be able to prove that if it did.
Second, states have budget issues all the time so you should have plenty of examples of excess mortalities as a result of such shortfalls.
I've already shown you where your straw man was, just because you chose to ignore that doesn't mean I didn't. You seem emotionally invested in this discussion as you've argued out of character using multiple logical fallacies and not backing up your claims when asked. Perhaps you, like jhnnn, should re read the thread to better understand the context of my posts and the poster I was responding to.
To help you out though, here is a list of things I never claimed:
1) helping Texas isn't the right thing to do from a moral or economic standpoint.
2) the federal government shouldn't help Texas
3) I believe not providing federal aid will only hurt Republicans.
4) The federal government shouldn't help at all, including initial disaster response.
What I have said is that people will not die because they didn't receive federal aid (and maybe I wasn't clear about what type of aid I was referring to but since the topic is about Congress approving additional aid I thought it was self explanatory).
What I also said is that it may not be smart politically, in the context of people voting, to give Texas aid because no matter what Democrats will be blamed (Democrats are a minority in Congress so if additional aid isn't passed, the reality is that it will be because of Republicans). Therefore to get people in Texas to start voting for Democrats or at least better policies they may need to suffer to see just how bad Republican policies are. That doesn't mean I agree with that approach nor does it mean I want Texans to suffer, I'm just pointing it out that I don't see any other alternative that would cause a change in the political landscape in Texas.
Pretty much everyone has said to help but point out the hypocrisy of those Texas politicians. In your fucked up mind liberals are the ones who would watch others die. Its actually the opposite.
That's precisely why helping them doesn't seem to be the smart choice. Not helping them doesn't mean people will die, what it means is that the aftermath and needed clean up won't be funded by the rest of America.
I don't know where people got the idea that if we don't send Texas additional aide that people will die.
See, this is the shit that pisses me off. Rather than just throwing together a bill that will unilaterally provide relief for a region that needs aid, it gets personal pet projects tacked on all over for political wins. When someone waves the BS flag, they get shitlisted for 'voting against helping the relief/protecting children/saving the moon', which turns into retarded one-liner infighting amongst the populace, us."Against relief for the Northeast"?
I don't recall anyone against relief for those affected by the hurricane Sandy.
The opposition arose from pork spending crammed into the bill mostly unrelated to those in the NE and/or even hurricane Sandy damage.
If the Repubs try to do likewise I hope it will be opposed as well.
#reinventhistorywithspin&BS
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/n...f-bill-amid-battle-over-spending.html?mcubz=1
Fern
See, this is the shit that pisses me off. Rather than just throwing together a bill that will unilaterally provide relief for a region that needs aid, it gets personal pet projects tacked on all over for political wins. When someone waves the BS flag, they get shitlisted for 'voting against helping the relief/protecting children/saving the moon', which turns into retarded one-liner infighting amongst the populace, us.
Remind me again why we're arguing with each other when these shitheads (politicians) are the ones who cannot get along, or do a_thing without it benefiting them in some way?
Cruz is repeating a number of myths about the funding for Sandy disaster relief. The vast majority of the spending was for Hurricane Sandy, including elements (such as Smithsonian repairs) that some lawmakers incorrectly believed were unrelated to the storm. The slow rate of projected spending that Cruz had criticized at the time was actually based on how quickly the government had spent funds after previous major storms.
Cruz clearly misspoke about the “two-thirds” being pork. Still, it is wildly incorrect to claim that the bill was “filled with unrelated pork.” The bill was largely aimed at dealing with Sandy, along with relatively minor items to address other or future disasters. He earns Three Pinocchios.
See, this is the shit that pisses me off. Rather than just throwing together a bill that will unilaterally provide relief for a region that needs aid, it gets personal pet projects tacked on all over for political wins. When someone waves the BS flag, they get shitlisted for 'voting against helping the relief/protecting children/saving the moon', which turns into retarded one-liner infighting amongst the populace, us.
Remind me again why we're arguing with each other when these shitheads (politicians) are the ones who cannot get along, or do a_thing without it benefiting them in some way?
This is not a case of 'both sides do it!' This is a case of Ted Cruz being a lying, hypocritical asshole.
Fair enough, I skimmed through the actual bill and it looked like everything was actually earmarked for Sandy related damage.To be clear virtually none of what Fern's article lists was actually in the bill that Cruz voted against. As linked earlier in this thread:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hing-to-do-with-sandy/?utm_term=.d48c87d1025e
This is not a case of 'both sides do it!' This is a case of Ted Cruz being a lying, hypocritical asshole.
Doing something about climate change isn't a matter of individual choices, its about political action at the level of the nation state and above.
Texas competes with the rest of us for job producing businesses and that should be taken into account when drawing up the relief package.
, this disaster happened because of an increasing hotter Gulf of Mexico and that issue should stop be denied and start being addressed. It's past time to face up to the costs of the damage we are causing.
ah, you are like my neighbor that is a huge anti-frack, anti pipeline activist that drives an SUV all over the place telling people we need to ban fossil fuels entirely and that everyone in the industry is a crime-prone greedy SOB and we should not allow them to even live in our fair town ( little does he know, there are several of us on his street, my wife keeps stopping me from letting him know this). because individual choices don't matter, its all about what everyone else could be doing to help, not about what I could be doing to help. what a load of bullshit. nothing will ever get done until we quell demand. That's how the market works, That's how its always worked. government can push, but it will never create enough force to get us over the hill, and it will always be less efficient.
anyway, good job on not driving.
Absolutely true, i'm back after a few days of volunteer service and glad to see the lefties and the leftist extremists in this forums have failed to meet even my super low expectations of them. They also don't mention the huge amount of pork barrel and wasteful spending that was included in the Sandy "disaster" funding Bill.This thread is disgusting.
I suppose it's indicative of the political discourse in our nation at this time...
That link's pretty shitty, everything they're attempting to 'dime out' on is stuff still related to Sandy. It's not like it was calling for new buildings in Guam or something, it's repairs to existing infrastructure, upgrades to protect against future storms, and better procedures/policies to improve hurricane/disaster related stuff moving forward, how is that a bad thing?However, that’s not what Congress gave him, or what he signed. Instead, the bill was loaded up with earmarks and pork barrel spending, so much so that only around half of the bill ended up actually being for Sandy relief.
Absolutely true, i'm back after a few days of volunteer service and glad to see the lefties and the leftist extremists in this forums have failed to meet even my super low expectations of them. They also don't mention the huge amount of pork barrel and wasteful spending that was included in the Sandy "disaster" funding Bill.
http://www.taxpayer.net/media-cente...e-wasteful-spending-in-51bn-sandy-relief-bill
http://dailysignal.com/2013/01/31/hurricane-sandy-relief-bill-wasteful-spending-not-helpful/
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...-exploit-hurricane-harvey-to-pass-pork-barrel
"As Hurricane Harvey rips through Texas, the state’s congressional delegation — one of the largest in Congress — is scrambling to direct federal resources to impacted parts of the state.
The state’s two Republican senators, Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, are under fire from one of their colleagues for the perceived hypocrisy of their requests. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) attacked the senators for voting againstemergency supplemental funding for Hurricane Sandy in 2012, claiming that their upcoming request for Hurricane Harvey aid is hypocritical.
That statement is as counterfactual as it is ignorant.
In 2012, President Obama requested a $60.4 billion supplemental funding bill from Congress, ostensibly to fund reconstruction efforts in the parts of the country most impacted by Hurricane Sandy.
However, that’s not what Congress gave him, or what he signed. Instead, the bill was loaded up with earmarks and pork barrel spending, so much so that only around half of the bill ended up actually being for Sandy relief.
Bullshit, just because you lie about something doesn't "debunk" it. You can lie all you want.Your claim here has already been debunked. Your first mistake was in believing as true anything that comes out of Ted Cruz's mouth, you gaslighted fool.
Absolutely true, i'm back after a few days of volunteer service and glad to see the lefties and the leftist extremists in this forums have failed to meet even my super low expectations of them. They also don't mention the huge amount of pork barrel and wasteful spending that was included in the Sandy "disaster" funding Bill.
http://www.taxpayer.net/media-cente...e-wasteful-spending-in-51bn-sandy-relief-bill
http://dailysignal.com/2013/01/31/hurricane-sandy-relief-bill-wasteful-spending-not-helpful/
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...-exploit-hurricane-harvey-to-pass-pork-barrel
"As Hurricane Harvey rips through Texas, the state’s congressional delegation — one of the largest in Congress — is scrambling to direct federal resources to impacted parts of the state.
The state’s two Republican senators, Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, are under fire from one of their colleagues for the perceived hypocrisy of their requests. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) attacked the senators for voting againstemergency supplemental funding for Hurricane Sandy in 2012, claiming that their upcoming request for Hurricane Harvey aid is hypocritical.
That statement is as counterfactual as it is ignorant.
In 2012, President Obama requested a $60.4 billion supplemental funding bill from Congress, ostensibly to fund reconstruction efforts in the parts of the country most impacted by Hurricane Sandy.
However, that’s not what Congress gave him, or what he signed. Instead, the bill was loaded up with earmarks and pork barrel spending, so much so that only around half of the bill ended up actually being for Sandy relief.
Cruz is repeating a number of myths about the funding for Sandy disaster relief. The vast majority of the spending was for Hurricane Sandy, including elements (such as Smithsonian repairs) that some lawmakers incorrectly believed were unrelated to the storm. The slow rate of projected spending that Cruz had criticized at the time was actually based on how quickly the government had spent funds after previous major storms.
Cruz clearly misspoke about the “two-thirds” being pork. Still, it is wildly incorrect to claim that the bill was “filled with unrelated pork.” The bill was largely aimed at dealing with Sandy, along with relatively minor items to address other or future disasters. He earns Three Pinocchios.