Obama to deny FEMA funds to states that deny man-made climate change

I apologize for that. You are completely right to say that, and I deserved that. Insults aren't a substitute for reason.

But that still makes you wrong about climate change, and your fellow travellers in the United States are one of the few places on the planet outside the most primitive and uneducated in the Third World that refuse to accept the evidence.

Here, it's a part of our stupid ass-backward identity politics which says "If you don't argue what science is claiming about the climate, you don't get to be a conservative." And that's incredibly dangerous.

Even so-called moderate Republicans politicians that aren't anti-science, or anti-gay or pro-Ya'll Queda have to moderate their public comments to avoid offending the people I refer to as "the toothless."

Maybe I should use a different euphemism.

 

When you don't seem to know the definitions of the words you're using, it would be "forced" to argue semantics.

I know better to throw out actual arguments to your idiotic rants (like, 18 of the last 20 midterm elections have seen the president's party lose House seats with the same being true in the Senate in 16 of the last 21 midterms) because you'll just ignore the facts and continue to toss out unsupported assertions based on your delusions.

Try again, rookie.

 

Thanks for responding!

I agree 100% with what I bolded! Would all the people who are NOT layman on this board please step forward. (crickets chirping profusely)

That 3% of scientist that are against man made climate change sounds awfully low, but I'll take your word on it. I, like the majority on this board agree that the climate is changing...why? I can't definitively give you an answer since I personally haven't done any studies of my own, therefor I, along with vast majority of the people (layman) have to rely on what other people have come up with. Here is where I hesitate...why?... because there is money to be made! If billions upon billions of dollars weren't at stake I wouldn't think twice, but money makes people say and do things that they might not do otherwise. This works BOTH ways, by people on both sides! It's not insider trading, but you'll be at the front of the line when the patents/contracts get partitioned! When laws get passed to eliminate certain products/procedures/ and Industries, the fat cat's will be there to save the day with new and improved products/procedures/and Industries!

I might be dumb/stupid/and ignorant, but I'm not crazy! There's money to be made fellas! We just have to figure out which side to double down on! BTW, my post has nothing to do with the left/right, and all about the pursuit of the benjamins!$$$ Remember to vote for the politician you like to hear talk most!...
.......
.......
.......

 

"Billions and billions of dollars" are not at stake for the scientists doing the research and publishing their findings.

 

They are for the fat cat's who are running the show.
.......
.......
.......

 

So I assume you believe that from 2008 to 2010, and again from 2012 to 2014, Obama should have had free reign and Republicans should have done whatever he wanted?

 

There's no logic fallacy - it's just not comprehensive. There were two claims:

1. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is making it tougher for governors to deny man-made climate change.

2. Starting next year, the agency will approve disaster-preparedness funds only for states whose governors approve hazard-mitigation plans that address climate change.

Both are true and neither rules out that it's also more difficult for governors who deny climate change in general, man-made or not.

 

Obama flexing his political muscle again.

 

I don't think it's primarily identity politics. It's more about the affinity to the Church of Capitalism where the common good can't be marketed or commercialized into something that makes me as a rational actor feel better with immediate and quantifiable marginal utility. This thinking reflects how the carbon credits scheme arose from conservative think tanks 25 years ago.

The Church messaging has evolved (to squash the credits idea) but the spirit is still there.

Thus you have similarly inspired accusations by Worshippers of how researchers are madly profiting off of this "conspiracy", yet those same accusers won't blink an eye if the "opposing voice" to the "disputed science" has been receiving private bribes in large sums.

That small dissenting voice whom receiving disproportionate money for their views on climate change are the Church Worshippers' expected norm rather than the manufactured exception, whom are used to drive a wedge against popular opinion.

 

Oddly enough, the Obama administration thinks the exact Opposite when it comes to insurance.

If you're overweight, smoke, etc...we'll force the those that workout and stay fit to subsidize your insurance for you

 

While I believe climate change is partially cyclic and partially man-made, I also believe its crazy for the administration to put these kinds of restrictions on the funds availability. Wildly irresponsible. JUST as irresponsible as the states NOT preparing.

 

If you don't have ins, uses the emergency system and don't paid, everyone else is paying for you.

Workout and stay fit <> no health problem. 40% of folks with hearth disease aren't overweight.

 

Different situations require different applications of an ideology.
We are borderline saying that there is a pseudo-natural right to purchase quality healthcare regardless of how prone you are to injury. There really are some factors you can't control that could cause you to not be covered through no fault of your own.

That being said how many people really live their entire lives without any health complications whatsoever?

For disaster planning, you will get denied funds and it would entirely be your fault, as those factors were directly in your control.

 

So you think it's wildly irresponsible for the federal government to not give preparation funds to states that are not preparing?

 

As opposed to being overweight, not having insurance, and then subsidizing your far more expensive ER visit? Why is that better? It seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the structure of the health care system.

 

Smokers and fatties are likely to die sooner.

The group that's a bigger "drain on funds" are people who live long past retirement.

 

Jesus now we are comparing climate change to health insurance?

Jackasses like Ted Cruz say this

Except

Hence



And the scientist Cruz cites in his argument responds.

Idiots like Rafael Cruz politicize an issue that is not something to be debated. Most of us in the scientific community understand that climate change is very real.

Instead of spouting opinions that mirror this idiot why don't we take the time to read some of the thousands of peer reviewed journals published on climate change and form opinions based on that.

 

Apologies for the large figure, i didn't realize it was that big. And the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ing-this-satellite-scientist-feels-otherwise/

 

I've skimmed this thread and perhaps I missed this but the articled doesn't say that FEMA won't give money to states when they have a disaster.
[rquoter]The policy doesn't affect federal money for relief after a hurricane, flood, or other disaster.[/rquoter]

FEMA will still help out if a disaster occurs.

 

You can correct this by putting the image into "spoiler" tags so that it only appears when the button is clicked.