Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 465  Next >
1
No I was criticizing De Santis for being a hypocrite. Try to keep up.

Please show where DeSantis is asking for money for future disasters unrelated to this hurricane.

2
Quote from: crutonius
Objecting to future disaster mitigations is also kind of a head scratcher to me.

The objection was treating non-emergency funding for future disasters and future projects as emergency funding for Hurricane Sandy. Those agencies have normal ways to get funding which does not involve sneaking in money into an emergency aid bill.

If they want money for future disaster-mitigation projects then they should have acted honestly and created a request for that with the normal way they get funding, not try to sneak it into the hurricane sandy emergency relief.
The thing is, it isn't an emergency relief bill, it's a disaster recovery bill.  The hint is in the name.

Well, that's incorrect.

https://www.afscme.org/issues/congressional-scorecards/doc2/Scorecard-Senate-201408.pdf



https://www.texasgopvote.com/comment/33581

Quote
While I sympathize with the victims of Hurricane Sandy, Congress has already authorized $9.7 billion in emergency funding. But the $50 billion bill considered today includes additional spending far beyond emergency funds for Hurricane Sandy victims. Emergency spending bills should not be a vehicle for pet projects or even important programs. Those types of spending requests should be considered separately.

https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal13-1634-93328-2627902

Quote
Almost two weeks after the House action, the Senate voted to pass the disaster bill, even though rifts remained over spending offsets and complaints about the designation of emergency spending in the bill to avoid budget caps.

Here is a quote that is more specific:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2014/6/1/1303536/-AR-Sen-Mark-Pryor-D-Slams-Tom-Cotton-R-For-Votes-Against-Disaster-Aid

Quote
Cotton Voted Against $50 Billion Disaster Supplemental Providing Emergency Aid to Communities Hit By Hurricane Sandy. In 2013, Cotton voted for passage of the bill that would provide about $50.5 billion for communities hit by Superstorm Sandy. Nearly all funding would be designated as emergency spending exempt from discretionary caps, except for $5.4 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund. As amended, the bill would include about $11.5 billion for FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, $10.9 billion for transit systems, $16 billion for Department of Housing and Urban Development community development programs, $5.4 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, $708 million for repairs to national parks, wildlife refuges and facilities, $234 million for Veterans Affairs medical activities and construction projects, $274 million for Coast Guard projects and $520 million for Small Business Administration disaster loans. The bill passed by a vote of 241-180. [CQ; HR 152, Vote #23, 1/15/13]

All was designated as emergency funding except for 5.4 billion into the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund.

The article also outlines specific reasons for why congressmen voted against the bill:

Quote
Cotton Argued That Much Of The Funding In The Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill Was Not Going To Natural Disaster Relief. When asked about his vote against the Sandy Disaster Relief Bill, Cotton responded: “’A lot of that money was not going to natural disaster relief. A lot of that money was to go to municipalities that were underinsured,’ Cotton said. He pointed out the amount of money requested was excessive. He said $60 billion is 12 times the budget Arkansas has to work within a year.” [The Courier, 2/18/13]

Cotton: “I Don’t Think Arkansas Needs To Bail Out The Northeast.” When asked about his vote against the Sandy Disaster Relief Bill, Cotton responded: “‘I don’t think Arkansas needs to bail out the Northeast,’ Cotton asserted. He told the audience many of the proposed relief programs were larded up by New York politicians. They were using this opportunity as a grab bag for politicians’ wish lists and for funding repairs to infrastructure that had nothing to do with weather damage.” [The Courier, 2/18/13]

The above article is actually criticizing Cotton for voting against spending bills. It is doing the same thing Rama Set is doing, criticizing anyone who is fiscally responsible as evil for opposing a spending bill. From the article:

Quote
COTTON EVEN VOTED TO ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR IMPROVED EXTREME WEATHER WARNINGS AND FORECASTING

This is a rather poor way to argue, to say the least. As if there is no such thing as improper spending. Oddly this article quotes various reasons why Cotton opposed spending bills. Most attack articles don't bother to quote the opposition at all.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ron DeSantis is a shitbag
« on: October 02, 2022, 07:27:13 PM »
Then whats the point of emergency funding?
If your house is flooded to the point where it needs to be rebuilt, do you just get some emergency funding for a week at a hotel and thats it?  Is spending a year to rebuild your house (or more depending on how many houses need to be rebuilt) not an emergency?

Many of the fundamental problems with the bill are not even about rebuilding what the hurricane damaged. The emergency hurricane relief request contained significant items which were going towards projects that were unrelated to the hurricane damage:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2012/12/14/hurricane-sandy-and-fema-abuse/

    Last week, President Obama issued a request for $60.4 billion for Hurricane Sandy response and recovery. . . .Roughly $28 billion of the request is marked for future disaster-mitigation projects on the East Coast, including $3.2 million for erosion control projects and $15 billion for Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grants. As Heritage’s Matt Mayer explains, “Setting aside whether these projects have merit, a supplemental spending request to deal with a current crisis is not the appropriate vehicle to propose new spending projects.”

    ...Remove unnecessary items from the Administration’s request, and you’re left with a request of $12.8 billion in supplemental funds. . . .Proponents of looking at offsets for the hurricane supplemental have a point. As Mayer explains, “Too much of the Obama Administration’s supplemental request for Hurricane Sandy includes items best left for its upcoming budget.… Because of the federal government’s dire fiscal condition, underscored by the current fiscal cliff negotiations, spending reductions should offset any additional spending.”

If they want money for future disaster-mitigation projects then they should have acted honestly and created a request for that with the normal way they get funding, not try to sneak it into the hurricane sandy emergency relief.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ron DeSantis is a shitbag
« on: October 01, 2022, 09:06:22 PM »
Sure.  And how long should that take Tom?  In your expert opinion on repair of major metropolitan transit systems?

Irrelevant. Funding intended for years down the line isn't an emergency.

In the aftermath of 9-11 emergency funding was needed for the people hurt and killed in the aftermath, but funding the construction of new towers and ongoing maintenance on those new towers wasn't an emergency. The buildings might need to be built back, but if it can take 5 years instead of 4 years, that is not an emergency and is not appropriate to be on an emergency funding bill in the immediate aftermath of 9-11.

The word emergency connotates an immediate serious need and multi-year funding projects for ongoing projects, improvements, etc, are not emergencies. It is more appropriate for those items to be outside of a bill presented as an emergency.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ron DeSantis is a shitbag
« on: October 01, 2022, 06:23:19 PM »
This is not, in fact, shocking.

1. Yes, politicians will ask for their own shit because otherwise they will not care.  Pretty sure DeSantis has done so.

2. Money being spent our, even as far as 2018, is not unexpected.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/emergency-relief-program/hurricane-sandy-disaster-relief#:~:text=L.,Control%20Act%20of%202011%20(Pub.

Basically: part of the money is to repair and upgrade areas of transit to help prevent future problems.  Such projects can take many years and you can't do them all at once either since that might totally cripple part or all of your public transit.

So its done over many years with projects staggered so service inturruption is minimal.


Thats just part of the money, of course, but illustrates the point.

After a hurricane you only need to repair the infrastructure once. Repairs intended for many years out should be in a regular spending bill, and not snuck into an emergency bill to get passed sight unseen.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ron DeSantis is a shitbag
« on: October 01, 2022, 04:25:38 PM »
Yes, it is apparent that you continuously post things without taking 5 minutes into looking at the opposition. DeSantis was part of a group of congressmen who rejected the bill because it was not a fiscally appropriate emergency aid bill.

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/17/us-rep-ron-desantis-defensive-after-disaster-vote/15825475007/

June 17, 2013 - ' In one of his first official acts, U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis voted against a bill to provide $9.7 billion in flood insurance aid for Hurricane Sandy victims.

"The problem with the Sandy package was, if you look at it, only 30 percent of it was going to be spent in the first two years," DeSantis said in an interview recently at his St. Augustine office. "It actually appropriated money out to 2020 and 2021, things that could not in any way be said to be emergency spending. It just was so much extraneous stuff."

...The opposition to the Sandy aid came from 67 Republicans, including DeSantis and Ted Yoho of Gainesville. Both DeSantis, a lawyer, and Yoho, a veterinarian, had strong support in their elections from tea party groups. They were the only two representatives from Florida to vote against the Sandy aid bill.

DeSantis said he would have supported a leaner bill.

"So what we tried to do, we wanted to do a package," he said. "It would have been a relief package that focused on immediate relief, not spending down the line that's not necessary. We thought that would have been a better way to go about it."

The bill allowed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to pay out claims to those who held federal flood insurance.

..."So, I never made the point of saying we shouldn't do anything," DeSantis said recently. "You also had the New York state government coming into Congress saying, 'Hey, look at all these buildings that got damaged.' And we asked, OK, what is insurance picking up on this? And they said, 'Well, we didn't insure them, we didn't think they'd ever be a problem.' So, in that situation, we want to help people, I think, as the last line of defense, but you don't want to basically reward them for not doing the responsible thing. So I think a lot of people who have looked at it have acknowledged that there was more spending in it than what needed to be done, and it was not an appropriate vehicle, with excessive spending and extraneous money. For example, they were refurbishing the Smithsonian, and there was highway spending and different things like that [in the plan]."

DeSantis said he doesn't always support the way Congress spends money.

"In Washington, the way it works is this: I can file a bill tomorrow, about whatever you want," he said. "You just tell me, I can spend money on this or that. But chances are, it's not going to go anywhere. So, what people look for are vehicles that are definitely going to move. We knew something was going to pass. So when you see that, people say 'Oh, I can add this or that,' and it kind of goes from there. We're just trying to change the philosophy and the way Washington operates." '

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: September 30, 2022, 08:34:28 PM »

8
Quote
I wrote, "...Russia reporting 98% voting in favor..."

Typically, "voting in favor" of something requires one to actually vote. It's amazing that you don't understand this.

Actually that sentence implies that 98% of the region voted in favor of Russia. This is incorrect, and it is shameful that you initially phrased it that way and did not point out that it is 98% of people who voted.

It is also easy to see that 98% of received votes voting for something is not particularly rare, as opposed to your appeal to absurdity.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%2298+percent+voted%22

On Morocco constitution - "Morocco says 98 percent voted 'yes' for new constitution - Al Arabiya"

On an Iraqui referendum - "While 97 percent of voters reportedly favored the constitution in Shiite Basra and 98 percent voted yes in the Kurdish province of Sulaimaniyah, 97 percent of the approximately 100,000 Sunni voters in the city of Fallujah were opposed."

On a flight union vote - "less than 50 percent of the Delta flight attendants participated, so the union was not certified even though over 98 percent voted for AFA"

On a Venezuela referendum - "Total number of voters in Sunday's referendum, based on 95 percent of voting centers reporting. Of these, more than 98 percent voted in favor of"

On the Black woman vote - "Ninety-four percent of Black women voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election and 98 percent voted for Doug Jones in the"

etc., etc., etc.,

So it seems that your appeal to absurdity is actually based on your personal ignorance of voting and politics. 98% does regularly occur.

9
I haven't a clue what's true or not, but Russia reporting 98% voting in favor seems just a tad suspicious. I mean when in the world has anything like this legitimately resulted in 2% shy of 100%? I guess it could happen, but really, 98%?

Incorrect. It's 98% of those who voted, voted in favor of joining Russia.

Ummm, yeah, typically voters who voted are those who voted.

Did you want to make some sort of cogent point? If so, you may want to try again.

The point is that you phrased it as "Russia reporting 98% voting". This is incorrect phrasing and implied that 98% of the people voted in favor of Russia. It's really 98% of people who voted who voted in favor of Russia.

This connects to your remarks of absurdity. The people who loved Ukraine could simply have not voted or have already migrated out of the country or to the anti-Russia side of the country.

It is also possible that people simply side with Russia there and hate Zielinski based on social pressures there, much like how upwards of 98% of people hate pedophiles based on social norms and pressures.

Whatever the explanation, the point is that you were wrong about the phrasing of your remarks.

10
I haven't a clue what's true or not, but Russia reporting 98% voting in favor seems just a tad suspicious. I mean when in the world has anything like this legitimately resulted in 2% shy of 100%? I guess it could happen, but really, 98%?

Incorrect. It's 98% of those who voted, voted in favor of joining Russia.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: September 29, 2022, 08:41:10 PM »

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Comprehensive explanation for sunsets
« on: September 26, 2022, 08:46:49 PM »
So you read through the EA page and decided that it worked, but you thought that it "lacked empirical evidence" and discarded that possibility, proceeding to publish a video with the title page "The Sun Could Never Set on Flat Earth" which ignores EA and doesn't bring it up at all. This appears to be dishonest.

Why does EA "lack empirical evidence" to preclude it's inclusion in the video, but the FE Perspective Theory made the cut. Where is the empirical evidence for the FE Perspective Theory to show that it has more empirical evidence than EA? Also, where is the empirical evidence for the RE Theory observation of the sun setting behind the horizon to differentiate it from other explanations like EA? You appear to have singled out EA as not having empirical evidence, so I would expect you to show how the other two theories mentioned do have empirical evidence.

Furthermore, the EA page does list and link evidence: Moon Tilt Illusion, Milky Way arch, tails of comets, meteors, curved aurora borealis, curved ecliptic.


13
Girls?

So your argument is that the the one little black girl posted is a racist conservative snowflake then?

This shows that your view is terribly inaccurate. People disliking the changes to the Little Mermaid has nothing to do with conservatism or expressing inherent racism against black people.

14
Little black girls: Racist Conservative Snowflakes

15
Rama Set and honk must think this little girl is a racist.


16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Queen
« on: September 20, 2022, 05:58:40 PM »
As is usual in these tings, the very fornt rows were for closer relations.  Family, friends, royals, etc. of which there are many.

So Biden was in the back because he didn't have a good relationship with the Queen and he deserved to be in the back. That was the premise of the post you are trying to argue against.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Queen
« on: September 20, 2022, 04:10:57 AM »
It was a congregation of over 500 world leaders. Trump is obviously a former, and not a current, president.

This is embarassing for Joe Biden, though, to be made to sit towards the back in a room of world leaders. His being put in the back has nothing to do with Trump, only Joe Biden.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Queen
« on: September 20, 2022, 03:56:05 AM »
oh man. How embarassing. At the social event of the season too. where was Trump sitting?

No former president was invited. This is also irrelevant to the fact that Joe Biden was made to sit near the back.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Queen
« on: September 20, 2022, 03:14:31 AM »
At the Queen's funeral Joe Biden was made to sit towards the back.


20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: September 18, 2022, 06:39:31 PM »

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 465  Next >