Re: Do Sen. Inhofe and Sen. Coburn support Federal aid for Oklahoma?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/21/2013 9:08 AM, Gary Forbis wrote:
> On Monday, May 20, 2013 8:44:14 PM UTC-7, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>> On May 20, 4:43 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Should disaster tax be made mandatory nationwide?
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> if they voted against sandy, no way should they get any money. its
>>
>> about time red state, red districts walked the talk, and pay a price
>>
>> for their hatreds.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> --
>>
>>>
>>
>>> "Consider a 1998 study in the "Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery"
>>
>>> that found that every time a gun was used in a house in a self defense or
>>
>>> legally justifiable shooting there were four unintentional shootings , seven
>>
>>> criminal assaults, or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides"
>>
>>> from Scientific American May 2013
>>
>>>
>>
>>> "We've got to stop being the stupid party,"
>>
>>> the Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal explained.
>>
>>> "It's time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> "Facts." John Adams argued "are stubborn things,
>>
>>> and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations,
>>
>>> or of the dictates of our passion, they cannot
>>
>>> alter the state of facts and evidence.
>
> The Right were on MSNBC last night and quite polite.
> Like most on the right they don't see the inconsistancy.
> I have a lot of family in Texas and Oklahoma. They don't
> believe Obama is the president. That won't stop them from
> taking the money. The next time something happens in a
> blue state they will complain dearly about these people
> not fending for themselves. Still, they are caring people.
>
> I don't think we should even threaten to withhold help from
> the needy. This is the left's rock to be carried up the hill.
> We need to engage them in a way that doesn't cause them to
> withdraw from rational thought on the matter.



Your mistake is that you attribute rational thought to a Liberal.....


That's where your theory fell apart.





--


*Rumination*
#75 - Liberals tell us that the cost of freedom is taxes, if so then the
cost of tyranny is "even more taxes".....

[Jeff Strickland]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:zmMmt.798622$OJ2.3...@en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com...

Now, the rest of the story.

The Sandy Relief Bill was not supported _because_ it was stuffed full of
pork that had nothing at all to do with storm relief. Nobody is opposed to
rebuilding after a storm, but let's keep any legislation for storm relief
funding on storm relief funding, and not pack the legislation full of shit
that has nothing to do with the effort of storm relief.

Let's not have storm relief for this storm get bogged down with funding for
other stuff else the same thing will happen here as happened after Sandy --
our elected officials will not support the funding bill because it has crap
in it, then in 6 or 8 months another round of pointing crooked little
fingers across the aisle will begin anew.

[Peter Franks]

Has there ever been a bill (in any form of 'recent history') that isn't
stuffed full of pork?

I wonder if there is a direct correlation between pork and Amendment XVII.

Anyway, how do you establish a government legislative process that
doesn't allow for pork spending, etc.?

[Gunner Asch]

Democrats tend to vote for pork laden bills each and every time they
vote "aye"

http://www.examiner.com/article/pork-filled-disaster-relief-bill-passes-reckless-deficit-spending-yet-again

Pork-filled 'disaster' relief bill passes: Reckless deficit spending,
yet again

The Democratic-controlled Senate earlier passed a bloated pork-filled
monster of a bill labeled as “disaster” relief. There were hopes that
the GOP-controlled House would trim the size of the bill, but those
hopes were dashed Tuesday, as the “House passed a $51 billion disaster
relief” package almost as big as the Senate’s. “192 Democrats and 49
Republicans voted yes, while 179 Republicans and one Democrat voted
no." The bill goes beyond disaster relief for victims of Tropical
Storm Sandy to include “$2 billion for the Federal Highway
Administration to make improvements not related to the storm, as well
as $16 billion in community development grants for nearly every state
in the country.” Only a few amendments sponsored by GOP leaders to cut
the bill’s cost even passed, such as “a provision to slash $150
million for a Regional Ocean Partnership grant and another to remove
$9.8 million to rebuild sea walls off the coast of Connecticut.”

House leaders broke the Senate’s bill down into two bills — a $17
billion bill focused on disaster relief, and a $33 billion bill chock
full of pork — but both passed, resulting in an overall price tag of
$51 billion. House leaders should not have allowed a vote on the
latter bill. As the left-leaning Daily Kos blog notes (while exulting
in the passage of this pork-filled monstrosity), “Republicans have a
longstanding informal rule that no legislation will come up for a vote
unless a majority of Republicans support it. That rule—dubbed the
Hastert Rule after former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert—is supposed
to prevent outcomes like the one last night, where a united Democratic
Party teams up with a divided GOP to pass legislation overwhelmingly
opposed by Republicans. But last night they ignored the rule—and it
was the second time they ignored it this year. The first time was on
New Year’s Day, when 85 Republicans joined 172 Democrats in passing
the tax cliff deal despite opposition from 151 Republicans.”

During the current Administration, America has run massive
trillion-dollar deficits, driving the national debt up to a record $16
trillion. At the beginning of the year, Congress also increased the
national debt by passing legislation to delay by two months the
automatic spending cuts contained in the so-called Fiscal Cliff, and
by extending the Bush tax cuts for all but higher-income households
through the Fiscal Cliff deal. (While taxes rose on the wealthy, the
revenue thereby raised was offset by revenue lost due to corporate
welfare contained in the Fiscal Cliff deal, and due to additional
revenue lost due to tax credits contained in the stimulus package that
were renewed through the Fiscal Cliff deal.)

The Washington Examiner‘s Tim Carney calls it “tax hikes on the rich
to pay for corporate welfare.” Carney notes that “During the ‘fiscal
cliff’ debate, the White House justified raising taxes on the rich to
ensure people ‘pay their fair share.’ But the beneficiaries were
hardly the poor and dispossessed. Instead, President Obama raised
taxes on the rich to fund corporate welfare, with General Electric
likely the biggest winner.” Revenue raised by Obama’s income tax hikes
on affluent individuals was offset by “special-interest business and
energy tax credits he demanded” that “will reduce revenue by $65.3
billion, according to data from the Joint Committee on Taxation.” The
fiscal cliff deal also contains a “marriage penalty” for upper-income
households (since the maximum rate kicks in at $450,000 for married
couples — that is, $225,000 for each spouse — versus $400,000 for
singles), although it continues the Bush tax cuts and marriage-penalty
relief for non-wealthy households (Bush’s 2001 tax cut legislation
eliminated the longstanding marriage penalty in the tax code for many
households, but did not succeed in doing so for all households).

The fiscal cliff deal delayed by two months the automatic budget cuts
that had been slated to go into effect at the beginning of 2013 under
a 2011 deal between congressional leaders and Obama (that 2011 deal
raised the national debt limit in exchange for budget cuts later).
Those budget cuts need to go into effect as soon as possible, all of
them. Those automatic budget cuts are essential and economically
vital. They will increase the size of the economy in the long run, in
addition to reducing the staggering size of America’s national debt.
Spending cuts have helped the economy in the past: America experienced
an “economic boom” after slashing spending in 1946, and Canada’s
economy boomed after it slashed spending in the 1990s. To get the
deficit under control, we need to cut skyrocketing welfare spending,
eliminate agricultural subsidies, trim unnecessarily high Pentagon
spending, and reduce wasteful education spending.

Military spending can be cut substantially without undermining
national security. Byron York of The Washington Examiner identifies
some examples here. The Cato Institute has identified billions in
additional savings that can be made at the Pentagon.

As the CBO and the GAO noted earlier, while the fiscal cliff’s
combination of budget cuts and tax increases would have shrunk the
economy in the short-run (tax increases are no doubt painful), it
would have increased the size of the economy in the medium and long
run, by reducing the size of the national debt, and resulting
debt-service costs.


Gunner

--
"You guess the truth hurts?

Really?

"Hurt" aint the word.

For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
Sunlight to a vampire.
Raid® to a cockroach.
Sheriff Brody to a shark
Bush to a Liberal

The truth doesn't just hurt. It's painful, like a red hot poker shoved
up their ass. Like sliding down a hundred foot razor blade using their
dick as a brake.

They HATE the truth."

[Sid9]

"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:081op8pm47j1kl5lc...@4ax.com...

> House leaders broke the Senate's bill down into two bills - a $17

> billion bill focused on disaster relief, and a $33 billion bill chock

> full of pork - but both passed, resulting in an overall price tag of

> $51 billion. House leaders should not have allowed a vote on the
> latter bill. As the left-leaning Daily Kos blog notes (while exulting
> in the passage of this pork-filled monstrosity), "Republicans have a
> longstanding informal rule that no legislation will come up for a vote

> unless a majority of Republicans support it. That rule-dubbed the
> Hastert Rule after former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert-is supposed

> to prevent outcomes like the one last night, where a united Democratic
> Party teams up with a divided GOP to pass legislation overwhelmingly

> opposed by Republicans. But last night they ignored the rule-and it

> couples - that is, $225,000 for each spouse - versus $400,000 for

"Keep taxes low and die" suggested RRR slogan

[David J. Hughes]

The problem isn't with the process, it's with the legislators.
I favor the bullet ballot.
Before a legislator can run for reelection, a lottery is held to select
10 voters from their district.
The legislator starts at one set of goal posts in a stadium.
They have to get past the other set of goalposts to be eligible to run
for reelection.
The 10 lottery winners are in the stands, each with a deer rifle with
iron sights and 5 bullets.
If none of the constituents are pissed off enough at the legislator to
shoot them dead, they are probably doing a pretty good job.

[rbowman]

Gunner Asch wrote:

> Democrats tend to vote for pork laden bills each and every time they
> vote "aye"

There aren't many Republicans that keep kosher when it comes to a nice slice
of pigmeat for their constituents. If they didn't, they might be replaced in
the next election cycle by a Democrat that can bring home the bacon.

[Gunner Asch]

NICE!!

Saved!!

Gunner

--
"You guess the truth hurts?

Really?

"Hurt" aint the word.

For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
Sunlight to a vampire.

RaidŽ to a cockroach.

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 19:14:57 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

Your Opinion is noted with some amusement and some disgust.

--
"You guess the truth hurts?

Really?

"Hurt" aint the word.

For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
Sunlight to a vampire.

RaidŽ to a cockroach.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Limit the power to tax and then it's up to the citizens to hang the
government elites that don't follow the constitution?

[CanopyCo]

On May 21, 6:04 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> On 5/21/2013 3:41 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:zmMmt.798622$OJ2.3...@en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com...

We need a way to force the federal government to allow us to vote on a
law ourselves as well as have a say in how it is written.
That would solve most of our problems.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

NOT a bad idea, but impractical in the 1700's and in any disaster, but
with the internet it could be done. It would be a modified Republic or
a cross between a Democracy and a Republic. Maybe add an amendment that
the people can vote on any "laws" at any time after 7 year when they get
a 60% polling/signatures of 5% of the voting population that want to
change that law. Like they petition the Feds to change a Federal law.
But instead they petition the government to let themselves vote on the
law.

Of course you'd have to make it a FELONY NOT to enforce the immigration
laws as a NATIONAL SECURITY imperative or the NATION could be invaded
and taken over without firing a shot like that lovable little shoe
banging Commie Khrushchev told us he was going to do.

[Peter Franks]

IF responsible people are the majority.

Get "obama phone" types in the majority and pork will be the least of
our worries.

No, there has to be some automatic intrinsic check and balance...

[CanopyCo]

Apparently you think that giving all the money to politicians and the
rich is better than giving it back to the burger flipper that is doing
all the work and still has to live in a ditch?

You now give all the control of our government to the politicians.
This law would give the control of our government to the people, like
it was meant to be.

[CanopyCo]

On May 22, 10:43 am, BeamMeUpScotty

No need to change anything other than to have one law that allows the
people to petition the government to bring a question to a vote of the
people instead of just allowing them to tell us what to do regardless
of the will of the majority.

I believe that most states have something similar in order to force a
state to abide by the majority but there is nothing to force the
federal government to even ask us what we think.

As long as the government does its job, then nothing changes.
When the federal government tries to pass a bullshit law that is
obviously in opposition to the will of the majority then we have the
tool to force them to reverse that law.

Just having the ability to over ride any bullshit laws will make it
far less appealing for them to try that shit in the first place.
Sort of like owning a gun in thieving territory.
It sort of makes steeling from you less attractive.

>Maybe add an amendment that
> the people can vote on any "laws" at any time after 7 year when they get
> a 60% polling/signatures of 5% of the voting population that want to
> change that law. Like they petition the Feds to change a Federal law.
> But instead they petition the government to let themselves vote on the
> law.

Fuck the 7 year shit.
Why let them get away with bullshit for 7 years?
I say any time we circulate a petition and 25% of the previous year’s
voting population signs it, and then the government is forced to ask
us what we think about the question at hand.
We then get to vote on the question, and the majority rules as was the
original intention of our government.
Then once we tell them what we think, they have to go that way.

>
> Of course you'd have to make it a FELONY NOT to enforce the immigration
> laws as a NATIONAL SECURITY imperative or the NATION could be invaded
> and taken over without firing a shot like that lovable little shoe
> banging Commie Khrushchev told us he was going to do.

We could solve a lot of problems just like that one.

[Peter Franks]

Giving money back?!!! DON'T TAKE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! This is
exactly the problem I'm talking about!

> You now give all the control of our government to the politicians.
> This law would give the control of our government to the people, like
> it was meant to be.

Government isn't designed to be controlled by the people; it is intended
to be controlled by a limited and explicit set of powers that are to
protect the rights of the people.

[CanopyCo]

That requires price and wage controls that limit profit and require
that the profit be shared fairly by those that actually did the work
to make it.
We don’t have that, so the only option left is to get your fair share
otherwise.
Either way works, but if you have neither then most people are getting
screwed.

> > You now give all the control of our government to the politicians.
> > This law would give the control of our government to the people, like
> > it was meant to be.
>
> Government isn't designed to be controlled by the people; it is intended
> to be controlled by a limited and explicit set of powers that are to
> protect the rights of the people.

I am talking about the US, I don’t know what government you are
talking about.
“A government by the people, for the people”.
Majority rule.
In the US, the original government was aimed directly at putting
control of the government in the hands of the majority of the people
and not just the royalty.
It was implemented threw the hiring of people to express our wishes
when the question came up due to lack of long range communication.
Now days the hiring of someone to express our wishes is the flaw in
the government and is no longer needed.

[Peter Franks]

On 5/24/2013 7:39 AM, CanopyCo wrote:
>> Government isn't designed to be controlled by the people; it is intended
>> to be controlled by a limited and explicit set of powers that are to
>> protect the rights of the people.
>

> I am talking about the US, I don�t know what government you are
> talking about.
> �A government by the people, for the people�.
> Majority rule.

Not majority rule. In fact, there's really no such thing as majority
rule when you have a group of any appreciable size. Instead it is rule
by the few in power.

Do you realize that your concept of "majority rule" is just another way
of saying 'minority oppressed'?

[Stormin Mormon]

Fortunately, the USA isn't a majority
rule. It's a constitutional republic.
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message news:knnucq$odu$1...@dont-email.me...

On 5/24/2013 7:39 AM, CanopyCo wrote:
>> Government isn't designed to be controlled by the people; it is intended
>> to be controlled by a limited and explicit set of powers that are to
>> protect the rights of the people.
>

> I am talking about the US, I don’t know what government you are
> talking about.
> “A government by the people, for the people”.

[CanopyCo]

On May 24, 10:02 am, "Stormin Mormon"

<cayoung61**NOJUN...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Fortunately, the USA isn't a majority
> rule. It's a constitutional republic.
> .

Not a pure majority rule due to the fact that at the time of creation
it took way too long to get a message from one end of the country to
the other.
They implemented the majority rule of the people threw majority vote
choosing the representative that you wished to cast the vote that
coincides with the will of the majority of the people in his district.
His vote decided things again threw a majority of votes cast by the
representatives of the majority of the people in his district.

The fact that the representatives are not doing their job just
indicates that we need to change to a far more democratic form of
government so that the will of the people is once again the rule of
the land.

Do you disagree that the people we elect to government are our
employees that were hired to vote in our place?
Do you disagree that they were chosen by majority vote?
Do you disagree that the intent of the constitution was a nation by
the people for the people?

[Peter Franks]

On 5/25/2013 6:28 AM, CanopyCo wrote:
> On May 24, 10:02 am, "Stormin Mormon"
> <cayoung61**NOJUN...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Fortunately, the USA isn't a majority
>> rule. It's a constitutional republic.
>> .
>
> Not a pure majority rule due to the fact that at the time of creation
> it took way too long to get a message from one end of the country to
> the other.
> They implemented the majority rule of the people threw majority vote
> choosing the representative that you wished to cast the vote that
> coincides with the will of the majority of the people in his district.

No. The majority is/should be irrelevant in terms of legislation.

The legislators are delegated certain powers that they can then
exercise. They have NO powers outside of what was delegated, regardless
of what the majority clamors for.

Do you still not realize that your concept of "majority rule" is just

another way of saying 'minority oppressed'?

Seriously?! Do you NOT understand that?

[David J. Hughes]

Th intent of the Constitution was for majority rule by those that were
white, male landowners.
The framers of the Constitution never intended the unwashed masses to
have a voice in government.

[rbowman]

David J. Hughes wrote:

> Th intent of the Constitution was for majority rule by those that were
> white, male landowners.
> The framers of the Constitution never intended the unwashed masses to
> have a voice in government.

At least we can agree it was a government of the plutocrats, by the
plutocrats, and for the plutocrats. I've alway found it interesting that
there is very little overlap between the people who put their lives and
livelihood on the line by signing the Declaration of Independence and the
vultures who met to supposedly make a few edits to the Articles of
Confederation.

[CanopyCo]

Do you not understand that lack of majority rule is nothing more than
majority oppressed?
Seriously? Do you not understand that?

How is it better to oppress most of the people rather than just a few?
How is rule ignoring the needs and desires of the majority anything
less than tyranny?
How is not letting the minority of people get there way always
oppressing them?
Do you think that the one spoiled child in theater is oppressed when
the rest of the people vote to tell him to shut up and set down so
that they can watch the show?
Do you think that any time you don’t get your way you are oppressed?
If you have a crappy idea and everyone else knows it but you, are you
oppressed if they don’t do it anyway?

That is what you have when the government is made up of royalty that
acts with total lack of regard for the needs of the majority of the
people that it governs and only has regard for the desires of the
royalty class.

Basically what many want us to become here in America.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

That means they expected successful land owners to vote? They expected
people that had shown they could create an economy and government and
had an interest in this NEW Nation were the ones they WANTED to vote?


And those people that were dependent on the successful people didn't
vote because they had no record of succeeding at anything that was
needed to build a nation and their opinions/votes were not valued?


Did the Japanese and Germans vote during the time we in the USA were at
war in Japan and Germany? As I recall the Japanese Americans were
herded into concentration camps.... Were they sending in absentee
ballots? Or was that yet another Democrat voter suppression plan like
the Democrats IRS and TEA PARTY voter suppression PLAN.





--


*Rumination*
#52 - Socialism is a philosophy of mediocrity, a creed of intolerance,
and a feeling of malice towards the good fortune of others!

[rbowman]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> And those people that were dependent on the successful people didn't
> vote because they had no record of succeeding at anything that was
> needed to build a nation and their opinions/votes were not valued?

Review the history of the Whiskey Rebellion. The urban elite decided what
better way was there to line their pockets by taxing a class of producers
that had no political power. Are you aware Washington, the last POTUS to
assume command of an army in the field, had more troops on hand to collect
taxes than he commanded in the Revolution? The nation was off to a rousing
start.

[Peter Franks]

I'm not suggesting any rule that oppresses. I'm stating that the
concept of majority/minority rule does oppress.

A constitutional republic, on the other hand and in its pure form, does
not oppress.

> How is not letting the minority of people get there way always
> oppressing them?
> Do you think that the one spoiled child in theater is oppressed when
> the rest of the people vote to tell him to shut up and set down so
> that they can watch the show?

> Do you think that any time you don�t get your way you are oppressed?

> If you have a crappy idea and everyone else knows it but you, are you

> oppressed if they don�t do it anyway?

>
> That is what you have when the government is made up of royalty that
> acts with total lack of regard for the needs of the majority of the
> people that it governs and only has regard for the desires of the
> royalty class.
>
> Basically what many want us to become here in America.

Sorry that you have such a limited understanding of these concepts.

What I'm advocating is a government of a few established and defined
powers that protect 'self-evident truths' that are NOT subject to
minority or majority manipulation.

If the majority decrees that 1+1=3, does that make it right? Absolutely
not, the truth, which is self evident that 1+1=2 regardless of the view
of the people. That is what I'm advocating for here, and that is what
Jefferson, et alii, advocated for as well. A limited government that
protected a few truths that are self-evident and as so, aren't subject
to democratic manipulation.

The fact that you bleat about 'majority rule' shows quite clearly that
you a) have no understanding about the 'self-evident truths' and b)
support the oppression of the minority.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 21, 6:39 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:


NO MONEY FOR RED STATE PARASITES THAT WOULD NOT SUPPORT THEIR FELLOW
AMERICANS IN THEIR TIME OF NEED BECAUSE OF HURRICANE SANDY: Oklahoma
Senators Inhofe, Coburn, Face Difficult Options On Disaster Relief:
Oklahoma currently ranks 3rd in the nation after Texas and California
in terms of total federal disaster and fire declarations:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/oklahoma-senators-disaster-r...
christina.wil...@huffingtonpost.com
Oklahoma Senators Jim Inhofe, Tom Coburn, Face Difficult Options On
Disaster Relief 
Posted: 05/20/2013 7:50 pm EDT  |  Updated:
05/21/2013 9:33 am EDT
WASHINGTON -- As frantic rescue missions continued Monday in Oklahoma
following the catastrophic tornadoes that ripped through the state,
it 
appeared increasingly likely that residents who lost homes and
businesses would turn to the federal government for emergency
disaster 
aid. That could put the state's two Republican senators in
an awkward 
position. 
Sens. Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn, both
Republicans, are fiscal hawks 
who have repeatedly voted against
funding disaster aid for other parts 
of the country. They also have
opposed increased funding for the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), which administers federal 
disaster relief. 
Late last year,
Inhofe and Coburn both backed a plan to slash disaster 
relief to
victims of Hurricane Sandy. In a December press release, 
Coburn
complained that the Sandy Relief bill contained "wasteful 
spending,"
and identified a series of items he objected to, including 
"$12.9
billion for future disaster mitigation activities and studies."
Coburn spokesman John Hart on Monday evening confirmed that the
senator will seek to ensure that any additional funding for tornado
disaster relief in Oklahoma be offset by cuts to federal spending
elsewhere in the budget. "That's always been his position [to offset
disaster aid]," Hart said. "He supported offsets to the bill funding
the OKC bombing recovery effort." Those offsets were achieved in 1995
by tapping federal funds that had not yet been appropriated. 
In 2011,
both senators opposed legislation that would have granted 
necessary
funding for FEMA when the agency was set to run out of 
money. Sending
the funds to FEMA would have been "unconscionable," 
Coburn said at
the time. 
Hart said Coburn had "never made parochial calculations"
about 
Oklahoma's disproportionate share of disaster funds, "as his
voting 
record and campaign against earmarks demonstrates." Hart added
that 
Coburn, "makes no apologies for voting against disaster aid
bills that 
are often poorly conceived and used to finance priorities
that have 
little to do with disasters." 
A representative for Inhofe
could not immediately be reached for 
comment. Inhofe earlier tweeted:
"The devastation in Oklahoma is 
heartbreaking. Please join me and
#PrayforOklahoma. Spread the word." 
Coburn also put out a message on
Twitter, writing, "My thoughts and 
prayers are with those in Oklahoma
affected by the tragic tornado 
outbreak." 
Oklahoma currently ranks
third in the nation after Texas and 
California in terms of total
federal disaster and fire declarations, 
which kickstart the federal
emergency relief funding process. Just 
last month, President Barack
Obama signed a disaster declaration for 
the state following severe
snowstorms. 
And despite their voting record on disaster aid for other
states, both 
Coburn and Inhofe appear to sing a different tune when
it comes to 
such funding for Oklahoma. 
In January of 2007, Coburn
urged federal officials to speed disaster 
relief aid after the state
faced a major ice storm. 
A year later, in 2008, Inhofe lauded the
fact that emergency relief 
from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development would be given to 
24 Oklahoma counties. "The impact of
severe weather has been truly 
devastating to many Oklahoma
communities across the state. I am 
pleased that the people whose
lives have been affected by disastrous 
weather are getting much-
needed federal assistance," he said at the 
time. 
The cost of the
recovery effort for this week's tornadoes is likely to 
be high. After
a spate of tornadoes in the state in 1999, Oklahomans 
requested and
received $67.8 million in federal relief funds.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 21, 6:39 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote

sponges.

NO MONEY FOR RED STATE PARASITES THAT WOULD NOT SUPPORT THEIR FELLOW
AMERICANS IN THEIR TIME OF NEED BECAUSE OF HURRICANE SANDY: Oklahoma

Gives Massive Breaks to Oil Companies while Schools Lack Storm
Shelters


http://www.forwardprogressives.com/oklahoma-oil-companies-tax-breaks-schools-lack-storm-shelters/


Oklahoma Gives Massive Breaks to Oil Companies while Schools Lack
Storm Shelters
May 21, 2013 By Manny Schewitz
2.8K Flares 2.8K Flares ×



“OOOOk-lahoma, where the wind comes sweepin’ down the plain,
And the
wavin’ wheat can sure smell sweet, When the wind comes right behind
the rain…”
Unless you’re a fan of Broadway and cheesy old Hollywood films, you
may not be familiar with this song. You’re also probably trying to
figure out where I’m going with this by using a reference to the 1955
Rodger’s and Hammerstein film “Oklahoma.”

Oklahoma is notorious for tornadoes, and really big ones. As the first
settlers in the state showed up, I’m pretty sure they encountered a
twister or two right away. Then again on May 20th, 2013, and in 2003,
and in 1999 and many times before – the people of that state have
experienced this destructive force. This isn’t a new thing. This isn’t
a freak, late-season hurricane that struck an area that doesn’t
usually get them. It’s not a rare earthquake in a state that’s never
felt them. It’s a tornado, something that happens all the time in
“Tornado Alley.”
So why aren’t there storm shelters in every school? Certainly
Oklahoma, which boasts the 5th largest oil production in the United
States, could afford to do it. They’ve claimed that they couldn’t
afford the cost and that they’ve applied for grant money from FEMA to
do it, but when the state gives over $200 million in breaks to the oil
companies, there’s no excuse why they couldn’t supply every school and
government building with a shelter that could survive the worst of
twisters. It’s not that they can’t, it’s that lobbyist money has
bought and paid for legislators who will advance the profits of the 1%
over the lives of the residents of Oklahoma and their children.
Forcing these companies off corporate welfare isn’t going to cause
them to pack up and leave. You can’t pick up an oil field and move it
to a state with a lower tax rate. So what if it causes the price I pay
at the pump to go up a few cents because the multi-billion dollar
drilling businesses have to play by the same rules as the small
business owners? Local communities should be able to provide something
as common sense as a storm shelter, and the fact that this hasn’t been
done is not only mindboggling, but absolutely tragic.

[CanopyCo]

You need to look up the word oppress.
The number one definition of oppress is to Keep (someone) in
subservience and hardship, esp. by the unjust exercise of authority.

Exactly how does majority rule guarantee the oppression of anyone?
It doesn’t if you actually know the meaning of the word oppress.
However it can keep a minority form screwing up everything for
everyone despite what the minority wants to do.

Exactly how does putting control of your life in the hands of someone
else guarantee lack of oppression?
It doesn’t and in fact just encourages the oppression.

> > How is not letting the minority of people get there way always
> > oppressing them?
> > Do you think that the one spoiled child in theater is oppressed when
> > the rest of the people vote to tell him to shut up and set down so
> > that they can watch the show?
> > Do you think that any time you don�t get your way you are oppressed?
> > If you have a crappy idea and everyone else knows it but you, are you
> > oppressed if they don�t do it anyway?
>
> > That is what you have when the government is made up of royalty that
> > acts with total lack of regard for the needs of the majority of the
> > people that it governs and only has regard for the desires of the
> > royalty class.
>
> > Basically what many want us to become here in America.
>
> Sorry that you have such a limited understanding of these concepts.
>

My understanding is limited?
And yet you apparently don’t know what oppress means.
;-)

> What I'm advocating is a government of a few established and defined
> powers that protect 'self-evident truths' that are NOT subject to
> minority or majority manipulation.
>

Oh, now you think that we are governed by gods?
;-)
What you advocate does not exist.
Never has and never will.

> If the majority decrees that 1+1=3, does that make it right? Absolutely
> not, the truth, which is self evident that 1+1=2 regardless of the view
> of the people. That is what I'm advocating for here, and that is what
> Jefferson, et alii, advocated for as well. A limited government that
> protected a few truths that are self-evident and as so, aren't subject
> to democratic manipulation.
>

What does that have to do with the discussion at hand.
If everyone wants to eat every day and one guy said that he thinks
that no one but him should eat and he gets his way that is minority
rule.

If everyone wants to eat every day and one guy said that he thinks
that no one but him should eat and he does not get his way that is
majority rule.

It has nothing to do with the idiot that thinks that food is not food.
What you are trying to do is transfer off into the self evident rights
that aren’t actually self evident.
After all, Jefferson’s time stated that it was self evident that
blacks should be slaves, women should have no rights at all, and the
families of guys that defaulted on loans should be put into deters
prison over a loan that they did not get, spend, or approve of.

> The fact that you bleat about 'majority rule' shows quite clearly that
> you a) have no understanding about the 'self-evident truths' and b)
> support the oppression of the minority.

The fact that you bleat about self evident truths just shows that you
are clueless and are simply falling for a superstition that has
absolutely no evidence of existing.

Or you are just trying to change the subject now that you are pressed
to show evidence of you statements being accurate and can’t.