Demonizing Republicans with Hurricane Sandy


Leave it to the Left to politicize a hurricane — while the winds are still howling, no less. Thus, it is completely unsurprising that the New York Times took the opportunity to bash Mitt Romney, even as Hurricane Sandy was bashing the Big Apple. “Disaster coordination is one of the most vital functions of ‘big government,’ which is why Mitt Romney wants to eliminate it,” writes the Times. Per usual, the so-called paper of record is long on rhetoric, but short on the facts.

As Breitbart’s Joel Pollak pointed out, if the Times is concerned about cuts to disaster relief, the paper should also look at the presidential candidate it has endorsed. “President Barack Obama’s proposal for the upcoming budget sequester would cut nearly $900 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including disaster relief, food and shelter, and flood management at both the federal and state levels.” In their editorial, the Times refers to that sequester as “Republican-instigated,” but a book on the debt ceiling crisis written by Watergate reporter Bob Woodward reveals that Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), was the first person to issue a “clear threat” to Obama on Nov. 24, 2009, when he vowed to block any increase in the debt ceiling unless a commission was created to deal with the country’s fiscal problems.

Second, the notion that Romney wants to eliminate FEMA is a flat out lie, one the Times perpetrated and recanted in the same editorial, even as the paper excused its chicanery by characterizing that reality as an announcement by Romney’s “nervous campaign.” Here’s how nervous they were. “Gov. Romney believes that states should be in charge of emergency management in responding to storms and other natural disasters in their jurisdictions,” Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said in a statement. “As the first responders, states are in the best position to aid affected individuals and communities, and to direct resources and assistance to where they are needed most. This includes help from the federal government and FEMA.”

That sounds remarkably like FEMA’s own mission statement, posted on its website. “FEMA’s mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards,” it reads (italics mine).

In New York, for example, Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued a press release Oct. 26 declaring a state of emergency that “mobilizes resources to local governments that otherwise are restricted to state use only and suspends regulations that would impede rapid response.” That is to say, he’s ordering a removal of bureaucratic impediments that might interfere with a “rapid response.” He subsequently asks President Obama “for a pre-landfall disaster declaration” that “would allow for State access to funds and FEMA resources to prepare.” In other words, the state leads, and FEMA follows.

It is this particular hierarchy that apparently aggravated the Times editorial board, which is why they highlighted Romney’s response to a question asked during the June 2011 CNN primary debate about whether it would be better to send disaster relief back to the states. After replying that he thought the states were up to the task, Romney illuminated the bigger picture:

Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better. Instead of thinking, in the federal budget, what we should cut, we should ask the opposite question: what should we keep? We should take all of what we’re doing at the federal level and say, “What are the things we’re doing that we don’t have to do?” and those things we’ve got to stop doing.

He then explained why such steps are critically necessary:

Because we’re borrowing $1.6 trillion dollars more this year than we’re taking in. We cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral in my view for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. Makes no sense at all.

The Times not only dismissed the idea that states could handle the response to “a vast East Coast storm better than Washington,” but took the opportunity to bash “profit-making companies” who, in keeping with the leftist worldview, would undoubtedly exploit disaster victims in their time of need. As for Romney’s contention that crushing debt — the reality of which will eventually have every government program squeezed white by entitlements and debt service — is immoral? “An absurd notion,” sniffs the Times.

The Times in its editorial perfectly demonstrates the fact that insular elites fundamentally refuse to understand opposing arguments in anything but the most hysterical, false-choice terms. For the Times sets up a scenario in which we must chose either a bloated federal agency or more Americans killed from natural disasters. They simply cannot fathom an alternate scenario, one central to the conservative position, that contends these government functions can be preformed just as or more effectively by localizing and spreading out responsibility with less cost to the taxpayer.

As National Review’s Kevin William’s points out, FEMA has wasted “shocking amounts of money,” including the expenditure of $416,000 per capita to temporarily house people displaced by Hurricane Katrina, issuing $2000 debit cards to hurricane victims without bothering to check their identification, and allowing nearly 11,000 unused manufactured homes to deteriorate on old runways and open fields in Arkansas.

Ironically, the Times itself not only ignores the aforementioned reality that the avalanche of debt, amplified by governmental waste, will make it harder and harder for any government agency to function properly, it undercuts its own statist rationale in order to use Hurricane Sandy as yet another opportunity to bash the Bush administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina. They posit that it wasn’t the ineptness of a federal agency per se, but a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) “in the control of political hacks,” which made Hurricane Katrina a disaster “just waiting to happen.” Apparently in the world of the New York Times, government agencies are only under the control of political hacks when a Republican administration is in charge.

Perhaps they might want to review the stellar job done by the Obama administration’s Justice Department and the ATF with respect to the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal, or the string of bankrupt green energy companies financed by the Department of Energy, or the loss of four American lives in Benghazi precipitated by a series of stand down orders emanating from either the State Department or the CIA, by way of comparison.

Furthermore, despite every leftist effort to blame President Bush for the inept response to Hurricane Katrina, it was Democratic Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco who rejected a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans, according to the Washington Post. “Louisiana officials rejected the request after talks throughout the night, concerned that such a move would be comparable to a federal declaration of martial law,” the paper reported.

NBC’s Lisa Myers also reported that New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin finally ordered a mandatory evacuation of the city 20 hours before the storm, “ignoring the advice of experts who had warned it would take 48 hours.” In addition, Meyers showcased a whispered conversation recorded by CNN between Blanco and one of her aides, during which the governor admitted she had been too slow in asking for federal troops to establish post-Katrina security.

Does such incompetence bolster the Times’s argument that the federal government is best-equipped to handle disasters? Hardly. Despite that contention, they hammer FEMA’s response to Katrina for exactly the same reason the state of Louisiana’s response was so pathetic: a lack of leadership. So let’s posit that a lack of leadership at any level of government will likely produce substandard responses to emergencies. At the same time, let’s posit that good leadership, also at any level of government, likely gets good results.

This reduces the argument to a fundamental question: does government per se function better from the federal level downward, or the local level upward? There is little question that some government functions, most notably national security, are best served at the federal level. Yet according to the New York Times, centralized, top-down government is the answer to virtually all of America’s problems. On the other hand, reality suggests that Americans are far better served in most cases–and government officials can be held most accountable–when local leadership takes the lead. For example, if a roadway must be repaired as the result of this latest storm, is it more effective for a state or a county to begin the work themselves as soon as possible, or wait for authorization from a federal bureaucrat?  Which government official is more likely to be responsive to an individual voter’s concerns, his congressional representative in Washington, or his local alderman?

For decades, the American left has worshipped centralized government as the best solution to the overwhelming majority of the nation’s problems. Yet the further government moves out and away from the people it serves, the less responsive it becomes. The more important decisions are relegated to a handful of politicians in Washington, D.C., the more freedom is diminished by a one-size-fits-all approach to governance.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "…does government per se function better from the federal level downward, or the local level upward? There is little question that some government functions, most notably national security, are best served at the federal level. Yet according to the New York Times, centralized, top-down government is the answer to virtually all of America’s problems. On the other hand, reality suggests that Americans are far better served in most cases–and government officials can be held most accountable–when local leadership takes the lead."

    There was apparently once a upon a time when virtually every American understood this. Communist penetration in our institutions made sure that socialist rhetoric twisted their minds and now we have people who are offended at the very idea that the federal government can't ensure that every possible scenario is covered for them. Why the federal government? For one thing, it's a stealth way to redistribute wealth in every program by making the successful people pay while the others don't. As you push taxes down to the local level, this is harder to achieve on the scale required by leftist totalitarians.

  • Mary Sue

    Typical Democrats, never blame their fellows that actually caused the problem. No, let's blame the other side! Ridiculous.

    • BS77

      You probably remember how the Democrats howled and blamed Pres. Bush for Katrina, for all the problems associated with it……I remember that idiot mayor of New Orleans, who never did much of anything going nuts on TV. This time, of course, NO ONE was blamed for anything .

  • Ron Whaley

    This writer makes more sense than many I have seen. I must say I agree with him In that Natural Disasters are better handled at the local level and work up from there. Who better to take care of the locals than those that are already there? Good article for sure and a point very well put. Thank You for stating the obvious to all.

    • Guest

      Education is another department that would be better handled by the states where they are much closer to the students and their needs.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        We need to evaluate every service and push it downward as far as possible, to hold people accountable where the work is performed.

        We need some national level oversight to make sure laws are obeyed and so forth. Equal opportunity is an important value, but this socialist reinterpretation to guarantee equal results and wealth is insanity and leads to a death spiral.

  • pierce

    The right has a new spokes person. Way to go Mary Sue, and welcome.
    We can not stop natural disasters such as the weather, so why do the DEMONOCRATS have to politicize it, they can not change the weather, and it is about the only thing that is free these days.
    And kudos go to Arnold for an outstanding article, thank you Arnold.

    • Mary Sue

      hehe thanks and you're making me blush. :D :D :D

      Well you know, according to the dems we do actually control the weather, through our cars' tailpipes. :/

  • KKKK

    "leave it to the lefists to politicize a hurricane." so what? thats what the jiahdists are doing too-one wrot yesterday that this msot recent diaster si "allah's divine slap on america for arrogance." and we all know that the jiahdists and the leftists are in an (unholy) allaince temporary. so whats the surprise?

    • Mary Sue

      You know what the irony is? If a Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson said the same thing, they'd be excoriated roundly. As it was, there was barely anything other than a chuckle when an Imam insisted that earthquakes are caused by the uncovered cleavage of women (which was made fun of as "boobquake") but never really treated seriously.

  • tagalog

    Remember -it was only two days ago- when we were being told that this hurricane was going to link up with that nor'easter and become a monster storm a thousand miles wide that would enter the interior of America, turn northeast and devastate New England after it got through with the Middle Atlantic states? Tens of millions were going to lose electricity for days. It was going to last a week, right? It came ashore Monday evening; now it's Wednesday morning, and it's already a memory.

    Why, it was going to be so bad, we were going to have to postpone the national election due to the great disaster that was going to go on for days.

    Instead, as soon as it made landfall, it became a tropical storm; the huge freezing snowfall fell on the Appalachian mountains, which routinely gets two- and three-foot snowfalls. We had a lot of rain and some high winds that caused a tidal surge that did some flooding. Some people died (I haven't heard anything yet about the circumstances of their deaths, so don't know what caused the deaths), electricity was lost for some people, not tens of millions, the New York Subway got flooded. Some barrier islands lost ground, a couple of wharfs/piers were damaged, Atlantic City had damage to a seawall, and water got into streets in onshore towns. It wasn't pleasant, I agree on that. New Jersey got hit hard. What it wasn't was what was sold to us as the Wrath of God.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      Al Gore was probably hoping this would lead to a resurgence of global warming and a way to prove climate-gate was a long forgotten memory.

      • tagalog

        I kept thinking, as the journalists went on and on (and I watched a lot of this on Fox News, they aren't exempt), that they were trying to make the movie The Day After Tomorrow into reality.

        On Tuesday morning, it was obvious that Hurricane Sandy had begun breaking up within an hour after it made landfall Monday evening.

        Someday there really WILL be a monster storm that comes ashore and causes great damage. The big storm of 1938 (the Yankee Clipper) and the Galveston storm of 1900 are examples. But the one that's coming will be met by people who became inured to panic-mongering by the government and the media, and will stay in place, only to be harmed to a greater degree than if they had been warned by a rational MSM that isn't trying to dramatize everything, and crying "Wolf!" Those greater amounts of injury can be laid directly at the feet of the media. Sadly including Fox News. They seemed to dwell on their reporter and cameraman in New Jersey who were being battered by the wind and rain.

  • repackrider

    How did someone as arrogant and disconnected from normal society reach the GOP nomination?

    This guy has to lose big.

    Disclaimer: I am a US Army veteran (E-5, Honorable Discharge). Your patriotism may vary.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      Why not skip the lies and personal attacks on the republican and explain why the democrat deserves another term? Did Obama have FEMA pre-position disaster relief supplies? Did he have things ready to come in and clean up? Did he coordinate with governors for relief?

      What has Obama done besides make photo ops?

    • Mary Sue

      I don't know. How did someone as arrogant and disconnected from normal society end up as President in 2008?

      • amused

        repackrider ,I see it the same I was in 4 ID 4 Eng.Bat. Plieku . Pay no mind to these two mooks , these are the kids who cme up after us ….gullable , non-critical thinkers . You're dead on about Romney , but even more so the Tea party flotsam and crackpots that Romney pandered to and now owes should he be elected .

        • jmz

          ya know for a bunch of crackpots..us tea partiers sure are right about everything. personally im "amused" when statists like you call themselves critical thinkers! lol and yet cant seem to do anythiing or take responsibility. face it! your boy obama is a bad joke and a horrible president. marx…oops i mean "critical thinkers" like you all cant add 2+2 and would starve to death with out us "crackpots" funding the welfare system that enables you. do the world a favor. sit down, shut up and use that last remaining braincell "critical thiinkers" like you have to understand ROMNEY is gonna butt pump obama til obummie calls Romney "daddy" LOL R&R2012

          • amused

            you're brainwashed boy , especially if you call yourself a teabagger .Go and pay your respects to Queen Palin , and the rest of your lot , where ignorance is a virtue .The biggest mistake Romney and Republicans have made , is pandering to and hooking up with arseholes like you . And here's a newsflah dufus , even if Romney wins , the teabagers are gonna get flushed , in fact you're already finished . Watch it happen schmucko .

          • tagalog

            He didn't call himself a teabagger. You called him that.

    • tagalog

      It's that "honorable discharge" mention that cinches your credibility, you bet. Why did you need to mention it? For most folks, an honorable discharge from the mil is a given.

      • repackrider

        In order to get that honorable discharge, you have to actually SERVE, which makes me part of a shrinking minority. And in order to get that E-5 stripe, you have to do your job well. I didn't find the stripe in a CrackerJack box.

  • texasron

    Actually, isn't Obama responsible for the hurricane? He promised to smooth the ocean's waters, didn't he? "The One" reneged on this promise as he has on most of the others he made.

    • Zionista

      hussein issued a declaration – 'the hurricane was a spontaneous reaction to a youtube video"

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Laughing still

  • https://www.facebook.com/AlexKovnat Alex Kovnat

    My biggest worry regarding Hurricane Sandy was, those who philosophically hate the auto industry and our western way of life in general would take Sandy as proof of "global warming" caused by insufficient restrictions on fossil fuels and carbon dioxide.

    How here's the irony: This past summer when we had an ongoing drought, every day I would dial up the National Hurricane Center website on my home or office computer, and I always got the message "No tropical cyclones at this time". So those determined to hate the automobile, might have taken THAT to be proof of global warming leading to drought. For all the destruction that hurricanes cause, I have wondered if it would not have been, on an overall good-versus-bad balance, beneficial if a hurricane were to have come ashore along the Gulf coast to bring badly needed rain to the midwest.

    • epd

      We don't hate automobiles. We just want to figure out how to power them without using up all the available gas, polluting the air so we can't breathe, and causing extreme weather events that cause billions in damages. Even the insurance companies are getting on board with this since it's coming out of their pockets.

  • amused

    The " New Perpetual Victims " …the Republicans . Bush's Fema Czar Brown was attending a dinner at Katrina's landfall .Yesterday brown accused Obama of " ACTING TOO QUICKLY " ……and was joined in that notion by none other than Gingrich and Krautheimer …..at the time I though there were only THREE IDIOTS to make such a claim , but as is displayed here …lol…there are many more …republicans and conservatives who are behaving like spoiled tantrum prone jerks . Governors Cuomo and Christy are praising Obama 's action whilst Christy is already being condemned for it by the idiots in the Republican Party . And had Obama waited , he'd be criticized for that . I think Christy is the only normal person in the Republican Party who said " I'll praise him when he worthy ,and I'll criticize him when he 's worthy of it – gee what a strange notion huh ?
    You folks are TRULY a PATHETIC LOT .

    • tagalog

      What was it again, that the good State of Louisiana did with the national taxpayer money that was provided to it to strengthen New Orleans's levees for several years before Katrina hit? Pray tell.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "The " New Perpetual Victims " …the Republicans"

      Welcome to 1984 all over again. Thank you Mr. Inversion.

  • amused

    I hope the people of this country see you for what you are , a bunch of brainwashed wind-up zombies , who'll say or do anything to discredit everything not Republican Truly sickening is your meanspirited , irrational , illogical animus .
    A true sign of unmitigated hatred .

    • Stephen_Brady

      Spoken by someone who has obviously never been to a Leftist site …

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Spoken by someone who has obviously never been to a Leftist site …"

        Oh no, I am sure he laps it all up. Once you buy in to their alternate reality, and as long as your "critical thinking" goes no deeper than is required to read "Fun with Dick and Jane," you can accept the rhetoric generated by most of those sites with no problems at all. Look at the discourse they produce here, and it's just more of the same…a lot more.

    • tagalog

      I am indeed a brainwashed wind-up zombie, but I can out-think you any day of the week.

      • amused

        uh …..hmmmm…. oh yea I can see that . Carry on genius ! Atleast you admit to you being brainwashed ,that may be a plus .

        • tagalog

          Surely you can do better than "neener neener neener."

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I was thinking along those lines but hesitated spelling it out. Surely he can't unless he gets the monkey off his back. Even then, who knows?

    • Mary Sue

      "Truly sickening is your meanspirited , irrational , illogical animus .
      A true sign of unmitigated hatred . "

      careful, amused. you're Projecting, again.

      • amused

        Oh please , you give yourself far too much credit . You neither evoke my emotion , nor do I expend my emotions on simply calling it the way I see it , based on your imbecilic statements . There is no hatred in objective observation ,and the conclusion that you're a moron . A wind up parrot ,with out thoughts based in critical thinking .Rather you eagerly ingest the expectorants of your hatemoning idealogues,and repeat what you have heard , not what you have investigated for yourself ,your conclusions are not your own .
        BTW just so you don't feel alone in your misery , I have encountered the same mindlessness on the Lefty blogs , so do yourself a favor , and abandon the idea that you are any better .

        • Mary Sue

          If you're calling it the way you see it, you are completely freaking blind.

          You have not offered proof that I am a "moron" other than your own opinion; there is nothing in what I said that is either hatemongering (nice spelling there dude) or incorrect, and trust me I very much DO investigate for myself. Nobody I listen to is a hatemonger, either.

          You are entitled to your own opinion. You are NOT entitled to your own facts.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "I hope the people of this country see you for what you are , a bunch of brainwashed wind-up zombies , who'll say or do anything to discredit everything not Republican Truly sickening is your meanspirited , irrational , illogical animus . A true sign of unmitigated hatred ."

      You never have any rational point to make, and you refer to yourself as one of the "critical thinkers?"

      At least you are amusing in a very sad way.

      • amused

        Chirp Chirp Mr. ..lol…cough …cough…"objectivefactNOT parrot " .

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Making drunks laugh is not the same as having strong and clear critical thinking abilities. Your analysis is entirely derivative of liberal sources and I haven't heard a single unique idea from you in your rants. Your opinions as you publish them apparently go far beyond the scope of your knowledge. You wouldn't know an objective fact if a parrot crapped one on your head.

          I really don't mind people taking contrary views, but you are hurting our ability to deliver responses to legitimate questions and arguments people might have. How have you advanced the discourse in any way? You're just a drunk chearleader for your pre-determined views.

          How drunk are you anyway? Please sober up if you want to contribute productively. You don't seem mean-spirited in your heart, but your statements can come across that way to many people.

  • Amused

    Oh I have , and you people are no better .

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Oh I have , and you people are no better"

      Snappy yet meaningless.

  • amused

    In the meantime ole' Mitt is being asked about his position on FEMA , which at present count , has ignored the question atleast 15 times . No wonder he's Mr.Flip Flop .
    And of course REPUBLICAN were FIRST to take center stage and POLITICIZE the storm , and then claim VICTIMHOOD when they were RIGHTLY criticized for doing so .
    You people bring the term hypocrisy to new lows .

    • Mary Sue

      "You people bring hypocrisy to new lows"

      And Obama doesn't?

      • amused

        So you admit being HYPOCRITES ….that's a start .

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "In the meantime ole' Mitt is being asked about his position on FEMA , which at present count , has ignored the question atleast 15 times . No wonder he's Mr.Flip Flop"

      This is a public forum, not bilateral conversations…so I don't expect any value to come from explaining this to you directly. Candidates must make promises of leadership, not specific plans that go beyond what they can promise before they even have executive access to all of the data. Obama on the other hand promised to heal oceans and so forth. How does that work for you liberals? At least Romney makes promises that are plausible, and with good leadership not even that difficult.

      He has a track record of success so far. Obama…the opposite is true, and now we know this. How can anyone wonder who to vote for?

      Does this mean I have no concerns about Romney? Not at all. I have never trusted any politicians. That's why I want a smaller government. Just on the basis of promises made, Romney is better. Now take their history of results and it is unfathomable that a reasonable person can vote for Obama this time. There is no upside, except to appease people for even longer, when it never worked at all.

      Critical thinking means applying reason to critiques of every important thing in your life, not selective targets chosen emotionally. Thinking "critically" once in a while does not qualify at all.

      • Amused

        You’re right you have nothing of value to say to me .

    • tagalog

      Assuming Romney isn't answering "the question" (whatever that question might be), that isn't flip-flopping. It's maintaining one position, which is to keep silent. Right or wrong, it's not flip-flopping. Try not to be a wet-brained liberal mouthing the liberal litany any more than you have to be.

  • Senior Citizen

    It didn't take long to realize this is a right wing fascist blog. Creme Dmint stated by saying OUR president LIES that now all the repugnicans feel they can LIE and keep repeating the LIES even when they are debunked. It doesn't seem like you care about all Americans.

    • Mary Sue

      Spoken by someone who truly doesn't know what fascism is. Earth to old person: Were you asleep or in a coma during the Carter Years? Did you take the red pill?

      No, the "debunks" are too often in themselves lies.

      Creme Dmint is an idiot, end of story.

      What's this nonsense about caring or not caring about all Americans? If someone truly cares about all Americans they won't re-elect Jimmy Carter's successor.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Earth to old person: Were you asleep or in a coma during the Carter Years?"

        I'm guessing hippy, so yeah, coma and sleep.

        "Did you take the red pill?"

        All colors. How do you suppose the many coma episodes were produced?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "It didn't take long to realize this is a right wing fascist blog"

      That calls for judgment, and shows your calibrations might be faulty.

      "Creme Dmint stated by saying OUR president LIES"

      So you're saying he doesn't?

      "that now all the repugnicans feel they can LIE and keep repeating the LIES"

      Wait, is the alleged lie about the president lying? Guess what? You're a hypocrite.

      "even when they are debunked"

      Show us then. Most 'debunked' lies are politically-driven excuse making. I will grant you that often "lies" from politicians are to be expected and are more mistakes of judgment. However, Obama is without question the biggest liar since Nixon. He is possibly an even greater liar than that. We just don't know for sure yet.

      "It doesn't seem like you care about all Americans"

      That's the natural conclusion I come to about you. What matters is who is basing their views on facts and who is accepting the inverted lies about the facts. I can support my claims with objective facts. Can you?

  • watsa46

    The left can do NO wrong. They by definition define what is right and wrong.
    Head U loose and tail they win.
    Could it be that the gods are upset with what the Demo have in reserve for the country? Or is it the opposite?

  • amused

    There are no "gods " involved , and neither Republican NOR Democrat defines for any SANE people what is right or wrong ….unfortunately for Republicans much more than Democrats , they have no inside track on morality , although one would never know listening to the sanctimonious , sel-righteous B.S. they spew .

    • Mary Sue

      so are the Imams that claim the hurricane was divine punishment from Allah worthy of the same contempt as any given Pat Robertson expy that might say something similar?

      • amused

        you got that much right . In that respect there's no difference between Robertson or the mullahs . Looky there you do have part of your brain still working!

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "you got that much right . In that respect there's no difference between Robertson or the mullahs"

          The next question is, how much time do you spend harassing Muslims with this view?

          Answer: Zero.

          • amused

            au contraire oh brainless one , Ive been banned from two islamic forums , not before being threatened a number of times which laughably the Admins had to ban the issuers of the threat , who simply re logged with different tags .After awhile their Admin figured it would be much more expedient to simply ban my IP . But I did reach a conclusion …they too are brainwashed ,and sadly I find the same uninformed , ignorant rage here that I found there .
            And that was the same I found on KOS and AntiWar which eventually banne me there also .
            Ultimately there are two things that make FPM a stp above , they havn't banned me yet although they have deleted or prevented from appearing ,manyof my posts.But I am in total agreement with thir psition on Islam , but not their Obama Hate Syndrome which is filled with lies and half-truths about the man .

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Ive been banned from two islamic forums"

            Not exactly what I had in mind, but I guess it's a kind of balance. Maybe you had a functioning brain before you became an alcoholic. Fighting with librarians and such is all very impressive stuff.

            "Ultimately there are two things that make FPM a stp above , they havn't banned me yet although they have deleted or prevented from appearing ,manyof my posts.But I am in total agreement with thir psition on Islam"

            Nobody should be banned from publishing anywhere. Moderation by occasionally replacing certain words is all that's needed, and the users can bring balance to any topic. We're always better off after discussing it.

            "but not their Obama Hate Syndrome which is filled with lies and half-truths about the man ."

            Then sober up and show your evidence. Your arguments are rarely convincing anyone.

        • Mary Sue

          all of it's working, thank you very much. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean it's not.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "There are no "gods " involved , and neither Republican NOR Democrat defines for any SANE people what is right or wrong"

      Who does decide right and wrong? You don't have much respect for statutory law I guess. No surprises given your rhetoric spewed here.

    • tagalog

      How do you know there are no gods involved?

  • VeryFunny

    “Disaster coordination is one of the most vital functions of ‘big government,….."
    Actually the Times got it right. This is one of the things they do best. Also: creating disasters, taking advantage of disasters, making disasters worse.

  • Mary Sue

    nice try amused, but I'm not a Republican. They don't have Republicans here. We do however have a government with a brain that knows how NOT to crash the economy.

    You're the one that seems incapable of critical thinking, since you seem to uncritically swallow the bilge of the drive by media without question. I bet you believed the Prez when he said the Benghazi thing was all the result of a Youtube video.

    I actually have a brain, because I know what happened in 1980, and the parallels between this president and Carter are numerous and positively frightening:

    - First time in 30 years that an Ambassador was assasinated, the time before that was under Carter's watch (Iran Hostage crisis)
    -Terrible Economy. Back then there were sky high interest rates. These days, it's due to Clinton's foolishness regarding freddy mack and fanny mae. He ADMITTED SO on Ellen in the first year or so of BO's presidency.
    -Libya (and Egypt) parallels Iran in other ways too. Get rid of Shah, hello Ayatollahs. Get rid of Mubarak, hello Muslim Brotherhood. Get rid of Khaddafi, hello al quaida militias.
    -Long gas lines in those days. Sky High gas prices now. They're still on average cheaper than Canada's but COME ON.
    -General ineptitude as to how to run foreign policy.

    I predicted in 2008 that Obama would be the Second Coming Of Jimmy Carter. Turns out I was right. That DOES require brains, you know.

    Pfff pseudo fascist. I hate fascism.

    • amused

      I didn't say you were a Republican , I said you put your brain up on the shelf and were incapable of critical thinking . Now if that equates with most republican and you sympathize ,well you know what they say – "if the shoe fits , then wear it " .I am aware though you dont have to be a republican to be an idiot , it's just more likely to find idiots among republicans . An IF you DID have any brains , you would know Obama's no Jimmy Carter You also would have known that Carter did not get rid of the Shah , the Iranian people themselves did it ,due to years of tortureand oppression by SAVAK . They tookover the Embassy when Carter refused to turn over the Shah .
      The long gas lines whch at the time you were probably still in your diapers was due to the embargo placed on US due to our support for Israel . And the high prices today are due to OPEC – our " freinds " the Saudis , and Big Oil manipulating ptrices and refinery output .What you are too ignorant to know is that Oil Production in the US has gone up 11% since Obama took office .

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "An IF you DID have any brains"

        Here we go…

        "you would know Obama's no Jimmy Carter You also would have known that Carter did not get rid of the Shah"

        No, he actively projected his loss of faith and accused him of "human rights" problems.

        "the Iranian people themselves did it"

        Much like happened in the so-called Arab Spring. You might call Iran in 1979, the lesson we failed to learn.

        "due to years of tortureand oppression by SAVAK"

        I see you love to oversimplify to make your point. Who was tortured and what should a US president have done about it? Carter failed in foreign policy in virtually every realm. He has nothing to show for his efforts.

        "They tookover the Embassy when Carter refused to turn over the Shah"

        Carter was the president and projected weak leadership, and additionally offered support to Khomeini while projecting a loss of faith in the Shah. Carter did not personally participate in Iran, and nobody makes the claim that he did. Those who are able to make nuanced analysis based on facts will usually consider that Carter had huge influence on many foreign policy disasters. Presidents never personally do much direct action. You should try to remember this. If you do, you might better comprehend the political discourse that led to your confused state we find you in.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "The long gas lines whch at the time you were probably still in your diapers was due to the embargo placed on US due to our support for Israel"

        Half-truths that deceive are worse than lies.

        "And the high prices today are due to OPEC – our " freinds " the Saudis , and Big Oil manipulating ptrices and refinery output "

        Which is why they formed the group. What's different now, fool? It was OPEC in the 1970s that got the better of us…also under Carter…hmmm…weak presidential leadership leads to high gas prices. Correlation or cause? What does the master critical thinker believe?

        "What you are too ignorant to know is that Oil Production in the US has gone up 11% since Obama took office"

        What you are too ignorant to know is that quoting statistics out of context only impresses idiots. You do seem impressed by it. Himm…

        • amused

          go study your history numbnuts . I guess you were reading comic books during that time .

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "go study your history numbnuts . I guess you were reading comic books during that time"

            Another booze-driven non-response. Correct my history if you can. You'll need a touch of economics if you want to explain the role of the president in his effects on gas prices on the streets in the USA. Or are you going to remind us in a grand announcement that the world's biggest oil cartel endeavors to drive prices up? Really? Wow. Stunning news. They only started doing that to discredit Obama at the suggestion of the Republicans? Amazing stuff.

      • Mary Sue

        You wouldn't know critical thinking if it came up and bit you on the behind. Contrary to popular belief, Critical Thinking does NOT mean "Believe whatever the Left wing says uncritically and always assume the Right wingers are lying regardless of whether they are telling the truth."

        You do a lot of calling people idiots but have scarce little to back up this assertion.

        I was long out of diapers by Carter, dude. Old enough to know what was going on. Yeah I KNOW why there were gas lines. The OPEC thing. Yeah. Due to the support for Israel? Are you high? Then why were there no gas lineups in Canada which also supported Israel? No, it was because Carter was a fool and didn't know what he was doing, and the OPEC gang knew they could screw with him. Miraculously this garbage stopped by the time Reagan was running the show. Gee, I WONDER WHY. American support for Israel had not changed, so your assertion there makes no sense. It's not logical.

        Carter didn't actively get rid of the Shah with like troops and stuff, but he didn't help him, either. He ALLOWED the Ayatollahs to gain power. He encouraged the Shah to step down. Just like Obummer "encouraged" Mubarak to step down. It was Islamists that took the Embassy, not regular Iranian people.

        Canada has high gas prices but it's mostly taxes. I am not privy to the various tax breakdowns in various US jurisdictions, so I don't entirely know to what extent taxation makes gas expensive over there, but I bet it's part of it.

        Saudi Arabia et al actually are starting to have a problem with "old" wells, but the real problem isn't just with OPEC (though OPEC itself is truly evil and with Chavez as part of it, I'm not surprised), though in Venezuela gasoline is mere pennies per litre. But Democrats only made the effect worse by blocking ANWR, jerking away the Gulf oil wells, prohibiting offshore drilling in places like California, and making it difficult to get oil off public land. Yeah production went up 11 percent but that's all private land where the tentacles of Government don't strangle so tightly.

        Tell me o wise one, what is the secret to Critical Thinking? Or are you just parroting something of which you have no true understanding and also failed (or failed to take) Logic 101?

        • amused

          Go to We bsters and learn the definition of critical thinking before you go throwing around the term like you know what it means ….you are devoid of it .

          • Mary Sue

            Oh now this is just funny.

            Critical thinking is making an informed judgment based on EVIDENCE. Which, I have seen plenty of. Evidence, from MULTIPLE independent sources, that I know I can trust. Corroboration is a big deal. Evidence you dismiss out of hand WHY, exactly? What is your critical limit? How do you know what evidence you can trust?

            You sound pretty vapid with calling people idiots and not having anything to back it up with, at all, except the sound and fury of evidenceless rhetoric. You know, if you actually presented credible evidence to the contrary, I'd actually listen to it. But you don't. Leftists rarely even offer such evidence. They don't have it. It doesn't exist. Because if it did, they'd have credibility. And they don't.

            So what's your ace in the whole of perfect score correctness about just about every thing in the news ever?

      • Lillith66

        Jeezzuz, you really have got a giant bug up your a$$ haven't you! Easy big fella, easy!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "nice try amused, but I'm not a Republican"

      Joke's on him and others. I'm not Republican, Israeli or Jew. Because I defend certain ethical positions, people think they can use these labels as slander…as if facts don't matter. It's all about "loyalty" and emotionally derived positions to them. They're often projecting, as you have observed at least once.

      Idiots who believe lies will interpret the whole world in a radically distorted fashion.

      • amused

        Not really , you can back noff your positions and ein some strange neutrality but we both know you're full of shiiit . You can't even yuse words or phrases of your own .
        LOL "who believe lies " …lol…you've just described yourself .

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "You can't even yuse words or phrases of your own"

          Now I'm getting it. You've created your own vocabulary?

          Is it beer or the hard stuff? Can you even count how many drinks you down before you log in to attack the "fascists?"

          • Mary Sue

            ok now we have to create the amused drinking game.

            Every time amused calls someone an idiot, take one drink.
            Every time amused calls someone a moron, take two drinks.
            Every time amused asserts something without backing it up, take a drink.
            …and so on…

            People will die of alcohol poisoning reading his posts.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "k now we have to create the amused drinking game. "

            I'm sure he'd love it if we all got half as drunk as he is.

            "People will die of alcohol poisoning reading his posts."

            Somehow I don't think that would bother our "patriot" war vet.

  • Ghostwriter

    Now is not the time for blame! We should be TRYING to help those in the Northeast get through this disaster,not bashing Mitt Romney or President Obama for things they couldn't control. I've been seeing pictures of what happened with Hurricane Sandy and they're heartbreaking. Can we save the blame game for later. Please?

    • amused

      Sure , tell that to ex Bush FEMA czar Brown , Newt Gingrich , Krauthammer and the author of this article , not to mention 95% of the posters here . " Obama's actig TOO QUICKLY "!!!
      What in the hell is that ? The first reaction from Republicans .

      • objectivefactsmatter

        " Obama's actig TOO QUICKLY "!!!
        'What in the hell is that ? The first reaction from Republicans .'

        Context is everything, and your claims therefore mean nothing.

  • Amused

    Hows about another phony photo op , call ahead to let the media know that Romney’s going to have a charity drive , if there aint enough canned food and jars of peanutbutter to display , get the lackeys to go to the local supermarket .And when you line up to see Romney and present him with your donation , you gotta have something in your hand , if you dont , we’ll give you one ,from this pile ove here. Looks like Ryan and romney are birds of a feather phonies.

    • Mary Sue

      good god, romney can't win for losing with you.

      • amused

        BTW Mary Sue , no US Ambassador was killed in the Iran Embassy takeover . As for Romney , he's a proven liars . and as Lieing politicians go , he's King . And no , Carter neither encouraged nor discouraged the Shah stepping down , the Shah left when he knew if he didn't they'd kill him . There was no militay action to forestall this nor was there any after his fall . It was a popular revolution , it was a religiously inspired revolution from the start. Anyone alive who could read would know that .

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Carter neither encouraged nor discouraged the Shah stepping down"

          There are claims all over the place about Carter's role, but not many sources considered unbiased. He is a polarizing character. However, even liberal sources excuse rather than deny his role.
          http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/featur

          "Did the Carter administration "lose" Iran, as some have suggested? Gaddis Smith might have put it best: "President Carter inherited an impossible situation — and he and his advisers made the worst of it." Carter seemed to have a hard time deciding whether to heed the advice of his aggressive national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who wanted to encourage the Shah to brutally suppress the revolution, or that of his more cautious State Department, which suggested Carter reach out to opposition elements in order to smooth the transition to a new government. In the end he did neither, and suffered the consequences."

          The information I have is that Carter did indicate to Khomeini and France (his host at the time) support for (I kid you not) an Islamic republic with him leading it. The Shah was fighting these Islamists, and Carter was concerned about their "human rights." Actually he was concerned about politics at home and the impression he made on his chess moves.

          Sound familiar? How many times will we fail to learn these lessons?

          Why the senseless defense of foreign policy morons? Not that I expect a rational answer…

          • Mary Sue

            Not that I expect a rational answer…

            From amused?

            *channels En Vogue*

            Neeever gonna get it never gonna get it, neevvver gonna get it never gonna get it…

          • amused

            take another prozac Mary Sue

        • Mary Sue

          An ambassador was killed in 1979, though. (In Kabul). I had a senior moment and misremembered that it wasn't part of the Iran thing.

          Dude, if Romney's a liar, he pales in comparison to Obama. Nobody's perfect, I'm sure everybody's lied (or just flat out changed their mind) in their life. Romney is nowhere NEAR as "pathological" in any lie as Obama. Given the choice of two "liars" (which is moot since I'm ineligible to vote), I'd take Romney over the freaking disaster you have now.

          In the place where I live, people will vote for a party they never agree with simply to throw out a party that has done bad in government. I've seen what 12 years of quasi-socialist government has done. So did a lot of other people, and they threw those suckers out. Many of them were habitual voters for the party that had been in power for 12 years. This is a principle thing, that you get rid of who's in office if they **** up. Even if you have to replace them with someone you disagree with. That is just how that works, and how it has always worked where I live. NOW do you get it?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "if Romney's a liar, he pales in comparison to Obama"

            I find it stunning that any Obama supporter can avoid running from the subject of integrity with the election so close. How can they expect anyone to swallow the assertion that Romney is a bigger risk than Obama in anything, much less integrity?

    • Neils60

      Amused, Were you amused when the president took off for a fund raiser in Las Vegas, the day after four Americans were slaughtered in Benghazi? Romney's effort at fund raising for Sandy's victims seems rather benign in comparison to the president's lack of effort to find out who murdered our fallen American heroes in Libya. The president appeared to blow the whole episode off, blaming an unknown stupid video on that debacle without the expected curiosity to find out the entire truth as to what actually occurred, as evidenced by his fund raising on September 12. And, don't blame my remarks on tthe Republicans, as I'm a moderate Democrat who has a big, big problem with the far-left turn that the Democrat party has taken. The Democrat party left me, I didn't leave it!

      • https://www.facebook.com/wendy.nailart.1 Wendy Nailart

        I'm glad you responded… his comment was so convoluted I couldn't figure out what his point was. Four years of bad leadership compared to a publicity snafu? My bet was someone asked Ryan to drop by to gain some publicity for the charity, someone who either set him up or did not have the authority or info to get it right… big deal… compared to "redistribution of wealth"
        I agree with you, I came to the same conclusion some elections ago, though I had always voted for the leader not the party…

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Hey Neils,

        I was never loyal to either party, but my ideologies are closer to striving for the genuine altruism some leftists might have, moderated by the realities that some on the right see. Altruism should come from the individual, not the state. The state has an interest in the general welfare of the masses, but this has gotten ridiculous and counter-productive. I blame the hippies for completely falling for the Soviet propaganda (without realizing the source in most cases).

        Any centrist or rational person who can't see through Obama has something big blocking their sight.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Hows about another phony photo op , call ahead to let the media know that Romney's going to have a charity drive…"

      Because Obama's so sincere…that's why we love him!!! I've got a crush on Obama…

      Seriously for just a moment, if we look at the lives of Romney and Obama prior to their political careers, who spent more time in disaster relief and direct action helping people in need?

      Only absolute brain-dead liberals are unaware that the difference is like day and night. Obama never helped anyone but himself.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      More projection:

      "And when you line up to see Romney and present him with your donation , you gotta have something in your hand , if you dont , we'll give you one ,from this pile ove here. Looks like Ryan and romney are birds of a feather phonies."

      What we learned: If a liberal appears to be doing something kind, it's purely for selfish motives. The only true kindness in their world is advocating socialism, because that will fix everything with no effort on the part of the socialist, other than attacking people all of the time.

      • amused

        No , that's a simpletons conclusion , what you do is something that I've said before that you and your room mate Mary Sue ,sorely lack – critical thinking . You observe the situation , determine the facts , investigating further for what may be initially uneen , verify it , then reach your conclusion .

        What you DON"T do is swallow up the drivel that most of these "alleged journalists " offer up and swallow it hole .That is because you have a predisposed bias , and please ,neither one of you two is Centrist no more than white is black .,who are you kidding ? Yourselves of course ! You have the same mindset as Blimpy Limbaugh and his latest "pontification " to his 20 million suckers who pay for his diggs down here in Fla . It's funny, of your sorry lot there are some good men who stand up when its right to stand up ,in spite of the mud that will be flinged at them from you're sorry sorry political party and it's demagogues . You render yourselves non-sequitur , irrelevant in any intelligent argument . BTW I doubt you're Canadian Mary Sue .

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "critical thinking"

          Look, if you really want to learn something and have a serious conversation about it, we can. But stop acting like you've established any credibility. You haven't.

          "Critical thinking" is a phrase and its meaning varies depending on context. The literal meaning is to think critically, which means to deconstruct something from an objective and pragmatic point-of-view.
          http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-cr

          "Critical thinking is a rich concept that has been developing throughout the past 2500 years. The term "critical thinking" has its roots in the mid-late 20th century. We offer here overlapping definitions, together which form a substantive, transdisciplinary conception of critical thinking."

          You should read the whole article.

          Next:

          crit·i·cal adjective \ˈkri-ti-kəl\

          Definition of CRITICAL

          1
          a : of, relating to, or being a turning point or specially important juncture <a critical phase>: as (1) : relating to or being the stage of a disease at which an abrupt change for better or worse may be expected; also : being or relating to an illness or condition involving danger of death <critical care> <a patient listed in critical condition> (2) : relating to or being a state in which or a measurement or point at which some quality, property, or phenomenon suffers a definite change <critical temperature>
          b : crucial, decisive <a critical test>
          c : indispensable, vital <a critical waterfowl habitat> <a component critical to the operation of a machine>
          d : being in or approaching a state of crisis <a critical shortage> <a critical situation>
          2
          a : inclined to criticize severely and unfavorably
          b : consisting of or involving criticism <critical writings>; also : of or relating to the judgment of critics <the play was a critical success>
          c : exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation <critical thinking>
          d : including variant readings and scholarly emendations <a critical edition>

          crit·i·cizedcrit·i·ciz·ing

          Definition of CRITICIZE

          intransitive verb
          : to act as a critic
          transitive verb
          1
          : to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly : evaluate
          2
          : to find fault with : point out the faults of

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "BTW I doubt you're Canadian Mary Sue"

          That is NOT a strong example of critical thinking. You've more or less proved that your evaluations are unreliable at best. You use random thought generation and call it "critical thinking" because someone once described it to you and you were impressed.

  • Frank Martin

    Front Pages' politicizing of this is a new low in pretend journalism

    • Mary Sue

      FRONTPAGE is politicizing this? Dude your reading comprehension has had it. Democrats pull crap like demonizing Republicans over natural disasters ALL THE TIME. So it is a valid topic and not politicizing.

      • amused

        No , YOU GOT IT RIGHT Frank Martin , pay no mind to this brain washed dolt calling herself Mary Sue . For her lot it's a matter of the mind which gets fed shiit , then expectorates the same .

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "it's a matter of the mind which gets fed shiit , then expectorates the same"

          So you failed both philosophy and biology.

          • amused

            LOL….stil can't construct an original sentence on your own eh ?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "LOL….stil can't construct an original sentence on your own eh ?"

            I'm commenting on you. What you're really saying is that you've heard this all about yourself before. What does that tell you now (if anything)? Perhaps my comments are based on actual observation of facts. Originality is not the only thing that counts, and it doesn't count much at all in critical thinking. What matters is getting the facts and analysis correct.

        • Mary Sue

          oh, and yours isn't?

        • Mary Sue

          what is mind? Doesn't matter. What is matter? Never mind.

  • https://www.facebook.com/wendy.nailart.1 Wendy Nailart

    Typical, create a fictitious statement, accuse a conservative of saying it and then find fault with the conservative over the imaginary issue.
    You have to admit it saves time and is available to those of even the lowest intelligence. They don't have to understand the real polices of a target, listen to the targets statements or anticipate the targets responses, in fact it the attacker can have an entire dialogue with himself… "now he denies it!"

    I thought the classic was Claire McCatkill's "He let people die on roof tops in New Orleans because they were poor and black", when in fact it was the local leadership that let the populations shift for themselves… but it makes her look like she cares and Bush seem the heartless villain.
    A pity karma does not happen faster.
    Though perhaps Sandy could be aggressively spun back on the current white house….
    Sandy hit the east coast and Obama did nothing to stop it!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Though perhaps Sandy could be aggressively spun back on the current white house….
      Sandy hit the east coast and Obama did nothing to stop it!"

      Maybe so, but at least Sandy was not racially motivated! That's Obama's specialty, healing the racial and class divisions. He was probably healing hurt religious feelings somewhere because we know Obama is doing good every day, no matter what it looks like.

      • amused

        Thanks "mr.Objectivity -NOT , you're racist teeth are showing .

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Thanks "mr.Objectivity -NOT , you're racist teeth are showing"

          Yes, because I (not Obama, not Rev. Wright, or any other collectivists) inject racism in to every political issue. Without people like me, we'd all be getting along fine.

  • Larry

    Don't forget AmTrac's "Spirit of New Orleans" sitting in the station until the very last safe moment, and then leaving empty, even though AmTrac had made it clear to the Governor and the Mayor that she was ready, waiting, AND empty.

    • Mary Sue

      yeah. My god. What is wrong with them?!

  • amused

    HEY all you republicans and conservatives , you HERO , Blimpy Limbaugh' s on the radio right now telling you folks to turn off your TV's so you dont have to listen to Republican Governor Christy praising Obama ! Go ahead turn'em off !
    BTW , the Gov. of Virginia is singing the same song . Meanwhile Mitts still trying to figure out if he wants to get rid of FEMA or not ….lol…..depends on what Stae he stumping in .

    • Neils60

      Perhaps if you learned to write, spell or compose something that's even remotely cohesive, you'd be making 54 million a year like Blimpy Limbaugh.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Perhaps he'd also need to get rid of his chemical dependencies first. On the other hand, Limbaugh apparently had no problems functioning on high doses of oxycodone, so maybe our friend here is better off just staying drunk if he has no hope at all functioning like an adult.

      • amused

        So making $54million a year is the measure of a man ….good ethics you schmuck .Limbaugh makes his living scaring white racists and bigots sitting in their pick up truck on lunch hour .Whipping up paranoia in the idiot section of America ? LOL….you gotta be one of his sycophants which puts you in a very unflattering position …..you're a schmuck .
        Oh well bigger arseholes than Limbaugh have skimmed greater wealth off the back of suckers .Brings Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggert to mind , they just used a different approach . But ALL hypocrites . So keep your tv off , so you won't get skeeered .

        • amused

          …and Subjectivefactsmatter , IF I were a drunk , I would not preach that all drunks should be thrown in jail , like Limbaugh spewed about illegal drug users …uh …until he got caught . Not to mention he bought his way out of jailtime , as it is here in Florida , dealing in oxycdone the way he did , would have got the average man on the street . But why am I not surprised you would praise such a low life big mouth like Blimpy . But as P.T. Barnum said " there's a sucker born every minute " , and Blimpy seems to have harvested 20 million of them . [include yourself there in that crop ]

          • Mary Sue

            there's a difference between recreational use of opiates, and using them for SEVERE PAIN and becoming dependent on them!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "there's a difference between recreational use of opiates, and using them for SEVERE PAIN and becoming dependent on them!"

            Which is precisely why he was able to function.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "But why am I not surprised you would praise such a low life big mouth like Blimpy"

            I said one thing; "Limbaugh apparently had no problems functioning on high doses of oxycodone."

            That's not really praise. You're not functioning well in comparison to him. That was my point. Maybe try to switch to oxycodone if you think you'll do better that way, I don't know. Stop looking for free praise everywhere you go and try to earn it instead.

            'But as P.T. Barnum said " there's a sucker born every minute "Blimpy seems to have harvested 20 million of them . [include yourself there in that crop ]'

            Yet another counter-example to thinking critically in the classic sense. You have no evidence that I listen to him at all, other than me knowing he was able to work on radio while addicted to opiates. You're far more familiar with his work, therefore you are, according to evidence at hand, a bigger fan. Count yourself yet?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "IF I were a drunk , I would not preach that all drunks should be thrown in jail"

            Well. you're not preaching that. Can we assume you don't deny being drunk?

    • Mary Sue

      Out of context. Stop getting your info from liar websites, get them from the horse's mouth. That's not what he said.

      He said, If what you're hearing on TV or the internet is apt to SCARE THEM OFF VOTING ON VOTING DAY, turn it off.

      God, what an idiot you are.