VABills Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Why isn't the Feds there? 1,000 volunteers are filling sandbags to keep the water within the banks. Why do these people have to do it themselves? It's the governments responsibility to save us. Where is FEMA, the national Guard, Army, Air Force, etc... Why should these people be required to break a sweat to save themselves and their homes? Obama is a failure, he wants white people to die, him and Bidens weather machine are out of control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 There's always record flooding in North Dakota. It's called "March". Though I am mildly dismayed that no one's dropping pallets of water into Fargo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 There's always record flooding in North Dakota. It's called "March". Though I am mildly dismayed that no one's dropping pallets of water into Fargo. So does that give Obama an out? Hurricanes hit the gulf every year, but Bush was never "forgiven". Can't Obama take a day from his daily television shows to show some compassion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 So does that give Obama an out? Hurricanes hit the gulf every year, but Bush was never "forgiven". Can't Obama take a day from his daily television shows to show some compassion. Top ten reasons (in any order) Obama doesn't help ND: Pelosi hasn't told him to He hates whitey He prefers South Dakota Geithner's coming out with a plan to help anytime now... He's already sent them a copy of his Inauguration book and DVD, what more do they want? Hillary won't hit the Reset button to undo the flood He's using the flood to flush out the elusive ManBearPig Fat Teddy told him not to clean the water up yet, he's got a hot date He doesn't see a problem as he can walk on water He inherited the flood from the failed policies of the previous Administration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 So does that give Obama an out? Hurricanes hit the gulf every year, but Bush was never "forgiven". Can't Obama take a day from his daily television shows to show some compassion. Yes. I know...you're merely pointing out the hypocrisy of it, in a self-gratifying "How do you like it, Libs?" manner. Just because it's your turn to raise idiotic complaints, doesn't make the complaints less idiotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Yes. I know...you're merely pointing out the hypocrisy of it, in a self-gratifying "How do you like it, Libs?" manner. Just because it's your turn to raise idiotic complaints, doesn't make the complaints less idiotic. No it doesnt...becuase the complaints lodged werent even based in reality. Case in point, the AF1 "incident." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 There is no teleprompter in front of him for this. Remember his reliable default position... "Uh". Wait 5 days - perhaps we shall then see something, packaged appropriately, another opportunity for yet putting out another one of his signature straw men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Barack hates crackers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Barack hates crackers But not craker cash. We can exercise free speech and say cracker, but woe to he who says !@#$. Racism seems to be a one-way street... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 But not craker cash. We can exercise free speech and say cracker, but woe to he who says !@#$. Racism seems to be a one-way street... Do you actually consider cracker to be an offensive term? Honestly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Do you actually consider cracker to be an offensive term? Honestly? Its used by a race of folks to demean another race of folks. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 "A cracker is someone who breaks into someone else's computer system, often on a network; bypasses passwords or licenses in computer programs; or in other ways intentionally breaches computer security. A cracker can be doing this for profit, maliciously, for some altruistic purpose or cause, or because the challenge is there. Some breaking-and-entering has been done ostensibly to point out weaknesses in a site's security system. The term "cracker" is not to be confused with "hacker". Hackers generally deplore cracking. However, as Eric Raymond, compiler of The New Hacker's Dictionary notes, some journalists ascribe break-ins to "hackers." A classic story of the tracking down of a cracker on the Internet who was breaking into U.S. military and other computers is told in Clifford Stoll's The Cuckoo's Egg." Gotta love Google. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Its used by a race of folks to demean another race of folks. End of story. I'd argue it's used mostly for comedic affect. Is it the same as !@#$ in that white people are allowed to say it but others aren't? Personally, words are just words and those who take offense to a word (and not the tone/connotation behind it) are strung a bit too tightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Oh and by the way North Dakota has been declared a federal disaster zone as the rising Red River continues to cause statewide flooding. North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven said the declaration, announced early Wednesday by U.S. President Barack Obama, means the federal government will pay 75 per cent of state and local government costs to fight the flood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Oh and by the way North Dakota has been declared a federal disaster zone as the rising Red River continues to cause statewide flooding. North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven said the declaration, announced early Wednesday by U.S. President Barack Obama, means the federal government will pay 75 per cent of state and local government costs to fight the flood. Only a liberal answer the call for help with "here, have some money." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Only a liberal answer the call for help with "here, have some money." They're printing it up, anyway. What's another half a billion here or there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Only a liberal answer the call for help with "here, have some money." So what do you expect the President to do? Show up and fill sandbags? You wingnuts slam the President for "doing nothing", which it turns out isn't true. Do you think doing something is free? Sending troops - $$$ Sending national guard - $$$ Sending food - $$$ Sending water - $$$ etc. How about you brilliant people explaining to the rest of us how you deal with a disaster WITHOUT SPENDING A DIME? Yeah. Let's hear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 So what do you expect the President to do? Show up and fill sandbags? You wingnuts slam the President for "doing nothing", which it turns out isn't true. Do you think doing something is free? Sending troops - $$$ Sending national guard - $$$ Sending food - $$$ Sending water - $$$ etc. How about you brilliant people explaining to the rest of us how you deal with a disaster WITHOUT SPENDING A DIME? Yeah. Let's hear it. Hmmm..... sounds like Katrina, except Bush did show up there once the SS determined it was safe enough to fly him in? What about the messiah will he show up? I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 "the federal government will pay 75 per cent of state and local government costs to fight the flood" Where do you see actual physical activity from the Feds here? Because they will pay the bill in the next fiscal year? Whats that got to do with me today if my house is floating downriver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 So what do you expect the President to do? Show up and fill sandbags? You wingnuts slam the President for "doing nothing", which it turns out isn't true. Do you think doing something is free? Sending troops - $$$ Sending national guard - $$$ Sending food - $$$ Sending water - $$$ etc. How about you brilliant people explaining to the rest of us how you deal with a disaster WITHOUT SPENDING A DIME? Yeah. Let's hear it. It's not what you say it's how you say it. How about "We will provide whatever it takes to help out he people of North Dakota. If that means sending troops, the national guard, food and or water we will do it and in the most expediant way possible. And regarding the cost, you need not worry as we have declared the area a national disaster. What does that mean? Well among other things it means the the federal government will pick up 75% of the cost that the state and local governments will incur. " But the fact that the only part of that article you quoted talked about how much $$ was going to be sent says a lot. It's stuck in your mind, it's the way you think, it's the liberal way....I understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts