You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. http://www.reuters.com/article/lates.../idUSN26366100
The U.S. government's main disaster-response agency apologized on Friday for having its employees pose as reporters in a hastily called news conference on California's wildfires that no news organizations
The U.S. government's main disaster-response agency apologized on Friday for having its employees pose as reporters in a hastily called news conference on California's wildfires that no news organizations attended.
...with no reporters on hand and an agency video camera providing a feed carried live by some television networks, FEMA press employees posed the questions for Johnson that included: "Are you happy with FEMA's response so far?"
According to Friday's Post account, which Walker confirmed, Johnson replied that he was "very happy with FEMA's response so far."
He also said the agency had the benefit of "good leadership" and other factors, "none of which were present at Katrina." Chertoff was head of the Homeland Security Department during Katrina.
I could make this stuff up and it wouldn't be funnier.
As an aside, does anyone else find it annoying that these wildfires are being compared in their scale to New Orleans and Katrina? I just find it reprehensible to compare the "once a century" disaster that was Katrina with these wildfires which happen annually albeit only get this big about once a decade.
__________________ "If I could lead you into the Promised Land, I would not do it, because someone else would come along and lead you out."
I do not even know how to comment on what they did. What a bunch of jackasses.
__________________ I haven't crapped Obediah's pants since December 15th, 2007, stay away from the nachos at Champps. Tonga ate all of my mac and cheese, you bastard.
The good news is that every democratic candidate for president and just about every democrat of record wants to create a government bureaucracy just like FEMA to handle your healthcare. Sounds wonderful.
Proves that the work of government isn't about helping U.S. citizens. It's about face time on the news and creating the image that they are doing something worthwhile.
__________________ Hockey's original bad boy. The "Cowboy" Howie Young
The good news is that every democratic candidate for president and just about every democrat of record wants to create a government bureaucracy just like FEMA to handle your healthcare. Sounds wonderful.
Right. Because healthcare is soooo efficient right now.
I love how Republicans complain about government inefficiency... then they control Congress, the Presidency and even the Court and guess what... more inefficiency than ever. Personally I think that's the Republican plan: To run government badly so they prove their own point.
If qualified individuals are appointed to head these federal organizations (I know, former horse breeder is quite the impresive resume to run a disaster relief org.) they might run a little smoother.
Proves that the work of government isn't about helping U.S. citizens. It's about face time on the news and creating the image that they are doing something worthwhile.
In this case that's spot on.
I definately thought FEMA and Bush came to California to try to get some credit when the firefighters/guardsmen of this state and our neghbors had no real need for help from the Feds. (except some rebuilding money perhaps.)
Right. Because healthcare is soooo efficient right now.
I love how Republicans complain about government inefficiency... then they control Congress, the Presidency and even the Court and guess what... more inefficiency than ever. Personally I think that's the Republican plan: To run government badly so they prove their own point.
If qualified individuals are appointed to head these federal organizations (I know, former horse breeder is quite the impresive resume to run a disaster relief org.) they might run a little smoother.
I'm not a republican.
Healthcare is efficient for those who chose to have it.
For those who choose not to have healthcare, I understand their frustration with the county medical system, it stinks. Unfortunately if all medical care fell under the government it would look more like King Drew and less like the PPO care I get today.
If we streamline the government as a whole by getting rid of all the waste, which includes the war in Iraq, there will be more than enough money to support a reform of the county and welfare type health coverage and leave my private and very efficient medical coverage alone.
If we streamline the government as a whole by getting rid of all the waste, which includes the war in Iraq, there will be more than enough money to support a reform of the county and welfare type health coverage and leave my private and very efficient medical coverage alone.
That's a form of health care for the govt, isn't it? It's called an enema.
jom
__________________ Old men's room wall saying: Flush hard, it's a long way to Washington
Healthcare is efficient for those who chose to have it.
For those who choose not to have healthcare, I understand their frustration with the county medical system, it stinks. Unfortunately if all medical care fell under the government it would look more like King Drew and less like the PPO care I get today.
If we streamline the government as a whole by getting rid of all the waste, which includes the war in Iraq, there will be more than enough money to support a reform of the county and welfare type health coverage and leave my private and very efficient medical coverage alone.
Look up the term single-payer health care. Once you grasp the concept that single-payer health care is what any democrat worth their weight in salt is calling for then you'll possibly think twice before spouting your anti-"socialized" medicine rhetoric. Possibly.
Also your statement that people "choose not to have health care" is laughable. Do they also choose not to live in a mansion in Malibu? Do they choose to be undereducated and exploited by their employer, if they even are employed? More than 46 million Americans would rather choose to eat or keep the lights in their house turned on than pay for health insurance. Health insurance that they're forced to consider a luxury. That's absurd.
__________________ .500 is the goal. Focus, people. Focus!
Look up the term single-payer health care. Once you grasp the concept that single-payer health care is what any democrat worth their weight in salt is calling for then you'll possibly think twice before spouting your anti-"socialized" medicine rhetoric. Possibly.
Also your statement that people "choose not to have health care" is laughable. Do they also choose not to live in a mansion in Malibu? Do they choose to be undereducated and exploited by their employer, if they even are employed? More than 46 million Americans would rather choose to eat or keep the lights in their house turned on than pay for health insurance. Health insurance that they're forced to consider a luxury. That's absurd.
People do make choices in life. These choices directly affect their quality of life in the future. If you made choices in your life that doesn't afford you the opportunity to take advantage of private healthcare than why should I give up even some of the benefits that I've earned so we can have the same? If you gave less of an effort in life you've earned exactly that, less.
What I'm not saying is that people shouldn't have access to healthcare. The single payer system has not been defined and is a scam that when unfolded becomes another government program that WILL BE innefficient. There is zero history or example to show me otherwise. Go ask a single payer proponent what it means. Good luck trying to nail them down. And good luck in life regurgitating garbage that others say without giving it a thought. I'm sure it will get you far.
Here's the answer. The government funds a private trust that offers insurance for those without. This trust is run by private appointees and subject to oversight. Congress, the president, or any of their commitees have nothing to do with the operation. Imagine how healthy this trust would be with a guy like Warren Buffett running it. This trust is able to negoiate deals with providers and drug companies just like Blue Cross does. It's now an insurance company. In order to recieve this insurance you need to show your financial status just like you do when applying for many grants and loans. If you qualify great, if you don't you can still opt in but you now have co-pays to help the insured burden some of the cost. This eliminates the cash poor guy making 150,000 per year from getting bailed out because he bought a bunch of stuff he couldn't afford.
This trust can be funded by savings in paring down the size of the government along with moving tax money from the drug companies to this trust.
Why this can never happen is democrats rely on the votes of the poor and uneducated. It's how they carry California. Do you think Hillary or whoever has a chance at these votes if she preaches you get less than those that invested in their future but enough to survive on?
BTW, Anthony and Norton would hate you, Opie would be indifferent.
FEMA allows the White House to suspend constitutional government upon declaration of a national emergency. It allows creation of a non-elected government. Think about that, Agent Mulder."
Could FEMA get anymore ridiculous? 
homersimps
