Christians Provide More Aid To Hurricane Victims Than FEMA

[Conservative65]

Then what difference does it make whether or not you were there? You don't have to stand in water in order to be flooded.

You tell me --- you're the sociopath asscrack jumping up and down telling me I 'deserved to get flooded'.

Whelp --- I didn't get flooded. Because I left after considering that contingency.

You don't live in NO?

Not now, no. I did when Katrina hit.

You weren't affected by the flooding then? At all?

Where I was, there was no flooding.

Sorry, I can't dumb that down any lower than that.

So when you got back to where you lived, you weren't affected by the flooding?

 

[Pogo]

You tell me --- you're the sociopath asscrack jumping up and down telling me I 'deserved to get flooded'.

Whelp --- I didn't get flooded. Because I left after considering that contingency.

You don't live in NO?

Not now, no. I did when Katrina hit.

You weren't affected by the flooding then? At all?

Where I was, there was no flooding.

Sorry, I can't dumb that down any lower than that.

So when you got back to where you lived, you weren't affected by the flooding?

When I got back it was October. The first day anybody was allowed back in. By then there was no flooding.

I have pictures of what that looked like. It'll take a bit of time to post them.

 

[Conservative65]

You don't live in NO?

Not now, no. I did when Katrina hit.

You weren't affected by the flooding then? At all?

Where I was, there was no flooding.

Sorry, I can't dumb that down any lower than that.

So when you got back to where you lived, you weren't affected by the flooding?

When I got back it was October. The first day anybody was allowed back in. By then there was no flooding.

I have pictures of what that looked like. It'll take a bit of time to post them.

No AFFECTS from flooding? Interesting you said all sorts of things related to Katrina changed for you.

Because you don't see the water doesn't mean flooding didn't happen. That would be like coming back to your house that burned and saying there wasn't a fire because you didn't see the flames.

 

[Pogo]

Not now, no. I did when Katrina hit.

You weren't affected by the flooding then? At all?

Where I was, there was no flooding.

Sorry, I can't dumb that down any lower than that.

So when you got back to where you lived, you weren't affected by the flooding?

When I got back it was October. The first day anybody was allowed back in. By then there was no flooding.

I have pictures of what that looked like. It'll take a bit of time to post them.

No AFFECTS from flooding? Interesting you said all sorts of things related to Katrina changed for you.

Because you don't see the water doesn't mean flooding didn't happen. That would be like coming back to your house that burned and saying there wasn't a fire because you didn't see the flames.

The house where I lived has its flooring about two and a half feet above the street, and the street took (I'm told) two feet of water. So there was no damage to the house or what was in it. Matter of fact it got rented out to a friend whose house in another part of town was utterly destroyed.

So as far as that residence there was no flooding. Of course everybody had to seal up their refrigerator and leave it in the street to be hauled away without opening it up.

The after "affects" came from the fact that the city still had no facilities, no electricity, no gas, no water, barely any cell phone service, no internet, virtually no police or fire departments, no businesses open, no food, no trash pickup -- and my house was in the neighborhood of three restaurants that all used the same dumpster --- and entire areas were covered in black mold.

And that set of conditions also means-- no employment.

In other words I still had my place to live, if I could take the smell and could contrive ways to eat. But there was no way to make an income.

That's when I cleared out what I could and relocated to North Carolina.

 

[Conservative65]

You weren't affected by the flooding then? At all?

Where I was, there was no flooding.

Sorry, I can't dumb that down any lower than that.

So when you got back to where you lived, you weren't affected by the flooding?

When I got back it was October. The first day anybody was allowed back in. By then there was no flooding.

I have pictures of what that looked like. It'll take a bit of time to post them.

No AFFECTS from flooding? Interesting you said all sorts of things related to Katrina changed for you.

Because you don't see the water doesn't mean flooding didn't happen. That would be like coming back to your house that burned and saying there wasn't a fire because you didn't see the flames.

The house where I lived has its flooring about two and a half feet above the street, and the street took (I'm told) two feet of water. So there was no damage to the house or what was in it. Matter of fact it got rented out to a friend whose house in another part of town was utterly destroyed.

So as far as that residence there was no flooding. Of course everybody had to seal up their refrigerator and leave it in the street to be hauled away without opening it up.

The after "affects" came from the fact that the city still had no facilities, no electricity, no gas, no water, barely any cell phone service, no internet, virtually no police or fire departments, no businesses open, no food, no trash pickup -- and my house was in the neighborhood of three restaurants that all used the same dumpster --- and entire areas were covered in black mold.

And that set of conditions also means-- no employment.

In other words I still had my place to live, if I could take the smell and could contrive ways to eat. But there was no way to make an income.

That's when I cleared out what I could and relocated to North Carolina.

Was your refrigerator one of those?

You keep saying you weren't flooded yet you keep telling me how things that affected you happened because of flooding.

 

[Camp]

Many of the right wingers that post here at USMB whine and complain about the "Constitution" but prove in their posts that they have little understanding of how the Constitution gives specific authority to the Supreme Courts function is to interpret the constitutionality of laws and that they have the final say. It is the very constitution the right wingers complain and whine about that gives the SCOTUS that unquestionable authority.

When the court makes a decision on a law they are determining whether it is constitutional or not. Those who disagree with the decision have the constitutional right and a process by which to challenge and try to change the ruling. That takes time, effort and resources. It is easier to just post complaints and whine about a decision on a message board, but there are those who make the efforts, sometimes successful, to change the court's decision.

Where in the Constitution does it specifically say the Supreme Court has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional?

Articles lll and Vl.

 

[Conservative65]

Many of the right wingers that post here at USMB whine and complain about the "Constitution" but prove in their posts that they have little understanding of how the Constitution gives specific authority to the Supreme Courts function is to interpret the constitutionality of laws and that they have the final say. It is the very constitution the right wingers complain and whine about that gives the SCOTUS that unquestionable authority.

When the court makes a decision on a law they are determining whether it is constitutional or not. Those who disagree with the decision have the constitutional right and a process by which to challenge and try to change the ruling. That takes time, effort and resources. It is easier to just post complaints and whine about a decision on a message board, but there are those who make the efforts, sometimes successful, to change the court's decision.

Where in the Constitution does it specifically say the Supreme Court has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional?

Articles lll and Vl.

I've read both of those. I'm yet to see where it says that. Do you have the exact phrase?

 

[Camp]

Many of the right wingers that post here at USMB whine and complain about the "Constitution" but prove in their posts that they have little understanding of how the Constitution gives specific authority to the Supreme Courts function is to interpret the constitutionality of laws and that they have the final say. It is the very constitution the right wingers complain and whine about that gives the SCOTUS that unquestionable authority.

When the court makes a decision on a law they are determining whether it is constitutional or not. Those who disagree with the decision have the constitutional right and a process by which to challenge and try to change the ruling. That takes time, effort and resources. It is easier to just post complaints and whine about a decision on a message board, but there are those who make the efforts, sometimes successful, to change the court's decision.

Where in the Constitution does it specifically say the Supreme Court has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional?

Articles lll and Vl.

I've read both of those. I'm yet to see where it says that. Do you have the exact phrase?

The court established its authority in 1794. It has not been rescinded for 223 years. Not my fault you don't comprehend the Constitution.

 

[Pogo]

Where I was, there was no flooding.

Sorry, I can't dumb that down any lower than that.

So when you got back to where you lived, you weren't affected by the flooding?

When I got back it was October. The first day anybody was allowed back in. By then there was no flooding.

I have pictures of what that looked like. It'll take a bit of time to post them.

No AFFECTS from flooding? Interesting you said all sorts of things related to Katrina changed for you.

Because you don't see the water doesn't mean flooding didn't happen. That would be like coming back to your house that burned and saying there wasn't a fire because you didn't see the flames.

The house where I lived has its flooring about two and a half feet above the street, and the street took (I'm told) two feet of water. So there was no damage to the house or what was in it. Matter of fact it got rented out to a friend whose house in another part of town was utterly destroyed.

So as far as that residence there was no flooding. Of course everybody had to seal up their refrigerator and leave it in the street to be hauled away without opening it up.

The after "affects" came from the fact that the city still had no facilities, no electricity, no gas, no water, barely any cell phone service, no internet, virtually no police or fire departments, no businesses open, no food, no trash pickup -- and my house was in the neighborhood of three restaurants that all used the same dumpster --- and entire areas were covered in black mold.

And that set of conditions also means-- no employment.

In other words I still had my place to live, if I could take the smell and could contrive ways to eat. But there was no way to make an income.

That's when I cleared out what I could and relocated to North Carolina.

Was your refrigerator one of those?

You keep saying you weren't flooded yet you keep telling me how things that affected you happened because of flooding.

EVERYBODY's refrigerator was one of those. You see, when your power goes out in August, and it sits there in New Orleans heat and now it's October and it's still hot and you still have no power, what you do is seal up the doors and haul it outside. You don't even open the damn thing; it's unhealthy. EVERYBODY had to ditch their fridge whether their home was flooded or not. Because of the lack of electrical power.

Matter of fact I have a pic of that.

Here's what a street in Mid-City looked like in October, after paths had been plowed through the debris. This neighborhood was under eight feet of water. The expression on the car says it all.

​

I found it was easier than I expected to upload these photos, so I made an album out of them which you can peruse and point your finger and giggle how people "deserved it".

Let's do one more. Look at this building -- this is another part of town (Carrollton):

​

See that perfectly-straight line where the building stops? That's where the water was when it was burning, and that's why it burned down to a level line. That's another effect of a flood --- when there's water everywhere no fire department can get to anything, so it just burns down to the water on its own.

Here's the effect of that heat from that fire on the stop sign at the corner of that street:

 

[koshergrl]

Many of the right wingers that post here at USMB whine and complain about the "Constitution" but prove in their posts that they have little understanding of how the Constitution gives specific authority to the Supreme Courts function is to interpret the constitutionality of laws and that they have the final say. It is the very constitution the right wingers complain and whine about that gives the SCOTUS that unquestionable authority.

When the court makes a decision on a law they are determining whether it is constitutional or not. Those who disagree with the decision have the constitutional right and a process by which to challenge and try to change the ruling. That takes time, effort and resources. It is easier to just post complaints and whine about a decision on a message board, but there are those who make the efforts, sometimes successful, to change the court's decision.

Where in the Constitution does it specifically say the Supreme Court has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional?

Articles lll and Vl.

Yeah it doesn't say that lol.

The constitution quite specifically does not give the SCOTUS "unquestionable authority" over all branches.

 

[Conservative65]

Many of the right wingers that post here at USMB whine and complain about the "Constitution" but prove in their posts that they have little understanding of how the Constitution gives specific authority to the Supreme Courts function is to interpret the constitutionality of laws and that they have the final say. It is the very constitution the right wingers complain and whine about that gives the SCOTUS that unquestionable authority.

When the court makes a decision on a law they are determining whether it is constitutional or not. Those who disagree with the decision have the constitutional right and a process by which to challenge and try to change the ruling. That takes time, effort and resources. It is easier to just post complaints and whine about a decision on a message board, but there are those who make the efforts, sometimes successful, to change the court's decision.

Where in the Constitution does it specifically say the Supreme Court has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional?

Articles lll and Vl.

I've read both of those. I'm yet to see where it says that. Do you have the exact phrase?

The court established its authority in 1794. It has not been rescinded for 223 years. Not my fault you don't comprehend the Constitution.

So the Constitution, as you claimed, didn't do it? So much for what you say.

I comprehend the Constitution. That's why I asked you to provide something I knew wasn't stated in the Constitution despite your claims that it was.

 

[Conservative65]

So when you got back to where you lived, you weren't affected by the flooding?

When I got back it was October. The first day anybody was allowed back in. By then there was no flooding.

I have pictures of what that looked like. It'll take a bit of time to post them.

No AFFECTS from flooding? Interesting you said all sorts of things related to Katrina changed for you.

Because you don't see the water doesn't mean flooding didn't happen. That would be like coming back to your house that burned and saying there wasn't a fire because you didn't see the flames.

The house where I lived has its flooring about two and a half feet above the street, and the street took (I'm told) two feet of water. So there was no damage to the house or what was in it. Matter of fact it got rented out to a friend whose house in another part of town was utterly destroyed.

So as far as that residence there was no flooding. Of course everybody had to seal up their refrigerator and leave it in the street to be hauled away without opening it up.

The after "affects" came from the fact that the city still had no facilities, no electricity, no gas, no water, barely any cell phone service, no internet, virtually no police or fire departments, no businesses open, no food, no trash pickup -- and my house was in the neighborhood of three restaurants that all used the same dumpster --- and entire areas were covered in black mold.

And that set of conditions also means-- no employment.

In other words I still had my place to live, if I could take the smell and could contrive ways to eat. But there was no way to make an income.

That's when I cleared out what I could and relocated to North Carolina.

Was your refrigerator one of those?

You keep saying you weren't flooded yet you keep telling me how things that affected you happened because of flooding.

EVERYBODY's refrigerator was one of those. You see, when your power goes out in August, and it sits there in New Orleans heat and now it's October and it's still hot and you still have no power, what you do is seal up the doors and haul it outside. You don't even open the damn thing; it's unhealthy. EVERYBODY had to ditch their fridge whether their home was flooded or not. Because of the lack of electrical power.

Matter of fact I have a pic of that.

Here's what a street in Mid-City looked like in October, after paths had been plowed through the debris. This neighborhood was under eight feet of water. The expression on the car says it all.

​

I found it was easier than I expected to upload these photos, so I made an album out of them which you can peruse and point your finger and giggle how people "deserved it".

Let's do one more. Look at this building -- this is another part of town (Carrollton):

​

See that perfectly-straight line where the building stops? That's where the water was when it was burning, and that's why it burned down to a level line. That's another effect of a flood --- when there's water everywhere no fire department can get to anything, so it just burns down to the water on its own.

Here's the effect of that heat on the stop sign at the corner of that street:

What caused the lack of electrical power? Could it have been flooding?

 

[Pogo]

When I got back it was October. The first day anybody was allowed back in. By then there was no flooding.

I have pictures of what that looked like. It'll take a bit of time to post them.

No AFFECTS from flooding? Interesting you said all sorts of things related to Katrina changed for you.

Because you don't see the water doesn't mean flooding didn't happen. That would be like coming back to your house that burned and saying there wasn't a fire because you didn't see the flames.

The house where I lived has its flooring about two and a half feet above the street, and the street took (I'm told) two feet of water. So there was no damage to the house or what was in it. Matter of fact it got rented out to a friend whose house in another part of town was utterly destroyed.

So as far as that residence there was no flooding. Of course everybody had to seal up their refrigerator and leave it in the street to be hauled away without opening it up.

The after "affects" came from the fact that the city still had no facilities, no electricity, no gas, no water, barely any cell phone service, no internet, virtually no police or fire departments, no businesses open, no food, no trash pickup -- and my house was in the neighborhood of three restaurants that all used the same dumpster --- and entire areas were covered in black mold.

And that set of conditions also means-- no employment.

In other words I still had my place to live, if I could take the smell and could contrive ways to eat. But there was no way to make an income.

That's when I cleared out what I could and relocated to North Carolina.

Was your refrigerator one of those?

You keep saying you weren't flooded yet you keep telling me how things that affected you happened because of flooding.

EVERYBODY's refrigerator was one of those. You see, when your power goes out in August, and it sits there in New Orleans heat and now it's October and it's still hot and you still have no power, what you do is seal up the doors and haul it outside. You don't even open the damn thing; it's unhealthy. EVERYBODY had to ditch their fridge whether their home was flooded or not. Because of the lack of electrical power.

Matter of fact I have a pic of that.

Here's what a street in Mid-City looked like in October, after paths had been plowed through the debris. This neighborhood was under eight feet of water. The expression on the car says it all.

​

I found it was easier than I expected to upload these photos, so I made an album out of them which you can peruse and point your finger and giggle how people "deserved it".

Let's do one more. Look at this building -- this is another part of town (Carrollton):

​

See that perfectly-straight line where the building stops? That's where the water was when it was burning, and that's why it burned down to a level line. That's another effect of a flood --- when there's water everywhere no fire department can get to anything, so it just burns down to the water on its own.

Here's the effect of that heat on the stop sign at the corner of that street:

What caused the lack of electrical power? Could it have been flooding?

Usually wind. Downed trees and such. Exploding transformers.

Of course once the flooding happens it's impossible for a period of time to get anywhere to fix anything, plus the service entries of buildings will be trashed.

 

[Conservative65]

Many of the right wingers that post here at USMB whine and complain about the "Constitution" but prove in their posts that they have little understanding of how the Constitution gives specific authority to the Supreme Courts function is to interpret the constitutionality of laws and that they have the final say. It is the very constitution the right wingers complain and whine about that gives the SCOTUS that unquestionable authority.

When the court makes a decision on a law they are determining whether it is constitutional or not. Those who disagree with the decision have the constitutional right and a process by which to challenge and try to change the ruling. That takes time, effort and resources. It is easier to just post complaints and whine about a decision on a message board, but there are those who make the efforts, sometimes successful, to change the court's decision.

Where in the Constitution does it specifically say the Supreme Court has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional?

Articles lll and Vl.

Yeah it doesn't say that lol.

The constitution quite specifically does not give the SCOTUS "unquestionable authority" over all branches.

When I asked him where, that's what he said. When I followed up and asked him to show me the specific words, he got at the truth of the matter stating the Court gave themselves the power.

 

[koshergrl]

Many of the right wingers that post here at USMB whine and complain about the "Constitution" but prove in their posts that they have little understanding of how the Constitution gives specific authority to the Supreme Courts function is to interpret the constitutionality of laws and that they have the final say. It is the very constitution the right wingers complain and whine about that gives the SCOTUS that unquestionable authority.

When the court makes a decision on a law they are determining whether it is constitutional or not. Those who disagree with the decision have the constitutional right and a process by which to challenge and try to change the ruling. That takes time, effort and resources. It is easier to just post complaints and whine about a decision on a message board, but there are those who make the efforts, sometimes successful, to change the court's decision.

Where in the Constitution does it specifically say the Supreme Court has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional?

Articles lll and Vl.

I've read both of those. I'm yet to see where it says that. Do you have the exact phrase?

The court established its authority in 1794. It has not been rescinded for 223 years. Not my fault you don't comprehend the Constitution.

Yeah cite and source, loon.

 

[koshergrl]

Many of the right wingers that post here at USMB whine and complain about the "Constitution" but prove in their posts that they have little understanding of how the Constitution gives specific authority to the Supreme Courts function is to interpret the constitutionality of laws and that they have the final say. It is the very constitution the right wingers complain and whine about that gives the SCOTUS that unquestionable authority.

When the court makes a decision on a law they are determining whether it is constitutional or not. Those who disagree with the decision have the constitutional right and a process by which to challenge and try to change the ruling. That takes time, effort and resources. It is easier to just post complaints and whine about a decision on a message board, but there are those who make the efforts, sometimes successful, to change the court's decision.

Where in the Constitution does it specifically say the Supreme Court has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional?

Articles lll and Vl.

Yeah it doesn't say that lol.

The constitution quite specifically does not give the SCOTUS "unquestionable authority" over all branches.

When I asked him where, that's what he said. When I followed up and asked him to show me the specific words, he got at the truth of the matter stating the Court gave themselves the power.

 

[Conservative65]

No AFFECTS from flooding? Interesting you said all sorts of things related to Katrina changed for you.

Because you don't see the water doesn't mean flooding didn't happen. That would be like coming back to your house that burned and saying there wasn't a fire because you didn't see the flames.

The house where I lived has its flooring about two and a half feet above the street, and the street took (I'm told) two feet of water. So there was no damage to the house or what was in it. Matter of fact it got rented out to a friend whose house in another part of town was utterly destroyed.

So as far as that residence there was no flooding. Of course everybody had to seal up their refrigerator and leave it in the street to be hauled away without opening it up.

The after "affects" came from the fact that the city still had no facilities, no electricity, no gas, no water, barely any cell phone service, no internet, virtually no police or fire departments, no businesses open, no food, no trash pickup -- and my house was in the neighborhood of three restaurants that all used the same dumpster --- and entire areas were covered in black mold.

And that set of conditions also means-- no employment.

In other words I still had my place to live, if I could take the smell and could contrive ways to eat. But there was no way to make an income.

That's when I cleared out what I could and relocated to North Carolina.

Was your refrigerator one of those?

You keep saying you weren't flooded yet you keep telling me how things that affected you happened because of flooding.

EVERYBODY's refrigerator was one of those. You see, when your power goes out in August, and it sits there in New Orleans heat and now it's October and it's still hot and you still have no power, what you do is seal up the doors and haul it outside. You don't even open the damn thing; it's unhealthy. EVERYBODY had to ditch their fridge whether their home was flooded or not. Because of the lack of electrical power.

Matter of fact I have a pic of that.

Here's what a street in Mid-City looked like in October, after paths had been plowed through the debris. This neighborhood was under eight feet of water. The expression on the car says it all.

​

I found it was easier than I expected to upload these photos, so I made an album out of them which you can peruse and point your finger and giggle how people "deserved it".

Let's do one more. Look at this building -- this is another part of town (Carrollton):

​

See that perfectly-straight line where the building stops? That's where the water was when it was burning, and that's why it burned down to a level line. That's another effect of a flood --- when there's water everywhere no fire department can get to anything, so it just burns down to the water on its own.

Here's the effect of that heat on the stop sign at the corner of that street:

What caused the lack of electrical power? Could it have been flooding?

Usually wind. Downed trees and such. Exploding transformers.

Are you saying flooding couldn't have caused transformers to explode? Trees to fall? That's strange. I didn't think water and electricity mixed well. I've seen the wind blow and blow like a turbine and my neighbor's 40' pine tree remain up. However, when the wind blew AND heavy rains came like pouring piss out of a boot occurred, down it went.

 

[Conservative65]

Many of the right wingers that post here at USMB whine and complain about the "Constitution" but prove in their posts that they have little understanding of how the Constitution gives specific authority to the Supreme Courts function is to interpret the constitutionality of laws and that they have the final say. It is the very constitution the right wingers complain and whine about that gives the SCOTUS that unquestionable authority.

When the court makes a decision on a law they are determining whether it is constitutional or not. Those who disagree with the decision have the constitutional right and a process by which to challenge and try to change the ruling. That takes time, effort and resources. It is easier to just post complaints and whine about a decision on a message board, but there are those who make the efforts, sometimes successful, to change the court's decision.

Where in the Constitution does it specifically say the Supreme Court has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional?

Articles lll and Vl.

Yeah it doesn't say that lol.

The constitution quite specifically does not give the SCOTUS "unquestionable authority" over all branches.

When I asked him where, that's what he said. When I followed up and asked him to show me the specific words, he got at the truth of the matter stating the Court gave themselves the power.

He went from it being IN the Constitution to it being done by the Court itself.

 

[deanrd]

So what are these right wingers saying? Let's get rid of FEMA? Why stop there? Get rid of NOAA and any form of disaster relief. Are they saying when it comes to Americans surviving disasters, fuk em'?

 

[koshergrl]

Where in the Constitution does it specifically say the Supreme Court has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional?

Articles lll and Vl.

Yeah it doesn't say that lol.

The constitution quite specifically does not give the SCOTUS "unquestionable authority" over all branches.

When I asked him where, that's what he said. When I followed up and asked him to show me the specific words, he got at the truth of the matter stating the Court gave themselves the power.

He went from it being IN the Constitution to it being done by the Court itself.

Commies don't give a shit about the Constitution anyway. They lie about it and violate it and seek the elimination of our constitutional government because it expressly forbids their form of government and behavior.