Christians Provide More Aid To Hurricane Victims Than FEMA

[koshergrl]

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'?

No, we're saying we already take better care of them than the government does.

Retards like you who have made it your calling to suck on the government teat while seeking to eliminate all other forms of assistance freak out about it. Nobody cares about retards like you, though. You've made your government bed. Lie in it.

 

[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 It has not been rescinded for 223 years.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.

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.

The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, not you. As I posted, the SCOTOUS interpreted Articles lll and IV as implying the powers and authority 223 years ago that you are denying and failing to recognize. 223 years of SCOTUS examinations, reviews and rulings have confirmed the decision made 223 years ago. 223 years of Congresses and Presidents have affirmed the decision and failed to challenge the ruling and the rulings that confirmed it at least 176 times. That means multiple SCOTUS rulings for 223 years have confirmed the interpretation made in 1794 to be Constitutional. But what did they know, some internet poster on a message board disagrees with them.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, not you. As I posted, the SCOTOUS interpreted Articles lll and IV as implying the powers and authority 223 years ago that you are denying and failing to recognize. 223 years of SCOTUS examinations, reviews and rulings have confirmed the decision made 223 years ago. 223 years of Congresses and Presidents have affirmed the decision and failed to challenge the ruling and the rulings that confirmed it at least 176 times. That means multiple SCOTUS rulings for 223 years have confirmed the interpretation made in 1794 to be Constitutional. But what did they know, some internet poster on a message board disagrees with them.

Bullshit. Our constitution was created so it didn't need interpretation.
And no, those rulings don't make anything "constitutional". It's exactly as he said...the feds voted to give themselves authority they don't have. It means nothing and it certainly isn't *constitutional*.

 

[Conservative65]

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'?

Get rid of things like social welfare programs and let you bleeding hearts that claim to care so much feed, house, clothe, and provide healthcare for those people.

 

[Camp]

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.

Bull shyt. The wording is in the Constitution. You just choose denial as your defense. Just because you do not understand Article lll and lV doesn't mean they are not part of the Constitution. It just means you don't understand them or your denial won't let you affirm them.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, not you. As I posted, the SCOTOUS interpreted Articles lll and IV as implying the powers and authority 223 years ago that you are denying and failing to recognize. 223 years of SCOTUS examinations, reviews and rulings have confirmed the decision made 223 years ago. 223 years of Congresses and Presidents have affirmed the decision and failed to challenge the ruling and the rulings that confirmed it at least 176 times. That means multiple SCOTUS rulings for 223 years have confirmed the interpretation made in 1794 to be Constitutional. But what did they know, some internet poster on a message board disagrees with them.

Sorry, I asked where does the Constitution specifically say it. You replied "Article III and IV". Nothing was mentioned about interpretation but wording. Now you backtrack like the typical Liberal liar.

What I know is you posted it SAID it in there and now jump to interpretation. You lose, son. And badly.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Bull shyt. The wording is in the Constitution. You just choose denial as your defense. Just because you do not understand Article lll and lV doesn't mean they are not part of the Constitution. It just means you don't understand them or your denial won't let you affirm them.

Where does it say "The Supreme Court has the authority to declare laws unconstitutional". If, as you claim, it SAYS what you say, all one has to do is read it. It's not up for interpretation if the words are there. Where are they? The sad part is you haven't even posted any words you now say are a result of interpretation.

 

[Camp]

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.

The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, not you. As I posted, the SCOTOUS interpreted Articles lll and IV as implying the powers and authority 223 years ago that you are denying and failing to recognize. 223 years of SCOTUS examinations, reviews and rulings have confirmed the decision made 223 years ago. 223 years of Congresses and Presidents have affirmed the decision and failed to challenge the ruling and the rulings that confirmed it at least 176 times. That means multiple SCOTUS rulings for 223 years have confirmed the interpretation made in 1794 to be Constitutional. But what did they know, some internet poster on a message board disagrees with them.

Bullshit. Our constitution was created so it didn't need interpretation.
And no, those rulings don't make anything "constitutional". It's exactly as he said...the feds voted to give themselves authority they don't have. It means nothing and it certainly isn't *constitutional*.

You are totally ignorant about the Constitution. The Founders knew a body, entity, would have to be assigned to interpret the Constitution and laws. It was so important to them that they made the SCOTUS and equal branch of government whose specific task was to interpret.

 

[Pogo]

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.

I'm not "saying" I know what caused any particular transformer to explode, nor did I see any do that since I wasn't there. Again --- learn to read. See the word "usually"? That means it's speculation based on past experience.

I also happen to know that transformers are mounted way higher than eight feet, consistently, so no I have no reason to speculate flooding went that high. I have however seen high winds, with or without flooding or even rain, snap trees off, drop power lines and cause it that way. Including here in the forest.

Since you apparently know as much about trees as you don't about electricity, and at the risk of overfilling an obviously taxed cranial capacity, you might be amazed to learn that some trees bend with the wind and others do not. It's the latter that tend to snap.

Then of course there's lightning. And tornadoes commonly spawned by a hurricane. Those also damage electrical systems.

Dumbass.

 

[Pogo]

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'?

They're either saying that "FEMA" is a religion, or that "Christians" are a government entity.

That was never cleared up.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, not you. As I posted, the SCOTOUS interpreted Articles lll and IV as implying the powers and authority 223 years ago that you are denying and failing to recognize. 223 years of SCOTUS examinations, reviews and rulings have confirmed the decision made 223 years ago. 223 years of Congresses and Presidents have affirmed the decision and failed to challenge the ruling and the rulings that confirmed it at least 176 times. That means multiple SCOTUS rulings for 223 years have confirmed the interpretation made in 1794 to be Constitutional. But what did they know, some internet poster on a message board disagrees with them.

Bullshit. Our constitution was created so it didn't need interpretation.
And no, those rulings don't make anything "constitutional". It's exactly as he said...the feds voted to give themselves authority they don't have. It means nothing and it certainly isn't *constitutional*.

You are totally ignorant about the Constitution. The Founders knew a body, entity, would have to be assigned to interpret the Constitution and laws. It was so important to them that they made the SCOTUS and equal branch of government whose specific task was to interpret.

Seems you are since you can't provide the specific words you say were written into it doing what you say the Court has the power to do.

 

[Conservative65]

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'?

They're either saying that "FEMA" is a religion, or that "Christians" are a government entity.

That was never cleared up.

That's what you, as a stupid motherfucker dumb enough to live in a bowl in NO, made up.

 

[Camp]

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.

The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, not you. As I posted, the SCOTOUS interpreted Articles lll and IV as implying the powers and authority 223 years ago that you are denying and failing to recognize. 223 years of SCOTUS examinations, reviews and rulings have confirmed the decision made 223 years ago. 223 years of Congresses and Presidents have affirmed the decision and failed to challenge the ruling and the rulings that confirmed it at least 176 times. That means multiple SCOTUS rulings for 223 years have confirmed the interpretation made in 1794 to be Constitutional. But what did they know, some internet poster on a message board disagrees with them.

Sorry, I asked where does the Constitution specifically say it. You replied "Article III and IV". Nothing was mentioned about interpretation but wording. Now you backtrack like the typical Liberal liar.

What I know is you posted it SAID it in there and now jump to interpretation. You lose, son. And badly.

The Constitution gives the SCOTUS the authority to interpret the Constitution and laws. Once it rules the ruling itself comes becomes constitutional. That is a basic that you can't seem to understand. The 1794 SCOTUS interpreted Articles lll and lV as giving implied authority to SCOTUS via Articles lll and IV. The ruling has been held as Constitutional for 223 years. Exact wording that you are demanding is not necessary to make the ruling constitutional. The court ruling and interpretation itself makes the ruling constitutional. The SCOTUS interpretation is the only one that is recognized. Your interpretation means nothing.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, not you. As I posted, the SCOTOUS interpreted Articles lll and IV as implying the powers and authority 223 years ago that you are denying and failing to recognize. 223 years of SCOTUS examinations, reviews and rulings have confirmed the decision made 223 years ago. 223 years of Congresses and Presidents have affirmed the decision and failed to challenge the ruling and the rulings that confirmed it at least 176 times. That means multiple SCOTUS rulings for 223 years have confirmed the interpretation made in 1794 to be Constitutional. But what did they know, some internet poster on a message board disagrees with them.

Bullshit. Our constitution was created so it didn't need interpretation.
And no, those rulings don't make anything "constitutional". It's exactly as he said...the feds voted to give themselves authority they don't have. It means nothing and it certainly isn't *constitutional*.

You are totally ignorant about the Constitution. The Founders knew a body, entity, would have to be assigned to interpret the Constitution and laws. It was so important to them that they made the SCOTUS and equal branch of government whose specific task was to interpret.

Lol. Shut up, commie. Your sole purpose is to subvert, pervert, and destroy the constitution.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

I'm not "saying" I know what caused any particular transformer to explode, nor did I see any do that since I wasn't there. Again --- learn to read. See the word "usually"? That means it's speculation based on past experience.

I also happen to know that transformers are mounted way higher than eight feet, consistently, so no I have no reason to speculate flooding went that high. I have however seen high winds, with or without flooding or even rain, snap trees off, drop power lines and cause it that way. Including here in the forest.

Since you apparently know as much about trees as you don't about electricity, and at the risk of overfilling an obviously taxed cranial capacity, you might be amazed to learn that some trees bend with the wind and others do not. It's the latter that tend to snap.

Then of course there's lightning. And tornadoes commonly spawned by a hurricane. Those also damage electrical systems.

Dumbass.

But you're refusing to admit it could have been flooding. I've seen transformers do that when flooded.

Transformers for underground power are 8 feet above ground?

I know trees bend. I watched the one that fell bend in the wind and fall in less wind and high levels of water.

Then of course there's flooding that you have already determined couldn't have caused it despite not being there to see.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, not you. As I posted, the SCOTOUS interpreted Articles lll and IV as implying the powers and authority 223 years ago that you are denying and failing to recognize. 223 years of SCOTUS examinations, reviews and rulings have confirmed the decision made 223 years ago. 223 years of Congresses and Presidents have affirmed the decision and failed to challenge the ruling and the rulings that confirmed it at least 176 times. That means multiple SCOTUS rulings for 223 years have confirmed the interpretation made in 1794 to be Constitutional. But what did they know, some internet poster on a message board disagrees with them.

Sorry, I asked where does the Constitution specifically say it. You replied "Article III and IV". Nothing was mentioned about interpretation but wording. Now you backtrack like the typical Liberal liar.

What I know is you posted it SAID it in there and now jump to interpretation. You lose, son. And badly.

The Constitution gives the SCOTUS the authority to interpret the Constitution and laws. Once it rules the ruling itself comes becomes constitutional. That is a basic that you can't seem to understand. The 1794 SCOTUS interpreted Articles lll and lV as giving implied authority to SCOTUS via Articles lll and IV. The ruling has been held as Constitutional for 223 years. Exact wording that you are demanding is not necessary to make the ruling constitutional. The court ruling and interpretation itself makes the ruling constitutional. The SCOTUS interpretation is the only one that is recognized. Your interpretation means nothing.

Where are the words you say gives that. You've been asked multiple times and yet you provide nothing.

I'm not interpreting anything. I simply said there are no such words. That doesn't involve interpretation. It involves the ability to read.

 

[Pogo]

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.

I'm not "saying" I know what caused any particular transformer to explode, nor did I see any do that since I wasn't there. Again --- learn to read. See the word "usually"? That means it's speculation based on past experience.

I also happen to know that transformers are mounted way higher than eight feet, consistently, so no I have no reason to speculate flooding went that high. I have however seen high winds, with or without flooding or even rain, snap trees off, drop power lines and cause it that way. Including here in the forest.

Since you apparently know as much about trees as you don't about electricity, and at the risk of overfilling an obviously taxed cranial capacity, you might be amazed to learn that some trees bend with the wind and others do not. It's the latter that tend to snap.

Then of course there's lightning. And tornadoes commonly spawned by a hurricane. Those also damage electrical systems.

Dumbass.

But you're refusing to admit it could have been flooding. I've seen transformers do that when flooded.

Transformers for underground power are 8 feet above ground?

I know trees bend. I watched the one that fell bend in the wind and fall in less wind and high levels of water.

Then of course there's flooding that you have already determined couldn't have caused it despite not being there to see.

A standard utility pole in the United States is about 40 feet high (or more). There was no flooding anywhere to that level. Period. Simple math.

Eight feet is enough to drown cars, buildings and people. It is not enough to drown a transformer.

Use your head, if you ever get one.

Again -- what usually takes these down is either wind, indirectly through a falling object, or a lightning strike. Neither of which is a "flood".

 

[Pogo]

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'?

They're either saying that "FEMA" is a religion, or that "Christians" are a government entity.

That was never cleared up.

That's what you, as a stupid motherfucker dumb enough to live in a bowl in NO, made up.

That's what the OP made up. That's why I immediately pointed out his false dichotomy.
Then he ran away.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

I'm not "saying" I know what caused any particular transformer to explode, nor did I see any do that since I wasn't there. Again --- learn to read. See the word "usually"? That means it's speculation based on past experience.

I also happen to know that transformers are mounted way higher than eight feet, consistently, so no I have no reason to speculate flooding went that high. I have however seen high winds, with or without flooding or even rain, snap trees off, drop power lines and cause it that way. Including here in the forest.

Since you apparently know as much about trees as you don't about electricity, and at the risk of overfilling an obviously taxed cranial capacity, you might be amazed to learn that some trees bend with the wind and others do not. It's the latter that tend to snap.

Then of course there's lightning. And tornadoes commonly spawned by a hurricane. Those also damage electrical systems.

Dumbass.

But you're refusing to admit it could have been flooding. I've seen transformers do that when flooded.

Transformers for underground power are 8 feet above ground?

I know trees bend. I watched the one that fell bend in the wind and fall in less wind and high levels of water.

Then of course there's flooding that you have already determined couldn't have caused it despite not being there to see.

A standard utility pole in the United States is about 40 feet high (or more). There was no flooding anywhere to that level. Period. Simple math.

Eight feet is enough to drown cars, buildings and people. It is not enough to drown a transformer.

Use your head, if you ever get one.

Again -- what usually takes these down is either wind, indirectly through a falling object, or a lightning strike. Neither of which is a "flood".

Not all transformers are on 40' poles. Some sit on the ground or a concrete pad about 8" thick that sits on the ground.

 

[Conservative65]

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'?

They're either saying that "FEMA" is a religion, or that "Christians" are a government entity.

That was never cleared up.

That's what you, as a stupid motherfucker dumb enough to live in a bowl in NO, made up.

That's what the OP made up. That's why I immediately pointed out his false dichotomy.
Then he ran away.

You took what he said and twisted it to a false dichotomy.