Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, you described an event where power wasn't returned for 30 days. That's all. Aside from being totally unlikely, it's not life threatening.Good god, Patty. As usual you just miss the point entirely. I am talking about a natural disaster scenario that would THREATEN THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE IT DIDNT INITIALLY KILL. Meaning, a poverty stricken family got to higher ground in time but their entire livelihood was destroyed by the disaster anyway. WHAT THEN?Okay let me put it like this: a family with multiple children have a cut-rate insurance plan, or maybe they don't have one at all because they can't afford it. What about those kids who don't have any power in their parents' financial decisions? What happens to them and 10s of thousand other children in poor families? Do we just let them suffer because their parents couldn't afford adequate insurance?And what if a natural disaster in the future extended your blackout by a few months instead? What if you only had enough resources for a month?I was without power for 16 days after Ike, had many trees blown down. I ran 2 generators 24/7 to run refrigeration, the well, the RV for the wife and mother in law so they had AC and took care of the downed trees myself. I'm in better shape now, I have a propane whole home generator and unless a tornado spawned by the storm destroys my house, I'm good to go. If that happens I have good insurance no need for uncle sugar, it's called being prepar
.
That's what insurance is for.
.
Do you think the federal government should buy them all new bicycles if their parents can't afford it? A swimming pool? Orthodontia?
God it's amazing this simple scenario would go completely over your head. It's so fucking stupid, you know that right?
NOT MY FAULT EITHER!!! Fuck those worthless ankle biters. It sucks for them, but I do not give one single flying fuck.The children exist despite their mom's bad decision. But stay with me. Are you listening? THOSE KIDS STILL EXIST EITHER WAY AND IT ISNT THEIR FAULT.
And then they got a brain and started FEMA which does a much better job for big disasters DUHInsurance would mean dick if your no one could assess your claim while youre in peril.And what if a natural disaster in the future extended your blackout by a few months instead? What if you only had enough resources for a month?I was without power for 16 days after Ike, had many trees blown down. I ran 2 generators 24/7 to run refrigeration, the well, the RV for the wife and mother in law so they had AC and took care of the downed trees myself. I'm in better shape now, I have a propane whole home generator and unless a tornado spawned by the storm destroys my house, I'm good to go. If that happens I have good insurance no need for uncle sugar, it's called being prepar
.
That's what insurance is for.
.
Okay let me put it like this: a family with multiple children have a cut-rate insurance plan, or maybe they don't have one at all because they can't afford it. What about those kids who don't have any power in their parents' financial decisions? What happens to them and 10s of thousand other children in poor families? Do we just let them suffer because their parents couldn't afford adequate insurance?
First storms don't last months, their effects might, and that's what insurance is for.
Second people shouldn't have children they can't care for, especially in emergencies. But taking care of people is the responsibility of the State. Over time you regressives have turned everything sideways, making people think the feds should be your mommy and daddy and should care for your every need.
The first person responsible for you and your family is you, it moves up the ladder form there, to the local community, the county, the State and the feds should be the last resort, not the first.
.
BS all the way, eh?Any argument, dupe?All proven fact.Deadbeats my ass. The unfortunate, deplorable. After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?
Did you read this before you posted it?
Assuming you're a retard.....
I was taught not to argue with the mentally deficient....it's bad form.
RW idiocy...NOT MY FAULT EITHER!!! Fuck those worthless ankle biters. It sucks for them, but I do not give one single flying fuck.The children exist despite their mom's bad decision. But stay with me. Are you listening? THOSE KIDS STILL EXIST EITHER WAY AND IT ISNT THEIR FAULT.
Not guilt. No shame. No remorse.
If the parents of those kids survived, they would deserve immediate execution by the most slow and painful means possible. Hell, crucifixion. Anal torture. Get creative.
Oh this is fascinating to hear. Tell me, Patty, WHY is my scenario highly unlikely. I would love to hear it.No, you described an event where power wasn't returned for 30 days. That's all. Aside from being totally unlikely, it's not life threatening.Good god, Patty. As usual you just miss the point entirely. I am talking about a natural disaster scenario that would THREATEN THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE IT DIDNT INITIALLY KILL. Meaning, a poverty stricken family got to higher ground in time but their entire livelihood was destroyed by the disaster anyway. WHAT THEN?Okay let me put it like this: a family with multiple children have a cut-rate insurance plan, or maybe they don't have one at all because they can't afford it. What about those kids who don't have any power in their parents' financial decisions? What happens to them and 10s of thousand other children in poor families? Do we just let them suffer because their parents couldn't afford adequate insurance?And what if a natural disaster in the future extended your blackout by a few months instead? What if you only had enough resources for a month?
That's what insurance is for.
.
Do you think the federal government should buy them all new bicycles if their parents can't afford it? A swimming pool? Orthodontia?
God it's amazing this simple scenario would go completely over your head. It's so fucking stupid, you know that right?
Life is better for rich kids than poor kids. The only way government can fix that is by abolishing capitalism. Then life will suck equally for everyone.
No one gives a shit you're a selfish, pathetic sack of shit. People will step in.NOT MY FAULT EITHER!!! Fuck those worthless ankle biters. It sucks for them, but I do not give one single flying fuck.The children exist despite their mom's bad decision. But stay with me. Are you listening? THOSE KIDS STILL EXIST EITHER WAY AND IT ISNT THEIR FAULT.
Not guilt. No shame. No remorse.
If the parents of those kids survived, they would deserve immediate execution by the most slow and painful means possible. Hell, crucifixion. Anal torture. Get creative.
God are you really going for that usual stupid response aren't you?Insurance would mean dick if your no one could assess your claim while youre in peril.And what if a natural disaster in the future extended your blackout by a few months instead? What if you only had enough resources for a month?I was without power for 16 days after Ike, had many trees blown down. I ran 2 generators 24/7 to run refrigeration, the well, the RV for the wife and mother in law so they had AC and took care of the downed trees myself. I'm in better shape now, I have a propane whole home generator and unless a tornado spawned by the storm destroys my house, I'm good to go. If that happens I have good insurance no need for uncle sugar, it's called being prepar
.
That's what insurance is for.
.
Okay let me put it like this: a family with multiple children have a cut-rate insurance plan, or maybe they don't have one at all because they can't afford it. What about those kids who don't have any power in their parents' financial decisions? What happens to them and 10s of thousand other children in poor families? Do we just let them suffer because their parents couldn't afford adequate insurance?
First storms don't last months, their effects might, and that's what insurance is for.
Second people shouldn't have children they can't care for, especially in emergencies. But taking care of people is the responsibility of the State. Over time you regressives have turned everything sideways, making people think the feds should be your mommy and daddy and should care for your every need.
The first person responsible for you and your family is you, it moves up the ladder form there, to the local community, the county, the State and the feds should be the last resort, not the first.
.
Good fucking god.
Okay. Yes. Those people SHOULDNT have had those kids If they couldn't have adequately provided them. But guess what OKTexas, THEY DID ANYWAY. The children exist despite their mom's bad decision. But stay with me. Are you listening? THOSE KIDS STILL EXIST EITHER WAY AND IT ISNT THEIR FAULT.
Christ. Are you picking up on this yet?
No. Just a response to communist idiocy. I am not my brother's keeper. I didn't get the pleasure of fucking somebody. Why should I be stuck with the pain of the resulting whelp.RW idiocy...
Name one time it has happened.Oh this is fascinating to hear. Tell me, Patty, WHY is my scenario highly unlikely. I would love to hear it.No, you described an event where power wasn't returned for 30 days. That's all. Aside from being totally unlikely, it's not life threatening.Good god, Patty. As usual you just miss the point entirely. I am talking about a natural disaster scenario that would THREATEN THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE IT DIDNT INITIALLY KILL. Meaning, a poverty stricken family got to higher ground in time but their entire livelihood was destroyed by the disaster anyway. WHAT THEN?Okay let me put it like this: a family with multiple children have a cut-rate insurance plan, or maybe they don't have one at all because they can't afford it. What about those kids who don't have any power in their parents' financial decisions? What happens to them and 10s of thousand other children in poor families? Do we just let them suffer because their parents couldn't afford adequate insurance?That's what insurance is for.
.
Do you think the federal government should buy them all new bicycles if their parents can't afford it? A swimming pool? Orthodontia?
God it's amazing this simple scenario would go completely over your head. It's so fucking stupid, you know that right?
Life is better for rich kids than poor kids. The only way government can fix that is by abolishing capitalism. Then life will suck equally for everyone.
Thank god somebody finally arrived at the point. I can go back to being a nice guy now.No one gives a shit you're a selfish, pathetic sack of shit. People will step in.
Don't give me that. You know I'm right but you're too much of a pussy to admit it. Children through out the course of human history have been born to unprepared parents. It's a fact of nature.God are you really going for that usual stupid response aren't you?Insurance would mean dick if your no one could assess your claim while youre in peril.And what if a natural disaster in the future extended your blackout by a few months instead? What if you only had enough resources for a month?
That's what insurance is for.
.
Okay let me put it like this: a family with multiple children have a cut-rate insurance plan, or maybe they don't have one at all because they can't afford it. What about those kids who don't have any power in their parents' financial decisions? What happens to them and 10s of thousand other children in poor families? Do we just let them suffer because their parents couldn't afford adequate insurance?
First storms don't last months, their effects might, and that's what insurance is for.
Second people shouldn't have children they can't care for, especially in emergencies. But taking care of people is the responsibility of the State. Over time you regressives have turned everything sideways, making people think the feds should be your mommy and daddy and should care for your every need.
The first person responsible for you and your family is you, it moves up the ladder form there, to the local community, the county, the State and the feds should be the last resort, not the first.
.
Good fucking god.
Okay. Yes. Those people SHOULDNT have had those kids If they couldn't have adequately provided them. But guess what OKTexas, THEY DID ANYWAY. The children exist despite their mom's bad decision. But stay with me. Are you listening? THOSE KIDS STILL EXIST EITHER WAY AND IT ISNT THEIR FAULT.
Christ. Are you picking up on this yet?
Did you even bother to read the pecking order of responsibility? Go back and read it and try again with something that might relate to what I said.
Wait, it's past your bed time isn't it?
.
Children through out the course of human history have DIED BECAUSE OF unprepared parents. It's a fact of nature.Don't give me that. You know I'm right but you're too much of a pussy to admit it. Children through out the course of human history have been born to unprepared parents. It's a fact of nature.
Oh gee. Let me see. The tsunami of 2004 comes to mind. Like it or not, INNOCENT CHILDREN lived there. You know, human beings they were too young to have any financial responsibility over their own livesName one time it has happened.Oh this is fascinating to hear. Tell me, Patty, WHY is my scenario highly unlikely. I would love to hear it.No, you described an event where power wasn't returned for 30 days. That's all. Aside from being totally unlikely, it's not life threatening.Good god, Patty. As usual you just miss the point entirely. I am talking about a natural disaster scenario that would THREATEN THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE IT DIDNT INITIALLY KILL. Meaning, a poverty stricken family got to higher ground in time but their entire livelihood was destroyed by the disaster anyway. WHAT THEN?Okay let me put it like this: a family with multiple children have a cut-rate insurance plan, or maybe they don't have one at all because they can't afford it. What about those kids who don't have any power in their parents' financial decisions? What happens to them and 10s of thousand other children in poor families? Do we just let them suffer because their parents couldn't afford adequate insurance?
Do you think the federal government should buy them all new bicycles if their parents can't afford it? A swimming pool? Orthodontia?
God it's amazing this simple scenario would go completely over your head. It's so fucking stupid, you know that right?
Life is better for rich kids than poor kids. The only way government can fix that is by abolishing capitalism. Then life will suck equally for everyone.
Name one time it has happened.Oh this is fascinating to hear. Tell me, Patty, WHY is my scenario highly unlikely. I would love to hear it.No, you described an event where power wasn't returned for 30 days. That's all. Aside from being totally unlikely, it's not life threatening.Good god, Patty. As usual you just miss the point entirely. I am talking about a natural disaster scenario that would THREATEN THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE IT DIDNT INITIALLY KILL. Meaning, a poverty stricken family got to higher ground in time but their entire livelihood was destroyed by the disaster anyway. WHAT THEN?Okay let me put it like this: a family with multiple children have a cut-rate insurance plan, or maybe they don't have one at all because they can't afford it. What about those kids who don't have any power in their parents' financial decisions? What happens to them and 10s of thousand other children in poor families? Do we just let them suffer because their parents couldn't afford adequate insurance?
Do you think the federal government should buy them all new bicycles if their parents can't afford it? A swimming pool? Orthodontia?
God it's amazing this simple scenario would go completely over your head. It's so fucking stupid, you know that right?
Life is better for rich kids than poor kids. The only way government can fix that is by abolishing capitalism. Then life will suck equally for everyone.
Cool. We'll even give you Trump. He can be your emperor for life.Or don't, and we'll keep all the military stuff. Hell, the F-22 was built here, over at Lockheed Martin, and we still have that technology for the taking. That ALONE should about cover the refund and further fund our new nation long enough to get things working.Texans pay taxes. Why aren't they entitled to benefit from the programs they have already paid for? If you want to refund all the tax money I have paid to support these programs, I'll be happy to forgo the benefits.
Oh gee. Let me see. The tsunami of 2004 comes to mind. Like it or not, INNOCENT CHILDREN lived there. You know, human beings they were too young to have any financial responsibility over their own livesName one time it has happened.Oh this is fascinating to hear. Tell me, Patty, WHY is my scenario highly unlikely. I would love to hear it.No, you described an event where power wasn't returned for 30 days. That's all. Aside from being totally unlikely, it's not life threatening.Good god, Patty. As usual you just miss the point entirely. I am talking about a natural disaster scenario that would THREATEN THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE IT DIDNT INITIALLY KILL. Meaning, a poverty stricken family got to higher ground in time but their entire livelihood was destroyed by the disaster anyway. WHAT THEN?Do you think the federal government should buy them all new bicycles if their parents can't afford it? A swimming pool? Orthodontia?
God it's amazing this simple scenario would go completely over your head. It's so fucking stupid, you know that right?
Life is better for rich kids than poor kids. The only way government can fix that is by abolishing capitalism. Then life will suck equally for everyone.
But I get it, you don't care about them because you're a whitetrash republican who only cares about the suffering of American children. Okay so let's try this: in the coming decades a major earthquake may devastate the American west coast because of the unstable fault line in the area. Guess what? The lasting effect of that wouid last long past just 30 days.
He may be a white-trash republican that only cares about American children, but I am a multi-generational white-trash libertarian and I don't even give a single fuck about American children. How's that?But I get it, you don't care about them because you're a whitetrash republican who only cares about the suffering of American children.
In other words, no one sat in a house with no power for 30 days. At some point you have to face reality and move.Name one time it has happened.Oh this is fascinating to hear. Tell me, Patty, WHY is my scenario highly unlikely. I would love to hear it.No, you described an event where power wasn't returned for 30 days. That's all. Aside from being totally unlikely, it's not life threatening.Good god, Patty. As usual you just miss the point entirely. I am talking about a natural disaster scenario that would THREATEN THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE IT DIDNT INITIALLY KILL. Meaning, a poverty stricken family got to higher ground in time but their entire livelihood was destroyed by the disaster anyway. WHAT THEN?Do you think the federal government should buy them all new bicycles if their parents can't afford it? A swimming pool? Orthodontia?
God it's amazing this simple scenario would go completely over your head. It's so fucking stupid, you know that right?
Life is better for rich kids than poor kids. The only way government can fix that is by abolishing capitalism. Then life will suck equally for everyone.
Katrina. Those folks moved and started over.
.
