MSNBC Blasts Paul on FEMA remarks

You can't argue with people who call 911 over a paper cut. They're chickens with their heads already cut off. They're beyond rationalizing with.
 
Why argue with idiots. Ron said what he meant. End FEMA.
It is a huge waste of resources and gets in the way.

Because that was one of the suggestions written here regarding how we can educate the public: by commenting in articles in the national old-school media. True, it is a waste of time to argue with these people, but a small percentage of those that read these articles comment. Good sound, reasonable responses will be read by those who still do not know Dr. Paul's views.
 
I saw this comment --- http://letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2011/08/26/ron_paul_hurricanes/view/?show=all

It's interesting that Ron Paul should choose 1900 as the year to emulate. On September 8, 1900, Galveston sustained a direct hit from a category 4 hurricane. The Weather Bureau office in Galveston had received warnings from the Washington DC office on September 4th that a tropical storm had moved northward over Cuba, but because of limited observational capability in 1900, they had no way of knowing where it currently was or in which direction it was heading.

Large swells from the southeast on the Gulf and clouds at all altitudes moving in from the northeast prompted the Galveston Weather Bureau office to raise the hurricane warning flags on the afternoon of the 7th, but the city had weathered numerous previous storms, and for the most part the population was unconcerned; the weather on the 7th seemed unremarkable, and few people chose to evacuate. They had no idea they were facing would would be, and remains, the deadliest hurricane in U.S. history.

The destruction of property was great, but the greatest tragedy was the enormous death toll, estimated at between 6,000 and 12,000 (and most often reported as about 8,000). Many who survived the actual hurricane died trapped under debris before they could be rescued. 30,000 were left homeless.

Because the bridges to the mainland were destroyed and the telegraph lines were downed, no word of the city's plight got out the the wider world until six survivors on the ship Pherabe, one of the few at the Galveston wharfs to survive the storm, straggled into a telegraph office in Houston at 3 a.m. on September 10th to send a message to the governor of Texas and President McKinley that the city of Galveston had been destroyed. And even then, they had no idea of the full extent of the damage, estimating the dead at five hundred.

This is really what Ron Paul wants to go back to?
 
He definately should've articulated his response better; Chris Wallace is gonna badger him on this. Just like with the Bin Laden and Iran comments, this is gonna put another dent in the momentum and we're gonna take hit in the polls.
 
He definately should've articulated his response better; Chris Wallace is gonna badger him on this. Just like with the Bin Laden and Iran comments, this is gonna put another dent in the momentum and we're gonna take hit in the polls.

I listened to the video snippet. What he said was fine. Clearly this was a clip out of a longer statement. He'll be fine if he's ready to give concrete examples of the failures of FEMA, for example with Katrina, and the cost in lives, treasure and liberty, because of FEMA.

Most Republicans well know how much of a failure FEMA was with Katrina. If Ron is prepared with concrete examples and talking points, this has the potential of being a huge win in showing the negative impacts of putting government in the position of nanny. This is not the proper role of government.
 
Last edited:
Ugghhh, the FEMA thing will not fly well with most voters. Even some of the most small govt advocates feel the federal govt should be there for times of need.
 
Ugghhh, the FEMA thing will not fly well with most voters. Even some of the most small govt advocates feel the federal govt should be there for times of need.

Not the ones I've talked to. Not after Katrina.

Note: The only reason would be that even though they know that FEMA is a huge failure, they don't understand how it would work if it was left up to the states and the people. They also don't think about the money that would still be in their hands if it wasn't extracted to fund FEMA.
 
Last edited:
Not the ones I've talked to. Not after Katrina.

Note: The only reason would be that even though they know that FEMA is a huge failure, they don't understand how it would work if it was left up to the states and the people. They also don't think about the money that would still be in their hands if it wasn't extracted to fund FEMA.

Hey, Im from new orleans and I think we would have been better off without FEMA. But most people will beleive that even with all the abuse, corruption and poor management, a good amount of people got helped. Sure it was a huge transfer of wealth and malinvestment, but stuff like that takes a greater understanding of economics...something very much lacking in the American public.

Just more ammo for those that say "Ron Paul wants to leave people dying on the streets!"
 
FEMA does not prevent death or destruction from storms. FEMA shows up afterward and hinders rebuilding.

Galveston rebuilt and buried their dead without FEMA. As have many other places through history.

That is the point.
 
Ugghhh, the FEMA thing will not fly well with most voters. Even some of the most small govt advocates feel the federal govt should be there for times of need.

The Federal government is only there because we give them the money to exist through our taxes, there's nothing magical about government. They only exist because we pay them, the government doesn't do a single thing that the private sector couldn't do better, not one. Well, except destroy things, kill people, and waste money, they're the best in that department.

The attitude that people have is that the government exists as its own entity and that somehow we "need" them for certain things because they are the only possible source, which is completely false. We would be able to build roads, educate ourselves, protect ourselves, run the mail, provide for the poor, create our own money, and everything else without them. Much more efficiently as well.
 

I guess i just don't understand this whole FEMA thing. I never really looked into it. As long states are allowed to take care of people, I have no problem getting rid of FEMA. However, I don't like the idea of having no form of support in case of an emergency.

When Dr. Paul answers, all i hear is you guys are on your own. Good luck.
 
The Federal government is only there because we give them the money to exist through our taxes, there's nothing magical about government. They only exist because we pay them, the government doesn't do a single thing that the private sector couldn't do better, not one. Well, except destroy things, kill people, and waste money, they're the best in that department.

The attitude that people have is that the government exists as its own entity and that somehow we "need" them for certain things because they are the only possible source, which is completely false. We would be able to build roads, educate ourselves, protect ourselves, run the mail, provide for the poor, create our own money, and everything else without them. Much more efficiently as well.

Hey, I agree on everything you said. Unfortunately one thing the govt has done a great job at is getting the people to believe it IS some sort of "magical" entity that can "fix" things when times get tough..ie. fix the economy, fix the infrastructure, fix my city when it natural disasters hit, etc.
 
Hey, Im from new orleans and I think we would have been better off without FEMA. But most people will beleive that even with all the abuse, corruption and poor management, a good amount of people got helped. Sure it was a huge transfer of wealth and malinvestment, but stuff like that takes a greater understanding of economics...something very much lacking in the American public.

Just more ammo for those that say "Ron Paul wants to leave people dying on the streets!"

Yes, but it is easily countered by giving examples that pull at the emotions, of FEMA stopping volunteers from getting in to deliver much needed food and water and flashing to the conditions in the coliseum; in addition to how they actually stopped residents from leaving the area. All the empty trailers; how people were treated who did occupy them, etc. There are endless examples. He needs to prepare some talking points, that is for sure.
 
I might be one of them. I am not sure though. lol

Ofc some people just like some of the slaves prefered to stay with their slave masters and saw it as a punishment to be freed from their bondage and you cannot help people like that. But getting to Ron's point, I think what he was trying to say is that even though Galvaston suffered a devastating storm the likes we have never seen in this country before, they were able to rebuild and get back on their feet without FEMA.

And speaking of the devil, its the same FEMA - you are doing a heck of a job Brown - who needed 3 days to arrive in New Orleans? the same FEMA that delivered toxic trailers at the cost of $229000 to the tax payers to the people of New Orleans?

But the main problem lies with the Army corp of engineers, those guys have to be the most incompetent department in the whole US govt. They failed to secure the levees and control floods more than I can count and you cant even sue them after your property have been destroyed. FEMA, Army corp of engineers all have to go and if you love it so much, then you pay for it

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21824609/ns/nightly_news/t/fema-trailers/
 
Back
Top