This, I think, is the real long-term consequence. But, it's often effective in the short-term, and the voting public has short memories and short attention spans.
A true statement only if you think that every abortion removed a viable foetus from a woman. Only true if none of the women would have died without the abortion. Only true if you think a blastocyst is a human being. Only true if in every instance, a foetus had been formed without defect and in the womb and not in the fallopian tubes.
I guess some folks can be pretty ill informed about flood plains. In many instances the flood plain has moved to the homeowner. Suburban sprawl has created flooding where a decade ago such things were unheard of. While visiting the Philly area homes that are 150 years old flooded during summer rains. Mall parking lots and paved roads in ever increasing developments cover more and more of the absorbent ground and punch runoff into the local streams and flooding.
To use the 'shouldn't build there' so-called logic much of this nation needs to be abandoned, earthquake zones, tornado ally- which is expanding, wild fire zones...
kind of silly...
That is merely your opinion.Saying something is true does not make it so.A baby in the womb is still a baby regardless of how many weeks he or she has been in the womb.
I do not think people in this nation ever used that logic.What irks me even more is the fact that year after year it seems the same natural disaster happens, but these people keep building things the same damn way. There is no reason why any building in Florida and any other hurricane magnet should be built out of wood,especially with all the disaster aid those people get every time a hurricane hits those places.
I could care less what Rand Paul thinks about me, as he is a dishonest, conspiracy theorist opportunist.
The statement in red cancels out the statement in blue. :2wave:
If there were no disaster aid, it would be much less likely that a house would be built out of wood in a hurricane zone, or in tornado alley, or in the middle of dry brush. The mentality seems to be that, should the house be destroyed, then the federal government will step in and pay to have it rebuilt.
This is a sore spot about the whole insurance/flood thing that has never made sense to me.Flood plain insurance makes sense, private sector companies have a piss poor record of paying in the event of natural disasters. Trent lott was as amazed as anyone else when he discovered his private sector insurance was denying his claim because it wasn't the hurricane, for which he had insurance but the torrential rains it spawned and thus according to the courts, FLOODS that destroyed his house, that insurance he lacked! :roll:
This is a sore spot about the whole insurance/flood thing that has never made sense to me.
This is a sore spot about the whole insurance/flood thing that has never made sense to me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?