Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

foreigner

Subscribe to foreigner's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Comments

"London has a higher murder rate that NYC

#6 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT AT 2019-12-12 05:18 AM | FLAG: "

Wrong.

London murders in 2019 to date - 133 - link:

www.telegraph.co.uk

NY murders in 2019 to date - 298 - link:

www1.nyc.gov

Both cities have roughly the same populations - London 9.1m, NY 8.6m - so murder rate in NY is double London's.

"Leftist London was the only city to vote against Brexit so this is no surprise.
#1 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-10-23 10:21 AM | REPLY | FLAG"

This is absolutely wrong and sums up your actual understanding ( or lack thereof ) of Brexit.

Of England's largest 6 cities, London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and Bristol, only Birmingham voted leave. All the rest voted remain. Given that Scotland as a whole voted remain, it goes without saying that their major cities, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, voted remain. Similarly for Northern Ireland. Wales voted overall to leave, but Cardiff voted massively to remain. Subsequent investigation suggests that actual Welsh voters voted remain but that there are so many English retirees in Wales that they tipped the balance. Link:

www.thejournal.ie

Everything you spout about "globalist" and "elites" with respect to Brexit is also wrong. There is no more elitist faction than Boris Johnson's government. Johnson, Rees Mogg and Gove are Eton and Oxford. Fully 2/3rds of Johnson's cabinet is public ( i.e. private ) school educated. These guys wouldn't recognise the common man if he slapped them around the face.

These guys are your "globalists."

Rees-Mogg founded a hedge fund company in London and following the Brexit vote divested some of it's operations to Ireland. A major financial supporter of Johnson is supporting a hard or no deal Brexit because he stands to make a fortune from trades he's placed betting against Sterling. The proposed deal that Johnson has struck with the EU effectively gives a future UK government the ability to reduce worker protections currently afforded UK labour under EU regulations. Brexit under Johnson means deregulation as pushed for by the same " globalist capitalists" you profess to hate. These are not the actions and policies of men of the people.

Those political parties fighting Johnson, Labour, Lib-Dems, SNP and a break away faction of Johnson's own party can in no way be considered globalist. If there are any politicians in the UK who do still care about the working class and social equality, they are to be found in these parties.

You need to educate yourself or resist the urge to type - either would work.

#28 - Perhaps Pegasus would like to refresh his memory concerning the motivation behind the EU:

www.parliament.uk

From the article:

"During a speech in Zurich in 1946, Winston Churchill spoke of the need to form a European Family' or a United States of Europe' to ensure peace and prosperity for Europe."

How ironic that Boris Johnson, who greatly admires Churchill and who would love to be compared to him, should be instrumental in seeking to take the UK out of the EU.

The US airfare stays at Trump resorts in Scotland:

www.politico.com

Mike Pence stays at Trump resort in Ireland:

slate.com

Doral next on the list.

Nothing to see here, move along.

#15 - Are you suggesting that FEMA does not provide funding support for disasters other than flooding? Simply click on any of the links I previously provided and select a listed event. Chances are it will show the amount of financial support FEMA provided. Here's an example:

www.fema.gov

This lists $88.2m of individual and household funding as having been provided for a fire event. It seems inherently unlikely that much of this was provided under the flood insurance program, so to address your first point, clearly there are mechanisms for FEMA to provide federal assistance outside of flood insurance, even if, as I readily admit, I do not know what they are called.

Sometimes I find it necessary to cycle back to why I posted a comment, or risk getting off topic and inadvertently defending something I don't actually believe.

The point with which I originally took issue was this " We should abolish all incentives for people to live in flood-prone areas, like the federal flood insurance program". My objection was that there is nowhere in the US which is free of natural disaster threats, so if you promoted this idea, you should accept that any type of federal funding which compensated or assisted victims after an event should be eliminated, because it provides a similar incentive to live in risk prone areas. I provided links to FEMA to show that indeed, many more disaster types than flooding are addressed by this federal agency.

To address your last point, the consistency is therefore not "doing away with the flood insurance program" but doing away with all federal funding programs, however structured, that provide " incentives for people to live in" natural disaster risk zones.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a position I hold.

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable