Jeezy
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,327
- Reaction score
- 1,166
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
[/u]I was not saying that Cantor nor Congress would NOT provide financial relief for disaster victims. No such words were espoused by me in any of my posts on this issue.[/u] My problem with Cantor was that he injected politics into a tragic situation that affects hundreds if not thousands of people through no fault of their own. They didn't ask for a tornado or flood to wreck havoc upon their lives, but it happened. Some people may be better prepared to recover; others may not be. Our government at all levels is suppose to be their in such times of need to render assistance. The preception Cantor projected was that unless disaster relief funds were offset by spending cuts, Congress likely would not find the money dispite his insistance that they would. In short, he played politics with a tragic situation and that's what I have a problem with him on.
You don't play such games with people's lives or their livelihood when so many people are suffering due to no fault of their own. But again, it's what he said and how he said it - the words and phrasalogy - that makes a huge difference. Go back and read what he said in his interview then read how I phrased the issue. We may have said the same thing, but we came across very differently. One side (Cantor) injected politics into the matter, the other side (me) showed compassion while also being truthful about our nation's economic problems as it applies to providing disaster relief aid.
In other words, Cantor saw POLITICS FIRST, PEOPLE SECOND. I saw PEOPLE FIRST, POLITICS SECOND. That's the difference!!
...so what your argument boils down to is, "I don't actually disagree with anything of substance, Eric Cantor hurt my feelings."
Oh.
Okay.
I mean, I'm sorry that you're from Huntsville and my heart goes out to you, but you're angry about nothing.