Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Let them tell it to you.http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070318/26dike.htm Most experts say the Netherlands' model of flood protection as a national imperative is almost impossible to achieve in the United States, a larger, more geographically diverse country that doesn't set national standards for levee quality. Quick note. If you have to "bury" people above the ground, chances are things could go wrong. So you think that article says its not mechanically possible to build these levees? You really don't see that the Netherlands are saying its not possible because our federal government won't take the responsibility to do it? Amazing. I really like how you avoided the next sentence in that article too: But "they've shown us what's possible," says New Orleans author and flood expert John Barry, "and that we're not all crazy for living below sea level in the Bayou." As for your last line, I don't get what your issue is? You really sound like a person with a vendetta against a city that got wiped out by a natural disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Why are you arguing with the kid? Apparantly he thinks that New Orleans was built just a few years ago or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 So you think that article says its not mechanically possible to build these levees? The article is saying that it is possible. But unnecessary considering the sheer amount of land available in this country. Move the city 20 miles north. The Netherlands does not have such luxury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 oh so we don't have the money to build levees but we have money to move major cities? :laugh: wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 The article is saying that it is possible. But unnecessary considering the sheer amount of land available in this country. Move the city 20 miles north.The Netherlands does not have such luxury. I guess you havent decided that people in the Netherlands could just move to Germany yet, huh? Why are you arguing with the kid? Apparantly he thinks that New Orleans was built just a few years ago or something. I think the reason I'm arguing is two fold. First, I find it very personally offensive to act like everyone who lives in New Orleans is dumb or was dumb for doing so. Two, and much more importantly, I think the arguments that he's making are very dangerous. It's extremely disgusting to me to blame a person who is a victim of a natural disaster for that natural disaster's outcome. It also produces a type of cyclical thought that allows the person to rationalize why the response was so poor, as opposed to addressing a problem that was allowed to fester in the national (and state) governments (although the state government is accepting much more responsibility). It should have showed us a problem, and made people believe that they need to fix it. Instead, it became political propaganda, which is worthless to the people who went through it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 oh so we don't have the money to build levees but we have money to move major cities?:laugh: wow You can keep the French Quarter where it is. That is above sea level. Maybe rethink building on a marsh would be in order. You ever been to New Orleans? The low lying areas are located where the poor people live. Not Bourbon Street. Are you for putting these people in harms way? :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 The citizens of the greater Tampa Bay area would like a massive Federal protection project please. As long as we're paying for local improvements, let's get us on the list as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 oh so we don't have the money to build levees but we have money to move major cities?:laugh: wow 6 billion dollars to build a levee that would withstand a category 5 hurricane. No room for that in the 4 TRILLION dollar budget that just came out, which doesn't even include the 10 billion a month we spend on iraq. It's just insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 The citizens of the greater Tampa Bay area would like a massive Federal protection project please.As long as we're paying for local improvements, let's get us on the list as well. New Orleans is much cooler, sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 You can keep the French Quarter where it is. That is above sea level.Maybe rethink building on a marsh would be in order. You ever been to New Orleans? The low lying areas are located where the poor people live. Not Bourbon Street. Are you for putting these people in harms way? :2cents: Wow, I have so many problems with this comment. First, its wrong. Half of uptown was flooded by Katrina. Everywhere from S. Claiborne street up to St. Charles Ave. was basically destroyed. My apartment was under water. I'm not poor. Carrolton was destroyed as well. Many beautiful homes were destroyed, and many middle to upper-middle class homes were destroyed. Second, its so messed up to even put any value based on their economic status on the people who got harmed. What the heck does that mean? What does that matter? Have you ever been to New Orleans? If so, have you been there since Katrina? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I think the reason I'm arguing is two fold. First, I find it very personally offensive to act like everyone who lives in New Orleans is dumb or was dumb for doing so. Two, and much more importantly, I think the arguments that he's making are very dangerous. It's extremely disgusting to me to blame a person who is a victim of a natural disaster for that natural disaster's outcome. It also produces a type of cyclical thought that allows the person to rationalize why the response was so poor, as opposed to addressing a problem that was allowed to fester in the national (and state) governments (although the state government is accepting much more responsibility). It should have showed us a problem, and made people believe that they need to fix it. Instead, it became political propaganda, which is worthless to the people who went through it. 1) People living in New Orleans are dumb for living below sea level. And doubly dumb for asking that they continue to live there in the aftermath. 2) Explain this sentence. "It's extremely disgusting to me to blame a person who is a victim of a natural disaster for that natural disaster's outcome. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 New Orleans is much cooler, sorry Nah, just better known. Come to Ybor City for Gasparilla, it puts Mardi Gras in the French Quarter to shame now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 6 billion dollars to build a levee that would withstand a category 5 hurricane. No room for that in the 4 TRILLION dollar budget that just came out, which doesn't even include the 10 billion a month we spend on iraq. It's just insane. No. It is called smart spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 No. It is called smart spending. What does that even mean? What is called smart spending? Spending 4 trillion is smart? These one sentence posts are so silly. If you have a thought you should try to explain it and back it up more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 What does that even mean? What is called smart spending? Spending 4 trillion is smart?These one sentence posts are so silly. If you have a thought you should try to explain it and back it up more. Look. You are the one trying to convince me that rebuilding a city six foot below sea level is the prudent thing to do. Maybe this is why I am having a hard time trying to have a serious conversation with you about it. Lets talk about how we could have saved Atlantis. Know what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 What does that even mean? What is called smart spending? Spending 4 trillion is smart? Sure it is smart. So long as you have revenues more than 4 trillion....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 The rebuilding of New Orleans isn't a government project and the history books aren't going to get into how long it took to build better levees. The response is what is going to get attention and hopefully the fact that Bush once again failed to hold anyone responsible. Think back to how history is written and taught. Again: - The decisions to send a small force into Iraq for the occupation period despite calls by his generals and many political leaders at the time. The failure to secure Iraq allowed much of fallout to occur and took the nation to the brink of an all out civil war. - The spread of aggressive socialism in latin america. Most americans prefer to ignore latin america but Bush has been successfully used to energize socials movements all over latin america with Chavez being the most well known. - 9/11 Bush showed great leadership and his speech while standing on the rubble was very good. Despite his policy after the fact he said many of the right things when America needed him to do so. He also let Afghanistan avoid war by turning over Osama and his crew... they didn't deserve this chance but the choice to avoid war was offered and that's meaningful. - The spread of the war on terrorism around the world. While Al Qaeda was certainly around before Bush the spread of violence has increased during his term in office. Spain and the UK were hit hard and the entire western world was reminded that regardless of their feelings for American foriegn policy the enemy hated them. - Katrina. A massive failure of American infrastructure involving a major city. It's arguable that Bush had much to do with this situation other than appointing people to lead emergency organizations that failed their country. It did happen on his watch however and Bush never fired anyone over it. - American torture. For the first time in the life of many Americans the US decided to engage in one of those things that will most likely be viewed as a mistake in hindsight. Like Japanese camps and the red scare what may look smart at the time while caught up in the fear of the moment will look horrible when that fear is nonexistent. Abu Ghraib is also sure to be in college text books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I thought this thread was about Bush's legacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Look. You are the one trying to convince me that rebuilding a city six foot below sea level is the prudent thing to do. Maybe this is why I am having a hard time trying to have a serious conversation with you about it. Lets talk about how we could have saved Atlantis. Know what I mean. Look, you are making ridiculous comments like comparing New Orleans to Atlantis, an imaginary city that supposedly existed 1000 years ago before we knew what plumbing was, let alone levees. Why don't you try to take a look at the whole problem. Realize that 6 billion doesn't even all have to come from the federal government, BUT that the federal government is in the best (and only) position to fix the problem. The US Army corps of engineers even made the levees that broke. It's not like its unreasonable to ask them to come back and build a levee that could withstand a bigger hurricane. But, you keep making these comments like its dumb to live in a city below sea level. But its only dumb to do so in the US. And its only dumb if its susceptible to hurricanes, and not other natural disasters like earthquakes. And the ONLY reason you are saying this is because you feel you have to defend a presidential administration that you probably think has never done anything wrong. Or, at least up until Katrina, you believed that they had no done anything wrong. And now you are stuck defending them with ridiculous comments like "end of conversation, child." And, "its smart spending." What's smart spending? You think spending 4 trillion is smart, but that 6 billion could not fit in that budget? The truth is, its not that hard to make the city safe from hurricanes. The other truth is that in the next 100 years, no hurricane will probably even hit the lake again. But you, and others, make these comments like living in New Orleans was dumb. And that's both wrong and offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Law of averages says that Tampa Bay is more likely to get hit before another Katrina like storm hits NO. So let's get the Fed to pony up a few billion to protect Tampa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I thought this thread was about Bush's legacy. This is part of it. Some are defending his actions in Katrina, others say it detracts from his legacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Law of averages says that Tampa Bay is more likely to get hit before another Katrina like storm hits NO.So let's get the Fed to pony up a few billion to protect Tampa. Serious question, is there something to protect Tampa from? I don't know the city and the foreseeable results if a big hurricane hit it. Just to explain where this is coming from, no one in New Orleans is asking someone to shield them from all hurricanes. No one is saying we need a 1000 foot wall that will knock hurricanes back to the Gulf. All they are saying is that we have the engineering capability to prevent the levees from breaking, so can we do it? Is there something comparable to protect Tampa from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 This is part of it. Some are defending his actions in Katrina, others say it detracts from his legacy. Well, it looks like it derailed way beyond that though. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Sure it is smart. So long as you have revenues more than 4 trillion....... which he doesnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 which he doesnt. So where is the six billion coming from then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.