Kilmer17 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Just gave it... but the question I'm wondering the answer to is whether or not PS thinks you are an idiot for living near a bay that could be hit by a hurricane at any time. An idiot? Not at all. The benefits of living this close to the water greatly outweigh the risks involved. You ARE an idiot though if you live here and arent aware of the inherent risks involved. You ARE an idiot if you live ANYWHERE and expect someone else to solve your problems. If you choose to live in a city that could be hit by a major life threatening storm, and you have no viable action emergency plan to leave, then YES, you are an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 An idiot? Not at all. The benefits of living this close to the water greatly outweigh the risks involved.You ARE an idiot though if you live here and arent aware of the inherent risks involved. You ARE an idiot if you live ANYWHERE and expect someone else to solve your problems. If you choose to live in a city that could be hit by a major life threatening storm, and you have no viable action emergency plan to leave, then YES, you are an idiot. Its not that New Orleanians didnt know the risks. I knew them. I HAD to be there. I accepted the risks. If I stayed in the surge range and expected the government to pay for damages I would consider myself a idiot...he is free to agree I have stayed for hurricanes,but I absolve anyone else of responsibility or liability for my action. Who is asking the government to pay for damages? No one is. I think you are blurring the lines between paying for damages, and FEMA performing its role in assisting americans in times of a disaster. Lesson #2http://www.reason.com/news/show/32966.html Bush's fault? How about America's fault? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190338,00.html I already said I think the state government and local government bear blame as well. I also think the federal government and the president bear blame. I don't get what Lesson #2 is for me. What was lesson #1, while we're on it? are you trying to tell me it was dangerous living in New Orleans right after Katrina? So you think I am racist. Come on, say it. You will feel better. No, I don't think you are a racist. For all I know, you are black. But I do think that you have de-valued New Orleans' citizens for political reasons and you have done it based on your perception that it was poor people who were too dumb to move that were the only ones affected by Katrina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I think this is a sad display of people being willing to say ANYTHING to defend a member of their political party simply because he is a member of that party. Not talking about Kilmer here, just PS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 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. " TWA: Just thought I'd quote this to explain where my question about PS's thoughts about your intelligence were coming from. Apparently, living in New Orleans makes you dumb, even before Katrina hit. As for the second part PS, its called a "natural disaster" for a reason. There was nothing any of those people could do about it. Yet, you call them dumb for being victims to one. Its like saying a rape victim got what coming to them if they had a few drinks in a bar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 TWA: Just thought I'd quote this to explain where my question about PS's thoughts about your intelligence were coming from. Apparently, living in New Orleans makes you dumb, even before Katrina hit.As for the second part PS, its called a "natural disaster" for a reason. There was nothing any of those people could do about it. Yet, you call them dumb for being victims to one. Its like saying a rape victim got what coming to them if they had a few drinks in a bar. I am thinking I should have just stopped at "Don't build a city below sea level. Child. End of conversation." The end result will have been the same. What a worthless exchange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I am thinking I should have just stopped at "Don't build a city below sea level. Child. End of conversation."The end result will have been the same. What a worthless exchange. Your own words really stung you, didn't they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I do not think anybody can deny that handling of Katrina was severely effed up. The buck stops at the top. End of conversation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Their are 2 views to consider: 1. In 20 years Americans will see Bush as the president that took advantage of the world united against terrorism to make political and business gains in the middle east. In 20 years Americans will know that Bush's actions made America less safe. 2. In 20 years the world will see Bush as the POTUS that single handedly did more than any other POTUS to destroy America's good reputation.:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 From what I heard in the immediate aftermath of Katrina, one of the problems regarding the levees was that federal money intended to maintain them kept getting diverted by state and local officials to more "important" projects. I think it's probably impossible to know at this point if the maintenance would have actually preserved the levees had it been performed, but performing no maintenance certainly didn't help the situation. Given the fact that the levees were breached and much of the city was flooded, I believe a big part of the human tragedy was that state/local officials prevented help from getting through for as long as they did. There were trucks of supplies on one end of the interstate, and a bunch of people needing them not far away, yet the drivers weren't allowed to deliver them. No rescue operation is completely devoid of danger, but that was a situation where the drivers really didn't face significant danger -- which leads me to conclude the decision not to let them in was an ass-covering measure by whoever made that decision. Bottom line -- Katrina may reflect poorly on Bush, but not nearly as bad as many here seem to think. State and local officials will look awfully bad, though. By the way, count me in the group that thinks it's worthwhile to build good levees in and around New Orleans. A big part of the problem with abandoning the current site and establishing the city upriver is the issue of home and land ownership. People own land and they own homes -- what happens in the new site? Do they get assigned a plot based on where their previous home stood? Where does that land come from? Much too messy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Talon...What level is good? Cat#3, 5? The notion of housing in the lowest elevations at the very least needs to be addressed,as well as the canals through the city,otherwise you are tempting fate imo. There needs to be good sense used,both there and here in building anywhere in a danger zone. A cat 5 anywhere populated will be a unholy mess,I shudder to think of the devastation here that is likely only a matter of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 That's the sort of question we used to trust the Corps of Engineers with. If I'm the one writing the script, I'd reinforce the levees in accordance with what the Corps of Engineers originally wanted to do to maintain it (but couldn't because the funds were diverted), which as I understand it would withstand a Cat 5 hurricane. And if the Dutch have any input, I'd consider that as well. But the one thing I'd like to add is a high capacity pipeline system taking water inland. IMO, there are too many consistent flood zones in this country, and there are too many consistent drought areas, for us not to do something about it. If we're going to develop infrastructure, to me that just seems like a good step to take. Speaking of infrastructure, one of the reasons I'm against relocating the city is the oil refineries in the area. Until we get a bunch more refineries up and running elsewhere in the country, we are dependent on those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Take a look and the problems faced should be obvious http://www.nola.com/hurricane/images/nolalevees_jpg.jpg Add in that anything you build sinks in the sediment,so it is a continuing effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.