Here we go again

Um, the levees not being fixed goes back a LONG ways. The Sierra Club and other local entities tied the Army Corps of Engineers up in court for YEARS over proposed reinforcements and repairs to the dikes/levees down there. The ACE kept warning them there was going to come a storm which would overwhelm the levees, and damn if it didn't.

An over view:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/berlau200509080824.asp

And here's the Sierra Club saying 'sure we sued them and forced a stop to several projects but it ain't our fault'.

http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2005-09-13a.asp

Bastards.

Maybe I could have said it more tactfully than they deserve to die, but I am not responsible for your life and you are not responsible for mine. If I do something stupid then it is only right that I suffer the consequences.

Other than your kids you SHOULDN'T have the right to control my actions, even if I am doing really stupid stuff like staying behind when the town is being evacuated and looting and shooting at the police/army/whomever. The thing that really gets me is that everytime there is looting the liberals scream that it is justifiable under the circumstances (TVs and shoes?). Any other time you'd be horrified at the THEFT taking place. And no matter what you call it, it is theft and is illegal. There is no justification ever.

As an adult the time is long past that you were wrapped snugly in a warm woolen blankie and protected by your mother or the government. The government should not care for our every need! It is there to do the things that we cannot do individually and need the collective to accomplish, like the military.

It's funny that this subject came up at a group gathering this evening - I found out that I am mild in my views

belteshazzar wrote: keep it flooded.

Yes.

New Orleans was a nice idea, poorly executed. Let's be done with it. Relocate everyone and create Lake New Orleans National Park. It will be much cheaper.

Woodyhfd wrote:

belteshazzar wrote: keep it flooded.

Yes. New Orleans was a nice idea, poorly executed. Let's be done with it. Relocate everyone and create Lake New Orleans National Park. It will be much cheaper.

And abandon all the railroads that go through New Orleans, force all Mississippi ship traffic to Baton Rouge, let I-10 fall back into Lake Ponchatrain, etc etc....

How about you let New Orleans get on with being whatever New Orleans it can afford. Let people take the risks they want with no guarantees of being made whole if the hurricane comes and wipes it out. Take the federal government out of maintaining the levee system and make it a local function. In other words, make New Orleans (or Louisiana and New Orleans) responsible for New Orleans and keep me out of it.

z31maniac wrote: How are levies that have been inadequate for DECADES Bush's fault? I'm not a Bush fan but geez, while were at it lets blame him for the paint on my wheels not hardening properly and having to be refinished.

yes core of engineers was responsible for that failure. But when bush created the dept of homeland security, he stuck Fema under it's control and from there it went to E36 M3. The response is where he failed. And in response to the comment about charity, IIRC the Mormons were there providing affective aid long before the federal government came to the rescue.

New Orleans- Americas' Venice

Datsun1500 wrote:

ignorant wrote: while I'm in complaining mode.. Thanks bush.. thanks for that. now I've got to write 5 or 6 seperate checks per month. for my loans.

I can't thank Bush for that. I got a JOB and paid for my school. I thank my parents for teaching me that......

Umm, I got a job and worked my ass off during school too. Also did well enough to be funded in grad school. You must have had a damn nice job to be able to pay living expenses and tuition because I still ended up with over 20 grand in debt.

I hear things like this post and it confirms my belief that many republicans see a persons status and wealth as a direct indicator of how hard they worked and how responsible they are. So pretty much every one deserves what they got.

My views are considered liberal because I think that reality does not conform to this ideal.

Edit: When did you go to school? Could it have been 10-20-30 years ago when the government paid a larger proportion of college tuition? takes off hat and prepares to eat it

if you choose to live below sea level, you better have some flotation devices around if you want to keep your E36 M3. sure, everyone's free to live wherever they want. guess where i live: at the top of the tallest hill in town! berkeley the valley!

Datsun1500 wrote:

ignorant wrote: while I'm in complaining mode.. Thanks bush.. thanks for that. now I've got to write 5 or 6 seperate checks per month. for my loans.

I can't thank Bush for that. I got a JOB and paid for my school. I thank my parents for teaching me that......

I'm glad you were able to go to the university of pheonix. Got some wonderful jobs for you on my assembly line, running the floor sweeper.

My grad school just cost $948 a credit hour. Between my wife and I.. undegrad and grad.. We owe $90k or so and I didn't really go to that expensive schools. HA!..

Wife needed a masters to be a teacher in the state of NY.. how long will it take a teacher to pay back $30 grand at 30grand a year..

MrJoshua wrote:

ignorant wrote:

carguy123 wrote: And yes, if people won't help themselves then they deserve to die.

wonderful.. you have fun with your life in crazy land.

Where do you draw the line with helping people? Do you continually help people who repeatedly do dumb stuff? The first time? The second time? The 1000th time? Do you ever just give up on a human being? Im honest enough with myself to say yes. It doesnt mean im a baby kicker, just probably more honest with myself than you. So Carguy, dont worry, you wont be alone in crazytown. BTW Ignorant, im to busy kicking babies, you think you could find me a counter that shows all the dollars going out in social programs to help those who cant/wont help themselves?

Greed and selfishness on display. Amazing. Have fun in your world filled with guns where you help noone else. I'm sure the large stacks of money and MRE's(incase of race riots) you surround youurself with will keep you company.

Do you really want to ask the question, where do we draw the line?

ignorant wrote:

MrJoshua wrote:

ignorant wrote:

carguy123 wrote: And yes, if people won't help themselves then they deserve to die.

wonderful.. you have fun with your life in crazy land.

Where do you draw the line with helping people? Do you continually help people who repeatedly do dumb stuff? The first time? The second time? The 1000th time? Do you ever just give up on a human being? Im honest enough with myself to say yes. It doesnt mean im a baby kicker, just probably more honest with myself than you. So Carguy, dont worry, you wont be alone in crazytown. BTW Ignorant, im to busy kicking babies, you think you could find me a counter that shows all the dollars going out in social programs to help those who cant/wont help themselves?

Greed and selfishness on display. Amazing. Have fun in your world filled with guns where you help noone else. I'm sure the large stacks of money and MRE's(incase of race riots) you surround youurself with will keep you company. Do you really want to ask the question, where do we draw the line?

More like logic and reality instead of following some feel good foolish notion that we never give up on anyone ever. You lie to yourself if you think you will never truly give up on anyone. I do ask the question when we draw the line. You should as well. If not-hey man, why don't you help a starving challenger out by giving me a penny today, 2 pennies tomorrow, 4 the next day, etc... I mean seriously, I could get a better job, but its soooo hard and I really need this money and George Bush wont bail me out when I buy too many project cars and MRE's are expensive, and I need some ammo, and some steel toed boots, and some Razor wire for my compound where I live with all of my racist, greedy, crazy, selfish, line drawing republican friends.

Ignorant-if you really want to get riled up-All of your actions are selfish.

MrJoshua wrote: Ignorant-if you really want to get riled up-All of your actions are selfish.

incorrect. I am merely tired of liberals being seen as weak.

so I'm taking a tougher stand.

The question of where do you stop? with helping people is not a question that should be asked. You keep going. Always working at from the bottom up... continous improvement.

ignorant wrote: a governments responsibility is to protect its people and make them safe. It's his fault. period.

Is there an Ignore list I can put you on? If not, can I request one? Sheesh.

It is NOT a government's responsibility to protect its people and keep them safe from the fundamental LAWS OF FREAKING NATURE.

ignorant wrote:

MrJoshua wrote: Ignorant-if you really want to get riled up-All of your actions are selfish.

incorrect. I am merely tired of liberals being seen as weak. so I'm taking a tougher stand. The question of where do you stop? with helping people is not a question that should be asked. You keep going. Always working at from the bottom up... continous improvement.

Incorrect back at you. There are no selfless acts, everything we do is to satisfy some desire of our own.

I wouldnt call liberals weak, just exceedingly optimistic.

Ignorant:

You're acting kind of....

...ignorant.

I was raised by over 4 generations of political classic liberals. Please don't insult their thoughtful and well intentioned position with this dribble.

An here I go again on my own

Goin down the only road Ive ever known,

Like a drifter I was born to walk alone

An Ive made up my mind

I aint wasting no more time

But, here I go again,

Here I go again,

Here I go again,

Here I go...

Not yours to give. http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html

I am by no means a Constitutional scholar, but I have read it a few times, and I will say this. No where in that document, the Bill of Rights or the Decalration of independence does the federal goverment assume resposibliy or do "We the Peaple" imply that the goverment is responsible for our safety or security. The goverment is empowered to "provide for the common defense" by thats it.

This is not a paristan problem and will not be solved by such, but somewhere a few decades ago, peaple assumed the goverment did have that resposibilty, and after a few generations, we have forced it upon them.

But I have been saying this since 9/11, my security and safety are myproblem, and while many peaple disagree and say it is the goverment job, no one has ever been able to piont to anything more than thier own belief and prove it to me.

So the very notion that I am resposible for the bad levee construction, the failure to eveacuate properly this time or the last, or the devsating poverty that may or may not be the result of generations of evolving social programs in that region is not only absurd, but intellectually flawed.

Contrast that to a very real, and legal sense, when you blame the goverment, you are blaming yourself, becuase regardless of what our republic has evolved into, that goverment is still "by the peaple for the peaple"

So if you believe the goverment caused everything that happened, it is not the fault of an office or an agency. Its your fault.

I have seen first hand on multiple occasins what peaple are capable of in terms of helping before after and during a crisis and it is impressive. Then I see what happens when buracracy gets involved (recent Tornado here in Colorado where truckloads of volunteers were turned away becuase of liability issues) and it breaks my heart.

I work for the goverment, trust me, you don't want us involved if possible.

Woodyhfd wrote:

belteshazzar wrote: keep it flooded.

Yes. New Orleans was a nice idea, poorly executed. Let's be done with it. Relocate everyone and create Lake New Orleans National Park. It will be much cheaper.

ALTERNATIVE: Turn New Orleans into a Venice-like city. Another American tourist attraction is born. I mean it seems that it'll stay perpetually flooded without human intervention, why not work with nature instead of against it?

ignorant said:incorrect. I used to post some pretty logical and insightful stuff. Now I am a whiney bitch who makes some pretty berkeleyed up assumptions about people I don't know, solely based on perceived political affiliation.

Fixed that for ya.

poopshovel wrote:

ignorant said:incorrect. I used to post some pretty logical and insightful stuff. Now I am a whiney bitch who makes some pretty berkeleyed up assumptions about people I don't know, solely based on perceived political affiliation.

Fixed that for ya.

you got it right... Judgemental and unstable I is.

egotistical maniacal.

guilty as charged..

but wrong.

never.

Duke wrote:

ignorant wrote: a governments responsibility is to protect its people and make them safe. It's his fault. period.

Is there an Ignore list I can put you on? If not, can I request one? Sheesh. It is NOT a government's responsibility to protect its people and keep them safe from the fundamental LAWS OF FREAKING NATURE.

never once did I say that. you cannot protect 100% from acts of god...

bush's problem is the reaction.. the poorly unorganized reaction that failed to jump in immeadiately when the locals failed...

his fly over, at a slow speed to survey the damage.

total crap.

What exactly do you expect the president of the united states to do in that situation?

I mean really do? The libs have been so busy demeaning the man for the last 8 years, that they fail to realise that the president runs the country. Regardless of who is in the office. Just because you don't like Bush, don't assume that the office of the president is not an important job.

Stating that he failed to react fast enough or Just flew over to assess the damage before getting there, is not a good enough argument for me.

What did you expect the president of the united states to do? Have the presidents pilot drop him off in the midst of the desaster area, to immediatly begin sandbagging????
No, in reality, in your liberal eyes it wouldn't have mattered what the president did, even as extreme as above, because you are part of the blame Bush for everything party.

What exactly could the president have done, to make you people happy? Do you actually, truly believe that Clinton would have done anything different? Or how about Obama? you think Obama would have handled it any differently? I truly doubt it.

Personally I can't wait for Bush to be out of the white house simply so libs will have one less thing to bitch about. Chris

Obama wouldn't have sent a powerful hurricane to kill poor people. He would have aimed it at "the Rich"

At some point the Government does have to give up on people. If you can't afford to stay in an area, you need to find another area, not tell the government to give you more. These people have grown up on handouts and think that if it's not enough, then they are being cheated. If they were in the midwest "Clinging to their guns and bibles" Ignorant would say they needed to accept that the world is changed, thier job is gone and they need to move where jobs are. But since these folks are poor, mostly black, and living on welfare the left feels that we need to support them because there is no way they cound take care of themselves out in the big bad world. Maybe like all the people that used to be in manufacturing, the time has aslo come for these people to relocate and find a place where they can support themselves. You are not entitled to live any wheere you want, especially if once that place is washed out to sea, you can't afford to go back.