Bush?
Offline I for one think Bush is by far the worse president this country has had thus far. He has ties with economic scandals such as Enron and Kenneth Lay. And not to mention he helped set up tax shelters in the caymans and other tropical islands which let the multi-millionaires of Enron and other companies avoid paying taxes. infact, they didnt pay taxes in 4 out of their last 5 years at Enron.
and in the process he has not only put this country lower in debt then it has ever been in history, but also screwed the middle and lower class out of money that is rightfully theirs.
EXAMPLE: The Estate Tax, which Bush got rid of, which said that in order to inherit a parents money and land and whatnot the benefactor must pay the government a cetain percentage, now, this may be bad for lower class farmers who do not have alot of money, and may have to sell the farm in order to pay the tax.
(heres the kicker) THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY RECORD OF SOMEONE HAVING TO SELL THE FARM IN ORDER TO PAY THE STATE TAX!
now, lets look at this from the other side of the spectrum: the upper class (who would have to pay much much more than the lower class farmer, which in turn would have fueled the economy) now dont have to pay anything, thus trickling even more money into their pockets.
now, if this isnt a bad president, i dont know what is.
Maybe, I don;t know, but I do know you get most of the fact before you make an opinion.
I get the feeling this debate is not going to end due to the fact that you can tell we are both stubborn and that it is mainly opinionated.
Actually concrete does deteriorate. I don't know its halflife, but after time, it loses a significant amount of its strength, especially when saturated with water after periods of dryness.
Yes, the government did mess up, yes, Katrina could have been prevented(or the damage minimized) but no, we don't have time travel(or the problem would have already been solved, or rather, never happened), and at this point, to rebuild within the city would be somewhat stupid and pointless. We don't know when storms would come, but until we have the technology to build the levees up perfectly in between the time of hurricanes, rebuilding is rather pointless. And there is not a land shortage. If we packed everyone in the world into an area as concentrated as NY, we could fit everyone in Texas. While obviously that is not a fun way to live, Texas is not exactly most of the world. There is plenty of relocation room.
[quote=FranktheTank360]Last i checked, age brought wisdom, NOT knowledge. Just because your older doesn't mean you have more knowledge. People like Greg study all the facts of a subject before jumping to conclusions and making a stand to be For, Against, or Neutral for a subject. Not only that, but Yellow Journalism is still being used in our society and is making the stories seem worse than they really are. The government might have cut the funding to the leevees BECAUSE they're in debt. And seeing as how the army is in the middle east right now, they can't really do much about maintaining them can they? So I repeat, age brings wisdom, NOT knowledge. Just because you've been around longer than someone else has doesn't mean you are smarter.[/quote]
I would agree that age does not bring knowledge, but in this case, KCahill was factually correct. The government is responsible for not warning the public about the breaching of the levees, lying by saying "no one could have predicted the scope of this disaster." As for the military not being able to maintain some levees because they're in Iraq...
The United States Military has some 2.3 million personnel, of which only 133,000 are currently deployed in Iraq, and these are mainly Infantry and Cavalry divisions. We have nearly 500,000 National Guardsmen, and 866,000 reserves. I wouldn't say that the military is so busy that they can't fix some levees. And regarding the military budget; the Bush Administration does not cut funding because we are in debt; hell, they've brought the debt up some three trillion dollars since they first took office in 2001. They cut funding for other reasons that are more in line with their own interests than with the country's.
There really is no excuse the Administration has for the failure of Katrina. The levees were known to be weak, and FEMA explicitly told Bush days before they were breached. Yet he did nothing.
what bush says doesnt always go. he is not a dictator, actions of his have to be varified to a certain extent
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]Actually concrete does deteriorate. I don't know its halflife, but after time, it loses a significant amount of its strength, especially when saturated with water after periods of dryness.
Yes, the government did mess up, yes, Katrina could have been prevented(or the damage minimized) but no, we don't have time travel(or the problem would have already been solved, or rather, never happened), and at this point, to rebuild within the city would be somewhat stupid and pointless. We don't know when storms would come, but until we have the technology to build the levees up perfectly in between the time of hurricanes, rebuilding is rather pointless. And there is not a land shortage. If we packed everyone in the world into an area as concentrated as NY, we could fit everyone in Texas. While obviously that is not a fun way to live, Texas is not exactly most of the world. There is plenty of relocation room.[/quote]
i think that you have just explained what i have been attempting to say. rebuilding when it will happen again is entirely pointless. but hey, on he upside, New york city is a very fun place, i would really like living in a place like that. :)
And this is exactly what should happen on the forums. Instead of putting people down, they should explain to them their faults in their information and have a civilized debate. I thank you for bringing me up to speed on my wrong information.
[quote=Greg]what bush says doesnt always go. he is not a dictator, actions of his have to be varified to a certain extent[/quote]
While I agree with this statement, you should realize that he does have partisan control of both Congress and the House, making it very difficult for the Democrats to actually veto what he says. Also, when Congress agrees on something that Bush doesn't like (say, Stem Cell research), Bush can, and will veto it, and often times support for such a bill disappears because many Republicans wish to vote along party lines.
In total, though he does not have dictatorial control of the country, his power over it is quite strong, and almost always, what he says, does go.
[quote=FranktheTank360]And this is exactly what should happen on the forums. Instead of putting people down, they should explain to them their faults in their information and have a civilized debate. I thank you for bringing me up to speed on my wrong information.[/quote]
Well, I didn't come here to make enemies!
Good!
frank i envy the calmness you have. pass it on. but where were your faults in information?
[quote=Greg][i think that you have just explained what i have been attempting to say. rebuilding when it will happen again is entirely pointless.[/QUOTE]
Really? Do you think the rebuilding of the city of Verdun was similarly pointless, because France was just going to get invaded by Germany again in WWII some twenty years later? I would ask you to think through this statement a little more. Constant repairs in order to save countless lives is never pointless. In fact, it is the moral thing to do.
"its the moral thing to do" that is such a christian statement. morals are also opinions. what you see is morally correct some others may not. but WWII was an event created by people. Katrina was natural and predicted. you can stop war not nature. and they are two entirely different things
[quote=FranktheTank360]Last i checked, age brought wisdom, NOT knowledge. Just because your older doesn't mean you have more knowledge. People like Greg study all the facts of a subject before jumping to conclusions and making a stand to be For, Against, or Neutral for a subject. Not only that, but Yellow Journalism is still being used in our society and is making the stories seem worse than they really are. The government might have cut the funding to the leevees BECAUSE they're in debt. And seeing as how the army is in the middle east right now, they can't really do much about maintaining them can they? So I repeat, age brings wisdom, NOT knowledge. Just because you've been around longer than someone else has doesn't mean you are smarter.[/quote]
Frank, wheres the fact in this quote?
[quote] It is not their fault the levees messed up. that is noones fault.[/quote]
Last time I checked, the US Army Corps admitted fault. So Frank his facts were wrong. The leeves needed repair BEFORE the war, so the war isnt an excusse. I didnt stay in the hurricane, I stayed in Horn Lake MS, 5 miles south of Mephis.
[quote]Texas is not exactly most of the world. There is plenty of relocation room.[/quote]
Like I said before, reconstruction was picked than relocation because:
1. New Orleans runs the Mississpi River, you cant runt the mouth from Mid-Texas
2. The cost of buliding million dollar commerical building (which havent flooded neither the French Quarter) to now build them in the middle of nowhere
3. Depending on the location of Texas, the city can either be hit by tornados or hurricanes (Remember Galvenston?).
4. Try to make 1.3 million move from there home to live in Texas.
Theirs ovbious room, but not with the geographics like the mouth of a major River along with a huge brackish lake for sewage and transportaion through out the Gulf of Mexico. People forget most of the 20% that didnt flood, was the French Quarter (400 dollars per sq foot) and the Central Bussiness District (Our little Manhattan). And like Guru said theirs the culture.
[quote=Greg]"its the moral thing to do" that is such a christian statement. morals are also opinions. what you see is morally correct some others may not. but WWII was an event created by people. Katrina was natural and predicted. you can stop war not nature. and they are two entirely different things[/quote]
Often morals are opinions, yes. I am not a believer in objective morality, however, I naturally assume that human life is valued by practically everyone on the globe. Certainly, I believe that every sane person is going to choose human lives over having to repair some levees.
And yes, war is not the same as a hurricane, however, I would argue that war is human nature, and that it is next to impossible to do anything about. Take the past century for instance; WWI was incited by the death of some pointless Archduke; ending with the Treaty of Versailles, only to begin again 20 years later because Germany got the raw end of the deal. Then we had Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Iran-Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, the list goes on and on. It seems to be human nature to kill one another over almost any reason. While it is possible to prevent war, history has shown us just how difficult that is.
I believe i admitted fault in my info about 5-7 posts back did I not?
[quote=FranktheTank360]I believe i admitted fault in my info about 5-7 posts back did I not?[/quote]
My bad,didnt see it. Correct my error.
That's alright, but I think the army took blame because the American people were looking to blame someone.
[quote=FranktheTank360]That's alright, but I think the army took blame because the American people were looking to blame someone. [/quote]
If we are talking about the Katrina incident, I believe it was FEMA that got the raw end of [i]that[/i] deal.
but certainly you must agree comparing war and natural weather is a bad comparison. As to where franks evidence is, where is your evidence against your claims against me? how do you know what i spend money on? You provided no evidence as to why age matters , you just claimed it did. So you question yourself before others. The jon Benet case, the fellow said he was guilty and he was wrong. The army can do the same. In no way i am saying that is true, but it is a possibility.
Very well, I will choose another example. Take any city that exists on a fault line, which naturally undergoes quite a few earthquakes. Is it foolish to rebuild anything in such a city, since it will be undergoing structural damage with each quake? Is it more prudent to simply let preventable deaths occur, or instead evacuate the entire city and let it decay into nothingness?
i think that would depend on what you consider important. No matter what rebuilding what inevitably will be destroyed soon is not too smart at all. if you hold human life at a high than yes it would be better to evacuate. for the city, it means nothing to me personally. I think that it is just a place.
[quote=Greg]but certainly you must agree comparing war and natural weather is a bad comparison. As to where franks evidence is, where is your evidence against your claims against me? how do you know what i spend money on? You provided no evidence as to why age matters , you just claimed it did. So you question yourself before others. The jon Benet case, the fellow said he was guilty and he was wrong. The army can do the same. In no way i am saying that is true, but it is a possibility.[/quote]
When I was talking about age, I was speaking of "mad little boy". I proved that goverment is reponsible, they admitted, why carry it on any longer? Thiers videos and articles, why say thier wrong?
1900
Galveston Hurricane
12,000 die.
1915
Galveston Hurricane, agian
400 die. 921 million dollars in damage.
I would write all of them, but thats about 3 pages, my point, they still rebuilded. If a city was relocated everytime it was hit by a hurricane, the Gulf Coast (and the whole state of Florida) would be nothing.
some places are more prone than others though. i pick on N.O because it is a huge bowl. I think something like that is kind of stupid in the first place. other places if they do flood dont flood as much as N.O did. and it was bad. would you want it to happen again? (on a side note, i have to go until tomorrow. i dont feel to hot, stomach hurts, and i have to get off)
[quote=Greg]i think that would depend on what you consider important. No matter what rebuilding what inevitably will be destroyed soon is not too smart at all. if you hold human life at a high than yes it would be better to evacuate. for the city, it means nothing to me personally. I think that it is just a place. [/quote]
Take San Francisco for instance; here is a list of the recent earthquakes in the region. The last huge earthquake to hit the region was in 1906.
Let me ask you; what should we do with cities on fault lines, near active or domant volcanoes, on the coast by hurricanes, in Tornado Alley, etc.?
Hope your stomach feels better.
[quote=Greg]some places are more prone than others though. i pick on N.O because it is a huge bowl. I think something like that is kind of stupid in the first place. other places if they do flood dont flood as much as N.O did. and it was bad. would you want it to happen again? (on a side note, i have to go until tomorrow. i dont feel to hot, stomach hurts, and i have to get off)[/quote]
It could be the gateway to hell, the land surronding the River is higher than the land itself. It doesnt have to be a bowl to flood. I remember last year it rained in the North so long they flooded, and their 1000s of feet above sea level. If we had the funding the Afsluitdijk has, we would have this problem in the first place.
[quote=KCahill][quote=FranktheTank360]Last i checked, age brought wisdom, NOT knowledge. Just because your older doesn't mean you have more knowledge. People like Greg study all the facts of a subject before jumping to conclusions and making a stand to be For, Against, or Neutral for a subject. Not only that, but Yellow Journalism is still being used in our society and is making the stories seem worse than they really are. The government might have cut the funding to the leevees BECAUSE they're in debt. And seeing as how the army is in the middle east right now, they can't really do much about maintaining them can they? So I repeat, age brings wisdom, NOT knowledge. Just because you've been around longer than someone else has doesn't mean you are smarter.[/quote]
Frank, wheres the fact in this quote?
[quote] It is not their fault the levees messed up. that is noones fault.[/quote]
Last time I checked, the US Army Corps admitted fault. So Frank his facts were wrong. The leeves needed repair BEFORE the war, so the war isnt an excusse. I didnt stay in the hurricane, I stayed in Horn Lake MS, 5 miles south of Mephis.
[quote]Texas is not exactly most of the world. There is plenty of relocation room.[/quote]
Like I said before, reconstruction was picked than relocation because:
1. New Orleans runs the Mississpi River, you cant runt the mouth from Mid-Texas
2. The cost of buliding million dollar commerical building (which havent flooded neither the French Quarter) to now build them in the middle of nowhere
3. Depending on the location of Texas, the city can either be hit by tornados or hurricanes (Remember Galvenston?).
4. Try to make 1.3 million move from there home to live in Texas.
Theirs ovbious room, but not with the geographics like the mouth of a major River along with a huge brackish lake for sewage and transportaion through out the Gulf of Mexico. People forget most of the 20% that didnt flood, was the French Quarter (400 dollars per sq foot) and the Central Bussiness District (Our little Manhattan). And like Guru said theirs the culture.
[/quote]
You misunderstand my point. I was agreeing, only partially with Greg, in that the city of New Orleans should only be rehabitated AFTER, the levees have been sufficiently set up. That is not to say that people cannot move back in, but I would say that they do so at their own peril.
The bowl nature of the city, which is somewhat below sea level, only makes the danger greater. Therefore, in the light of such possible catastrophe, I personally believe that the levees should be built first, as quickly and efficiently as possible, and made strong enough to withstand any feasible hurricane. Firstly, a complex drain system to quickly remove water for the city is important(especially while the levees are being rebuilt). Secondly, the levees should be built and strengthened as mentioned above. Thirdly, after the city is safe enough from hurricanes, then the majority of people should be moved back in. To solve the problem of all the people who currently cannot afford to live outside of their old homes, I think the insurance corruption which was mentioned of State Farm ought be fixed, so that the inhabitants of Ner Orleans can be recompensated. The surrounding areas will be slightly strained for the time being, but the sooner the city can be fixed, the sooner the former inhabitants(or others) can then move back in safely. Moving people in at this point without a very complex evactuation plan is foolhardy, and even with the evacuation plan, would slow massive restructuring down. In the interest of making New Orleans a thriving high-tech city, it ought be rebuilt from the ground up(after the levees are finished). Because of this, moving people in before the completion would simply slow the process down.
While you mentioned the culture, culture is simply another word for all the biases our ancestors had, and simply, in and of itself, is completely pointless, illogical, and unimportant.
[quote=Lucretius][quote=Greg]i think that would depend on what you consider important. No matter what rebuilding what inevitably will be destroyed soon is not too smart at all. if you hold human life at a high than yes it would be better to evacuate. for the city, it means nothing to me personally. I think that it is just a place. [/quote]
Take San Francisco for instance; here is a list of the recent earthquakes in the region. The last huge earthquake to hit the region was in 1906.
Let me ask you; what should we do with cities on fault lines, near active or domant volcanoes, on the coast by hurricanes, in Tornado Alley, etc.?
Hope your stomach feels better.[/quote]
Do our best to plan in such a way that minimizes the damage through infrastructure upgrades. Not to seem overly confident, but I foresee at some point, having the technology to render all natural disasters(with possible exception of California breaking off or tornados) negligible.
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]
Do our best to plan in such a way that minimizes the damage through infrastructure upgrades. Not to seem overly confident, but I foresee at some point, having the technology to render all natural disasters(with possible exception of California breaking off or tornados) negligible.
[/quote]
Exactly; and yet while damage may be minimized, we cannot wholly erase it, as you acknowledge. However, Greg seemed to be entirely opposed to rebuilding things if they are going to be damaged or destroyed. I do not think you share his view.
No. After all, everything will be destroyed eventually. All expended energy ends at the phase of heat, and either the universe will drift apart forever, and become scattered heat, or it will find an equilibrium, and become somewhat more uniform heat, or it will crunch back together. Before that, our sun will go out. By that logic, we ought do nothing.
EDIT: THat post gave me 616 points. The number of the devil. Except it was really meant to refer, not to the devil, but Nero, emporer of Rome.
[quote=GrapeScentedGuru]Wow, you're right. Like how the buildings shouldn't have fallen down. Because engine oil can't melt that steel right? Oh wait, I forgot that we have fucking physics. Materials under stress (like stress from being hit by a fucking hundred ton iron bird) decreases durability.
......
Never left debris? Are you kidding? Are you serious? Were you there? Okay, let me just clarrify something for you. Those pictures were taken by journalists. Journalists are not federal employees. That makes them civilians. If a national security building was just bombed, would you let anyone who wasn't in your roster go snooping around? Fuck no! The reporters probably got there after they cleared the debris in order to evacuate injured workers. What, you think they'd just stand around gawking at shrapnel? Oh, by the way, do you know how flimsy aeroplane metal is? Very. It has to be, otherwise it'd snap in air, or simply be too heavy to lift off. So if there's a bunch of metal, and if that metal is light and around an explosion, what can you see it doing? Does it drop like a fucking rock where it hit, or does it fly away from the detonation point in accordance with the laws of physics?
I dare you to produce one piece of credible evidence (meaning someone out of college who didn't make their documentary on their iMac) that says there was no debris. If a detective pulls a knife from a corpses back, does that mean they were never stabbed?[/quote]
Let's take this one point at time.
Each steel I-beam in the WTC was constructed using 2 inch-thick strips of high carbon steel measuring 36" across by 22" wide. The melting point of this steel is 1,160* F. Engine oil burns at roughly 250* F, otherwise the FUCKING ENGINE WOULD MELT YOU MORON. [url=http://http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxB.htm]FEMA Report excerpt on the steel.[/url] There is a whole bunch of out of college proffessionals for you.
Next. Debris. As a matter of fact, debris was found. pieces of, as you said, flimsy airplane steel. IN PERFECT CONDITION. In that type of explosion, no debris or very little debris would have made some sense since that kind of heat would have completely incinerated the FLIMSY STEEL USED IN AIRPLANES.
There is the response to your dare, by the way sooooo scary. There is some credible evidence for you by, as you put it, [quote]someone out of college who didn't make their documentary on their iMac[/quote]
Good day
[quote=AcidPrince]Let's take this one point at time.
Each steel I-beam in the WTC was constructed using 2 inch-thick strips of high carbon steel measuring 36" across by 22" wide. The melting point of this steel is 1,160* F. Engine oil burns at roughly 250* F, otherwise the FUCKING ENGINE WOULD MELT YOU MORON. [url=http://http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxB.htm]FEMA Report excerpt on the steel.[/url] There is a whole bunch of out of college proffessionals for you.y[/quote]
Jet engines use jet fuel, which burns, in open air, at a minimum of 260°F. You are right, that the engine oil did not melt the steel. It cannot burn hot enough to do so; however, what it can do is soften the steel, causing it to lose tensile strength, which in turn will cause it to buckle. You can check it out here.
i was talking about the oil. jet feul is mainly kerosene which burns to fast to do much damage. BTW you directed me to a government site which doesn't really have credibility here.... check out some third party sites where you'll get drastically different info. if you are really adventurous, try burning jet fuel and see how fast it burns.
[quote=TSOCORP.com]A kerosene-based product having a maximum distillation temperature of 400 degrees Fahrenheit at the 10 percent recovery point and a final maximum boiling point of 572 degrees Fahrenheit and meeting the American Society of Testing and Materials Specification D 1655 and Military Specifications MIL-T-5624P and MIL-T-83133D (Grades JP-5 and JP-8). It is used for commercial and military turbojet and turboprop aircraft engines[/quote]
i want to emphasize the maximum of 572* F whereas the steel begins to melt at 1,160*F
EDIT***
afterthought--the impact came BEFORE the fire. so weakening due to fire is not a valid rebuttal.
[quote=AcidPrince]i was talking about the oil. jet feul is mainly kerosene which burns to fast to do much damage. BTW you directed me to a government site which doesn't really have credibility here.... check out some third party sites where you'll get drastically different info. if you are really adventurous, try burning jet fuel and see how fast it burns.
[quote=TSOCORP.com]A kerosene-based product having a maximum distillation temperature of 400 degrees Fahrenheit at the 10 percent recovery point and a final maximum boiling point of 572 degrees Fahrenheit and meeting the American Society of Testing and Materials Specification D 1655 and Military Specifications MIL-T-5624P and MIL-T-83133D (Grades JP-5 and JP-8). It is used for commercial and military turbojet and turboprop aircraft engines[/quote]
i want to emphasize the maximum of 572* F whereas the steel begins to melt at 1,160*F
EDIT***
afterthought--the impact came BEFORE the fire. so weakening due to fire is not a valid rebuttal.[/quote]
The metal that supported the World Trade Center was ASTM-A36 structural steel, which has a low carbon alloy content (ranging between .05% - .26%). This means that they burn at hotter temperatures than higher carbon alloy steel, but are also softer and more ductile. The actual carbon content of ASTM-A36 steel is 9,000 mg/m^3, which puts it at slighty less than 1% (.9%) of the content of the steel. The melting point of ASTM-A36 structural steel is between 1426-1538°C.
Now, when the planes hit the World Trade Center, not only did the oil burn, but the building caught fire. You wanted to emphasize a maximum of 572°F, when an out of control house fire can double that temperature in under 3.5 minutes. The building itself is going to burn at hotter temperatures than the ones you gave as a maximum. Regarding your claim that the jet fuel wouldn’t last long; perhaps it would not, but 90,000 liters of it would last longer than you would make it seem. This website (not .gov), lists the maximum temperature of the burning fuel at 1,000°C, not enough to melt the steel. This figure is again lowered to around 750° — 800°C. When steel approaches this temperature, the carbon within it begins to form what is known as cementite — which greatly reduces the strength of the steel.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c3/Phase_diag_iron_carbon-color_temp.png[/img]
The same website I linked to before explains the rest of the problems; a temperature 100° lower than the estimated minimum of 750°C would have caused the A-36 steel to lose half of it’s strength, followed by thermal expansion of the steel; such warping causing the simple physics of buckling to occur, the towers collapsing under their own weight.
The weakening of steel due to fire is a very valid rebuttal, impact or not; the building still burned, and the jet fuel burned long enough for cementite to form and warping of the steel to occur.
[b]You guys have way too much free time[/b]
where did we go from N.O to WTC??
I am not wholly opposed to rebuilding, but i am when the possibility of it being destroyed within months, or next year are greater. A hurricane can come in and destroy the rebuilding process just like katrina, that is what i am saying. However if you can make it so the majority of the damage hurricanes cause can be prevented then it would be fine. But i dont think that the levees can be rebuilt entirely and that well within the time between hurricanes, and would our levees be strong enough in the first place? I got astray on the topic and did not think everything through, allthough i do still stand by my opinion that they should have evacuated. If there was knowledge of deteriorated levees it would have been best to leave. but besides that, the government did mess up, but it was also the communities fault as well. N.O should not have relied solely on the government. To blame the government for katrina is blaming the government for a natural disaster. which makes no sense at all. They are responsible in a way for the recovery response time, but the deaths caused by katrina were brought about by the choices of the individuals to stay.
[quote=DreamerGWB][b]You guys have way too much free time[/b][/quote]
Hehehe, well, I move to my dorm in 5 days and college classes start the 27th, so it won't last.
If people dont have enough sense to listen to people about how bad the weather is going to be, they they reserve the right to be stupid and kill themselves by staying. And even if it wasnt as bad as it was, whats it going to hurt if you pack up and evacuate? A few dollars in gas money I think is enough to give up to be safe from harm.
as was said before, not everyone there has a car frank. but i do agree that if they know how the weather is and choose to stay they should not complain about the deaths and such.
[quote=FranktheTank360]If people dont have enough sense to listen to people about how bad the weather is going to be, they they reserve the right to be stupid and kill themselves by staying. And even if it wasnt as bad as it was, whats it going to hurt if you pack up and evacuate? A few dollars in gas money I think is enough to give up to be safe from harm.[/quote]
Gas money isnt the problem. 60% of New Orleans is around poverty and about half of them dont own vehlices, they rely on the Metro Busses. So, when the storm came, vast majority went to the closest safest and place in New Orleans, the Dome. The others stayed in their homes, and like Greg said, mostly of stupidity or pride. They were rescered and brought over the Interstate to the Convention Center. But saying the majortiy desreved to strave, when the they tired to actually get away, (which was walk to the Super Dome, thats a longer walk if you live in Algiers or The Lower East, most busses where shut down on the 28th). Then some who wherent rescused when down St Charles and broke in the stores, for either nessacities... Or asscorsies... Which I wasnt very pleased with myself, it made us look like a whole bunch of theives.
btw i have been wanting to ask. Sorry if this seems offensive(and for being an ass recently), but are they whole stories about wanting plasma T.Vs and all that really true? that seems like a joke, but if that is true then wow...
[quote=Greg]btw i have been wanting to ask. Sorry if this seems offensive(and for being an ass recently), but are they whole stories about wanting plasma T.Vs and all that really true? that seems like a joke, but if that is true then wow...[/quote]
Lol, yes people have stole TVs. Even more ashamly NOPD where stealing. When I got there, I when down Haynes, we own rentals down there, and all where broken into, one renter lost her laptop for work.
Wow that's sad...
[quote=blood pig]Wow that's sad...[/quote]
She works for Charity Hospital. They gave her a new one. Everytime Im sent out there I end up putting a door up, cause people keep taing them to put in their own houses.
wow, i didnt think that would be true. well anyhoo, who do you guys think should replace bush then?
[quote=Greg]wow, i didnt think that would be true. well anyhoo, who do you guys think should replace bush then?[/quote]
Anyone Replicain, Democract, Independent, Green Party. Anyone, that has politcial position, has been around major events and knows how to fix them, and intellgent. Im voting for David Vitter or Bibby Jindal for Govener for La. Whatever one runs, Im not voting for Blanco. Im surpised Nagin won, after what he said. Plus, he was running against the Lt Govener of La. Weird.
that makes sense. someone who can handle a situation. but, call it a stupid, but most good presidents tend to come to an untimely death. ha. but yeah, i think we will end up getting screwed in something no matter what we do. We always do get screwed.
[quote=Greg]that makes sense. someone who can handle a situation. but, call it a stupid, but most good presidents tend to come to an untimely death. ha. but yeah, i think we will end up getting screwed in something no matter what we do. We always do get screwed.[/quote]
Lmao, I couldnt say it better. Like when we had Govener Huey Long, he cared for the poor, and helped them... Two problems, 1 he was a crook, and two... He was phsyocially insane. The man thown down the governers house cause it was too small, he makes one simliar to the White House. He named a bridge after himself, stole money from funding, and somehow made it that people in Louisiana dont have to buy books for school, and was a supporter of the New Deal, He became sentor, then was shot. Another was McKenthin. He was reponsible for the contruction of the Super Dome, he said it would costs no more than 25 million... It costs 130 million, call it kickback? Another Edward Edwards, a good gonvener ran 4 terms, but... Was a crook, ugh. Now hes 70 something and in jail for a scime involing money. Where full of crooks.
i am guessing the whole theivery thing in katrina with T.Vs and such supports that statement even more.
Yea, unfournatlty.
yea, talk to ME about governors! ours was gay!! (NJ governor Mcgreevy)