Newt blames the Katrina victims

Vedderlution_Baby

One other thing I don't really get, what's the big deal with the money? I know you guys are going to hate it, but look at the Iraq War. People hardly stir when countless amounts of money are misplaced but when it comes to spending money to help out our fellow citizens, they can go straight to hell. what the hell?

farfromglorified

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

One other thing I don't really get, what's the big deal with the money? I know you guys are going to hate it, but look at the Iraq War. People hardly stir when countless amounts of money are misplaced but when it comes to spending money to help out our fellow citizens, they can go straight to hell. what the hell?

I'll take that money back too, thank you.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

Speaking of either/or, people either ask questions or they don't. I didn't. :cool:

RainDog wrote:

The question is, how can we utilize both when often the strengthening of one leads to the weakening of the other?

Was that supposed to be a period then? :cool:

Vedderlution_Baby

farfromglorified wrote:

I'll take that money back too, thank you.

Good luck finding it. If I come across hundred dollar bills stacked on a fucking palate, we'll split it 75/25. It woulda been 50/50 but i have a finders fee.

RainDog

onelongsong wrote:

the government should not have had to enter the area to begin with. there was a dumbass mayor telling people they didn't need to evacuate;

Yeah, that one's completely untrue. There are plenty of ways to complain about Nagin - but he did tell people to evacuate; and he did it ahead of the curve.

onelongsong wrote:

i thought katrina was the summer after the tsunami but i could be wrong.

The tsunami happened during the Christmas season of 2004 while Katrina happened in August of 2005. So you're both wrong.

onelongsong wrote:

in any event; if the people would have evacuated; the money spent on trying to get in and save lives could have been used to help these people. instead the government had to buy boats and other equipment to get to these people. in the case of the tsunami; the water returned to the ocean. we had ground to walk on. not so with katrina. you have to see the situation for what it was. a water rescue in then a massive hazardous waste site.

There's no such thing as 100% evacuation.

farfromglorified

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

Good luck finding it. If I come across hundred dollar bills stacked on a fucking palate, we'll split it 75/25. It woulda been 50/50 but i have a finders fee.

Ok. But the point is, just because I'm not keen on spending money on more bad levies doesn't mean I'm keen on spending it on bad wars, either.

MakingWaves

soulsinging wrote:

im a big believer that a lot of americans are really dumb. though im not sure it's lack of education and preparation that caused this... probly more so lack of money. not everyone can afford to fold up, drive cross country, and check into a hotel room for a week. these people took a chance and probaly would have been fine if those levees hadnt broken.

I am sure a lot of people have said this type of stuff before but people in New Orleans, and I remember seeing it on the news before the storm, knew that if a surge of level 3 or higher hit then the levees wouldn't hold. The local government is to blame for the catastrophe of those people being stranded. There are plans in place by local government all along the Gulf Coast for situations like this. They chose not to enact it. But the Federal Government doesn't get off the hook either. Their slow reaction when it was obvious the local government had dropped the ball made matters even worse. I think there is blame to go all around including the locals ignorance who wouldn't have gotten on the buses to evacuate had they enacted the plan that was in place.

Vedderlution_Baby

farfromglorified wrote:

Ok. But the point is, just because I'm not keen on spending money on more bad levies doesn't mean I'm keen on spending it on bad wars, either.

I was talking more of the rescue operations and rebuilding but regardless. We all know you're a greedy bastard ffg, so you need not respond (I say this in a joking manner, I refuse to use smilies. I hate them)

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Was that supposed to be a period then? :cool:

Ah, see, now you got me stuck being too literal. There was no question in the post you quoted. And the question you did quote was more a phrasing of the problem and less a direct question to you.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

Ah, see, now you got me stuck being too literal. There was no question in the post you quoted. And the question you did quote was more a phrasing of the problem and less a direct question to you.

Fair enough....snarky answers withdrawn

Now, I do disagree with your "phrasing of the problem", however. The problem is that New Orleans is a city built in a bathtub. Narrowing the problem to levies or wetlands is going to preclude a lot of good solutions.

onelongsong

RainDog wrote:

Yeah, that one's completely untrue. There are plenty of ways to complain about Nagin - but he did tell people to evacuate; and he did it ahead of the curve.

i recall seeing him on the tele telling people the city was safe while the federal government was telling them to evacuate.

raindog wrote:

The tsunami happened during the Christmas season of 2004 while Katrina happened in August of 2005. So you're both wrong.

i said the summer after the tsunami so how was i wrong? didn't 2005 follow 2004?

raindog wrote:

There's no such thing as 100% evacuation.

news flash: people die in natural disasters. thus the name DISASTER. was each life worth the $200K each it cost to save them?

RainDog

onelongsong wrote:

i said the summer after the tsunami so how was i wrong? didn't 2005 follow 2004?

Sorry, my bad. In my quick reading, I thought you wrote that the tsunami happened the summer before Katrina.

El_Kabong

onelongsong wrote:

you stopped short of saying that bush caused the hurricane to divert attention from the war.
can you explain what responsabilities government has in natural disasters? in a disaster of this size; what could the government have done differently? especially after sending so much money to the tsunami victims. how much of the budget was spent trying to evacuate those who refused to leave? if the city was evacuated as ordered; the billions spent on post evacuation would have been spent on rebuilding.
when the government runs out of money it's because you don't want to pay higher taxes.

it may have been after katrina hit, but it's still relavent

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/05/katrina/main1868140.shtml

Feds To Probe Katrina Evacuee Blockade
Why Did Police Turn Back Fleeing New Orleans Residents?


(AP) Federal authorities will review last year's blockade of a Mississippi River bridge by armed police officers who turned back Hurricane Katrina evacuees trying to flee New Orleans......

looks like they tried to save some of that evacuation money, to me....

Vedderlution_Baby

onelongsong wrote:

news flash: people die in natural disasters. thus the name DISASTER. was each life worth the $200K each it cost to save them?

why weren't they? Better that 200k was spent saving people than other stupid shit it could have been used for.

blackredyellow

onelongsong wrote:

news flash: people die in natural disasters. thus the name DISASTER. was each life worth the $200K each it cost to save them?

Just out of curiosity... what is the price tag that you would put on your life, or your family's lives?

onelongsong

El_Kabong wrote:

it may have been after katrina hit, but it's still relavent

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/05/katrina/main1868140.shtml

Feds To Probe Katrina Evacuee Blockade
Why Did Police Turn Back Fleeing New Orleans Residents?


(AP) Federal authorities will review last year's blockade of a Mississippi River bridge by armed police officers who turned back Hurricane Katrina evacuees trying to flee New Orleans......

looks like they tried to save some of that evacuation money, to me....

i remember that now. i can't understand why they did that. they should be punished if they didn't have good cause but the government should not be blamed unless the government ordered it.
something kennedy said has always stuck with me. "ask not what your country can do for you; rather ask what you can do for your country".
america has become a people looking for hand-outs. the result has caused government to be in everyone's personal business. we complain about it while still asking for hand-outs. we can't have it both ways.

onelongsong

blackredyellow wrote:

Just out of curiosity... what is the price tag that you would put on your life, or your family's lives?

i don't put a price tag on human life. humans are worth about 98 cents considering their 98% water and 2% dust. i know this sounds cruel but i'd rather go back to communities helping their neighbors and having government out of daily life then have government be such a big part of our lives. i can understand government intervention when it comes to disaster help but there should be a limit. we're blaming the government for a disaster it didn't create.
let's say i'm hit by lightening today; should the government compensate anyone for the loss? if so then who? and how much? i do nutritional research and honestly feel i'm on the brink of curing cancer. is my life worth more than anyone elses? i don't think so. i pay more in taxes than those people will make in a life time; does that make me worth more?
what price do you put on a human life? if that money could have cured hunger in the us was it worth sacrificing millions to save a few?

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

i don't put a price tag on human life. humans are worth about 98 cents considering their 98% water and 2% dust. i know this sounds cruel but i'd rather go back to communities helping their neighbors and having government out of daily life then have government be such a big part of our lives. i can understand government intervention when it comes to disaster help but there should be a limit. we're blaming the government for a disaster it didn't create.
let's say i'm hit by lightening today; should the government compensate anyone for the loss? if so then who? and how much? i do nutritional research and honestly feel i'm on the brink of curing cancer. is my life worth more than anyone elses? i don't think so. i pay more in taxes than those people will make in a life time; does that make me worth more?
what price do you put on a human life? if that money could have cured hunger in the us was it worth sacrificing millions to save a few?

If you want to change the way things are done, that's all well and good, and you can certainly work towards bringing that about. But for the moment, you and I and everyone else are paying for a Federal Emergency Management Administration. Since it's there, and they're taking our money, is it too much to ask that they manage emergencies?

RainDog

onelongsong wrote:

i recall seeing him on the tele telling people the city was safe while the federal government was telling them to evacuate.

I think I know what you're talking about; and if I do, that is an area where I believe complaints are justified. Sometime after the storm (around when Rita was about to hit, I believe), Nagin was calling on citizens to return to the city ahead of the federal government's recommendation - and likely well ahead of common sense.

onelongsong wrote:

news flash: people die in natural disasters. thus the name DISASTER. was each life worth the $200K each it cost to save them?

Most definitely.

onelongsong

hippiemom wrote:

If you want to change the way things are done, that's all well and good, and you can certainly work towards bringing that about. But for the moment, you and I and everyone else are paying for a Federal Emergency Management Administration. Since it's there, and they're taking our money, is it too much to ask that they manage emergencies?

excellent point. which brings forth the question why tornado victims don't receive the same benefits. what about wildfire victims? the government opens the roads and offers low cost loans to them. you won't see the government giving trailers to these victims when their houses are blown away or burned. you also don't see this being done for hurricane victims in florida. so i ask; why don't all victims of natural disasters get equal treatment?