Celebs blaming humans for SoCal fires

inmytree wrote:

I'm confused...you say bushy can't be blamed...and that "people" are to blame for living in a flood prone area, thus they shouldn't "bitch"...yet you go on to blame local and state leaders...

which is it, lady...? people or leaders to blame...

well, girlfriend, if you can read, i stated what i had to say. if you can't follow it, i'll type real slow

Kel Varnsen wrote:

To me if the government tells me that the levees protecting my home are going to hold up then I expect them to hold up. It is not like the average citizen would have the training to go inspect them him or herself.

the storm was bigger than what the levees were built for


why would you believe anything the gov't has to say anyway?

810wmb wrote:

well, girlfriend, if you can read, i stated what i had to say. if you can't follow it, i'll type real slow

I read it, and it made no sense....sorry to be the one to point that out to you Mr. Asshat...

Do you blame "officials" or "people"....

keep in mind, your loverboy bushy in not "people"....

810wmb wrote:

what don't you get?

this:

asshat wrote:

local and state had MUCH more to do with not getting people out in time.

coupled with this:

asshat wrote:

so fucking what?

so he should be held responsible for people getting wiped out?

he's responsible for the fires too, right?

and this:

asshat wrote:

the theme of this thread is basically, if you build in a forest, don't bitch when yr house gets burned up

what's the difference with people bitching when they got flooded, when they live in a flood prone area?

on one had you blame people, then you blame leaders....but then you absolve bushy for his role...or lack there of...

810wmb wrote:

the storm was bigger than what the levees were built for


why would you believe anything the gov't has to say anyway?

More recent analysis indicates that faulty levee construction had as much if not more to do with their failure than the strength of the storm.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

in other news....

another trailer park goes up in tornado alley...

whoosh!

The location of tornado alley is also changing.

Cosmo wrote:

...
I agree... Global Warming... not the problem. Where we build... problem.
...
Example... why the HELL would anyone build a house in a place that is nicknamed, 'Tornado Alley'? I mean, the place is fucking called, 'Tornado Alley'!!! Isn't that a big fucking clue???

Maybe because thats where all the farmland is...you need someone to harvest crops right? Or maybe people here in the midwest don't want to deal with earthquakes and landslides or pollution on the west coast, or hurricanes on the east coast and blizzards in the north.

I live in "Tornado Alley" and I can say I've been lucky enough in my 26 years to have never seen a tornado. Yes tornadoes occur more frequently in the Midwest than anywhere else, and theres a good sized flood somewhere in the area every year, and theres the occasional earthquake, but as far as natural disasters go, I'd rather live in the Midwest.

Cosmo wrote:

But... isn't it sort of true?

Everything Carlin said is absolutely true.

Cosmo wrote:

...
Fine. I'm not a farmer.. i like to sleep til noon. And as long as you don't complain when a tornado takes your house, you can like where ever you want. For me... when I see the sign on the Highway that says, 'Welcome to Tornadoville'... I'm not building my house there. Just like the people in Southern California who built their homes on Blacktop Ridge... guess why they call it black top ridge? If they accept the fact that fire is likely to consume their home... fine.
...
Also... do you agree that 'Tornado Alley' is probably NOT the best place to build a sprawling suburb... right?

The thing is there are not many places you can go in the world where you can escape natural disasters. Sure you can move out of Tornado alley, but where to? On the pacific coast you could get hit by an earth quake (or fire in California). On the Atlantic there are hurricanes. And in the north you have things like blizzards and ice. I guess your only real choice is the south west desert but then you are living in a desert. As long as their are building codes in place so that people houses don't fall down if you look at them funny, I don't really have a problem with people living anywhere. I mean if you moved everyone out of those places I just mentioned it would be millions of people.

Kel Varnsen wrote:

If you are an engineer and you design something if you can't guarantee it you have a duty to inform people. If the army corps of engineers knew it wouldn't hold they should have let people know so that they could make up their own ming. You say people shouldn't move to places like that if they are dangerous to live in but unless you are an expert in every type of natural disaster how else would you know?

And if you can't believe the government if they tell you something is safe, does that mean you never fly in a plane, set foot in a tall building or cross a bridge?

everybody knew about it, but no one ever thinks it will happen to them. The levees could have been built much better, but local politicians have been stealing money from the levee fund for decades. Its pretty sad when you compare the ancient levee system in New Orleans to systems in places like the Netherlands.

Anyway I guess when nothing disasterous happens for 30 years or so people get lazy and assume its safe. We have short memories.