Fucktard??} Goodness me!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you for thoughtfully leaving out "Motherfucking fucktard" Your open-mindedness has been well demonstrated in your contributions continually receiving well, receiving? You are not cute? Straight??
Easy now, I didn't call you a fucktard.
NOTHING suggested in MY response is fiscally impossible........Bull doze the levies, wait a year, assess the situation and do it. Venice DOES exist and could be thought of as an answer the the mess in NOLA.
Look, we already have a massive deficit, and as has been pointed out we've already cutback significantly on domestic programs, and that makes building Venice in Louisiana pretty much impossible.
Well laddie, you can go on all nite bashing....Bush, Congress Homeland Security, YOU jacking your jaws BLAME BLAME ( is that like wa-wa-wa) WE are all to blame. The voting 51% as well a the lazy Liberals not VOTING can share. From the individuals who stayed for whatever the reason. past administrations that cut funding THE GOVENOR OF LA AND MAYOR of NOLA who knew damned well that some COULD NOT LEAVE.
I think I will. You see it's called the first amendment.
Did Galveston fade out of existence, I must have seen the ghosts of the past when I visited a few years back. It's there, and serving a purpose.
I never said that New Orleans should fade out of existence. Please reread my post. I pointed out that Galveston never came back as the port metropolis it once was. There is a difference...
Your attack on me is sure as hell misdirected, but I have found that the "generalist expert", unlike the resident expert, seldom contribute solutions.
None of the problems need be pointed out at this time, they are quite obvious.
I did not mean to attack you, so sorry if it came across that way. You're right, I don't have any answers...that is why I came here to ask questions. Yes, the problems do need to be pointed out at this time. Global warming, federal insurance subsidies for oceanfront communities, our ability to evacuate after disasters; all these need to be addressed. I can't think of a better time for discussing them.
November of last year May have held the hindsight answer of what to do. 51% of the voters fucked up in their choice, tying the rest of us to ??????????????whatever!
I don't know what to make of this sentence.
I so dislike labels. "Fucktard" --- Is that the best that our educational system has done for you, or are you "slow" son??
I like to use all the words at my disposal.
It's the words you use, not the words that you don't, that prove your intelligence.
I mean it's not to be ashamed of - LOOK our president (a two termer) was a C(-) student millioniare, and a CHEERLEADER to boot. Look how well he's done.
I don't know what being a cheerleader has to do with this argument.
Do not expect more of "YOUR LEADERS" than you can deliver yourself.
Why not? Isn't that the purpose of having a government?
OOh Yeh! Look around at the various post many have given their thoughts.
I am. That's why I started this thread.
Dr. Rock is absolutely correct. Homeland Security is about monitoring individual people and everyone is a potential terrorist. It is about monitoring airports, customs and the like. Homeland Security has nothing to do with what to do AFTER disaster strikes.
I am sorry if I misspoke, as I am uninformed on this subject. I was under the impression that part of th post 9/11 reforms were aimed at increasing the fluidity of communications between national, state, and local governments, and also at increasing the ability of emergency personel to respond to post disaster situations (at least the 9/11 Commission report stated that they should be). It would appear that those reforms are either woefully inadequate, incomplete, or infeasible ever. I don't know which of these is the correct answer and would appreciate it if some members of this group could help enlighten me.
The entire paragraph on chain of command makes sense to me, but what can be done to restructure civilian bureaucracy to respond to disastors to respond like the military, without also stiffling dissenting opinions (as the military tends to do) during non-crisis times?
Yes, it is Bush's fault. He was too busy giving policy possition speeches in California on Iraq and enjoying his vacation on the ranch. He should have called out the army immediately and not waited several days.
I agree with this entire sentence, but I feel the duty to question the "vacation" meme. Isn't it entirely possible for a President, so inclined, in this age of communications to run the show from Crawford, or from Cape Cod for that matter? Besides, we all know that, at the very least, Bush is not a hands on President. He delegates (ie lets other make the tough decisions).
[post=340573]Quoted post[/post]