Here we go again

Duke wrote: He advocates blaming Bush for everything that's ever gone wrong anywhere in the last 8 years, that's what.

you're assumptions are wonderful, but you are right. I directly blame him for most things that have gone wrong. When a company goes under, do you blame the line worker or CEO? The CEO. The CEO sets strategy and tone of the organization, the line worker does what he is told and makes direct improvements to his work space as required.

Lets recap.. I said a bunch of crazy stuff.. Thats what I do its sort of a trademark.

Now...

I probed a bunch, made questions, and made people angry. But.. In doing so exposed some interesting parts of your beliefs. Here's what I advocated... Helping people and not drawing the line on helping people.

instantly most of you thought that this meant that those who were in need required a gold plated caddy in their front drive paid for by government money. I merely said those people need help out of a situation.. Sure I did it forcefully and without regard to anyone thoughts or feelings, but what it did is expose many as having their prime political beliefs being driven by(I'll preface by saying, I believe) greed and selfishness. So.. thanks for falling into my little trap.. I'll stop.

Don't talk to me about sustainability. that is a different subject and is driven not only by enviromental factors but also market forces.

btw. my ego is giant.

So you feel like youve won an argument by proving we are selfish? I admit im selfish. And so are you. And so is everyone. All you did is take a giant clusterberkeley and try to pin it on a crappy president, and then rant awhile about how we should never give up on anyone, and insult everyone in the process with lots of bizzare labeling. No win for you.

I gave more to charity last year than I put in my retirement account. I gave exponentially more to the federal government than I gave to charity.

Do I win something?

where's the berkleying ignore button again?

ignorant wrote: Here's what I advocated... Helping people and not drawing the line on helping people. instantly most of you thought that this meant that those who were in need required a gold plated caddy in their front drive paid for by government money.

If you are not drawing a line on helping people, I defy you to prove I don't need a gold plated Caddy paid for by government money.

3 years ago was not the first time in recorded history a major hurricane has hit New Orleans. How is that different from having to provide boats and swimming lessons for anyone who chooses to live there?

And sustainability is KEY since you are blaming the government for failing to make New Orleans sustainable. There's no reason my tax dollars should sustain someone ELSE'S unsustainable lifestyle.

If they want to spend cubic money sustaining their OWN lifestyle, then more power to them... but THAT is the only place market forces come into play.

ignorant wrote:

captainzib wrote: Call me an shiny happy person if you wish, but people who don't listen to such warnings deserve to drown.

I understand the feelings behind this... You need to help yourself etc.. I also agree with Jensenmans comments. There is a reason why I purchased a house away from the water, got my hurricane kit together, and insured everything 8 ways from Sunday. But, my argument is based around the fact that we as humans cannot do this. It is wired innately for us to help our own. If someone was drowning in front of you, would you call them stupid for trying to swim or would you help? All the internet forum bravado in the world wouldn't stop you from helping.

I can't swim so I would probably call for help from someone else then call them stupid for putting themselves in a dangerous situation. Also, your swimming analogy is kinda off. I'm not against the idea of people trying to swim. I'm against the idea of surfers trying to catch the huge waves as a hurricane approaches and they, as animals with the greatest brain power, should have known better.

And before someone calls me a hypocrite, let me restate this. There is a right and a wrong way to do anything that has an inherent risk. Take motorsports as a great example. We all put our lives at some risk when we get on a track, that's why we sign waivers. As such, I am saddened whenever I hear of a racer dying...at a track. Street racers on the other hand, their deaths don't bother me for other than the fact that when one of em goes, it gives all racers and car hobbyists a bad name in the uninformed public opinion.

The world is overpopulated. The people that lack common sense need to go. I see no reason why I should be expected to help attain a civilization like that featured in Idiocracy, just because you think it's what a good person should do.

I'm against the idea of surfers trying to catch the huge waves as a hurricane approaches and they, as animals with the greatest brain power, should have known better.

I, along with pretty much everyone I hung out with as a young'n did this at least once a year. It's what you do as a kid in Florida (not a little kid, but Kid with a capital "K.") In my defense, the part of our brains that evaluates risk doesn't fully develop until our late 20's...and had I died in the process, I would pretty much expect people to say "Wow, that was a pretty berkeleying stupid thing to do." I'm just sayin'.

That's pretty much the case for all Kids. I have lived through some E36 M3 that I probably shouldn't have. Like you, I wouldn't expect anyone to feel sorry for me.

Anyway, the analogies kinda went off on a tangent. My original post in this thread drew the line quite niceley I thought.

People that want to be evacuated but can't under their own means deserve help. People that choose to stay and see what happens get just that. They see what happens and it shouldn't be on us to help them afterwards.

Article at beggining of this thread. said:This time, the city has taken steps to ensure no one has an excuse not to leave. The state has a $7 million contract to provide 700 buses to evacuate the elderly, the sick and anyone around the region without transportation. --- On Saturday police planned to roam neighborhoods, directing residents-in-need to pick up points. The city also planned to reach out to churches, hoping to spread the word about where the buses will pick up evacuees. --- On Saturday police planned to roam neighborhoods, directing residents-in-need to pick up points. The city also planned to reach out to churches, hoping to spread the word about where the buses will pick up evacuees. --- Those in most need of help - the elderly, sick, and those without transportation - will be moved first. Mayor Ray Nagin said buses and trains would begin to evacuate those people beginning early Saturday morning. Those on buses will go to shelters farther north, Sneed said. Those on trains will go to Memphis, Tenn. Neighboring states already were making offers to house evacuees, remembering how many people fled Katrina.

I only jumped into this thread cause early on we were lumping people who refused to evacuate, with those who wanted to, but couldn't. In my opinion, those two groups of people don't deserve to be treated in the same way.

Also, I don't know what the hell is wrong with the quote button.

New Orleans has a long history of big ugly nasty hurricanes. Short synopsis:

http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2010/teams/neworleans1/hurricane%20history.htm

Katrina was not the worst to ever hit down there.

You would think that someone would finally say 'enough is enough' and abandon the damn thing. But as long as we keep pouring tax money in that temporarily dry pond, they'll keep coming back. It's not like humans haven't abandoned towns and cities before.

! IDEA ! The Sierra Club et al wants that area to be levee free so damn bad, how about they buy it from the locals, tear down the levees and let it flood!

Naw, never happen.

New Orleans: a hole in the water, lined with concrete, into which we're forced to pour money.

poopshovel wrote: I gave more to charity last year than I put in my retirement account. I gave exponentially more to the federal government than I gave to charity. Do I win something?

my admiration.

Duke wrote: If you are not drawing a line on helping people, I defy you to *prove* **I don't need a gold plated Caddy paid for by government money.** And sustainability is KEY since you are blaming the government for failing to make New Orleans sustainable. There's no reason my tax dollars should sustain someone ELSE'S unsustainable lifestyle.

1st response... : Define your needs from wants..

2nd do not open that pandora's box..because I could argue that I am supporting your unsustainable lifestyle, by building a bridge nearby for you to drive your hummer H2 over.

ignorant wrote: 1st response... : Define your needs from wants..

You're the one saying we should help people who make bad choices, without limit. Help me - I need a Cadillac, and I've made too many bad choices to afford one.

Remember - YOU set the "help without limits" scenario, not me. You owe me a Cadillac because of that.

2nd do not open that pandora's box..because I could argue that I am supporting your unsustainable lifestyle, by building a bridge nearby for you to drive your hummer H2 over.

I paid taxes too in order to build the bridge. But in truth, the bridge is irrelevant, because I won't die without a bridge; I'll just have a longer drive. Poor stupid stubborn people who stay in New Orleans will die without a levee... but they expect ME to pay for it.

Next.

Duke wrote:

ignorant wrote: 1st response... : Define your needs from wants..

You're the one saying we should help people who make bad choices, without limit. Help me - I need a Cadillac, and I've made too many bad choices to afford one. Remember - YOU set the "help without limits" scenario, not me. You owe me a Cadillac because of that.

2nd do not open that pandora's box..because I could argue that I am supporting your unsustainable lifestyle, by building a bridge nearby for you to drive your hummer H2 over.

I paid taxes too in order to build the bridge. But in truth, the bridge is irrelevant, because I won't die without a bridge; I'll just have a longer drive. Poor stupid stubborn people who stay in New Orleans will die without a levee... but they expect ME to pay for it. Next.

Help without limits was based around who to help not on monetarily... because the phrases "welfare baby" and let them drown were being thrown around, kill them.. let them die.. etc... so now you're like the liberal media taking things out of context.. Glenn Beck would have a field day with you.

they will not die without a levee. they will build houseboats.. You really have a low opinion of other folks..

ignorant wrote: Help without limits was based around who to help not on monetarily... because the phrases "welfare baby" and let them drown were being thrown around, kill them.. let them die.. etc... so now you're like the liberal media taking things out of context.. Glenn Beck would have a field day with you.

Where did you explain this? I'd love to see it. This is the worst case of projection I've seen in a while.

they will not die without a levee. they will build houseboats.. You really have a low opinion of other folks..

Then why haven't they built houseboats yet? They've had 3 years at a bare minimum... and actually, they've had about 300 years. I don't see many houseboats - I see flooded schoolbuses left where they were parked by stupid people who would rather wait for someone to save their stupid asses than actually do something constructive.

You're trying hard here, apparently, but you don't seem to be getting anywhere. Just like one of those little duckies at the shooting gallery: POP bing (reverse) POP bing (repeat)

duke..

you advocate killing people and letting them drown...

have fun with your little hate filled life..

ohhh and because you admitted you would help people.. means I won..

your behind the keyboard bravado is staggering.

ignorant, your posts over the last week have degraded to trolling at best. please grow up

Duke is more than welcome at the Gainesville House of Guns, Greed, and Grain.

So what does everyone who doesn't blame bush, and thinks we should give up on the people in NO think we should do with the people in NO. Personally I don't "blame Bush" but I think a president with better policies would have been able to do more to help the people who were affected by the disaster. And I'm sorry 500 billion dollars would go along way towards fixings problems in this country. Again there is a lot of blame to go around, but what should we do going forward?
These people are on welfare, they don't own their own homes, they don't have jobs, and they live below sea level. When there house is flooded and they are forced out it's not like they can just raid their savings and relocate. They can't get a job because they are homeless. I'll admit they might not want to change their situation and that's their fault, but we as the people signing their welfare checks do have the obligation to either restore their living to the way it was on our dollar in NO, or Pay for them to move somewhere else and get them back to where they were before. By offering welfare in NO we set ourselves up for this. It's really easy, going forward we say no Chapter 9 housing, no Welfare, no social programs in NO. ANYONE who wants help moving can get set up with all that stuff in another city and will need to work to get off of those programs, but no More tax supported people living in NO.

I'm not a Democrat or Republican, and I swing both ways on lots of issues, but one thing I've noticed about a lot of the republicans I know is their father, grandfather, mother, etc. sacrificed a lot and instilled hard working values in them so they really came out of the box into a successful life, had a good education, lots of oportunities, etc. That's great, that doesn't bother me at all, I respect them for that, however where they lose me is when they can't understand that someone from the Ghetto's parents gave them crack, and weren't there, and they had no start in life. And they say things like, these welfare babies are just living on my dime, and support ending all these social programs. They have no plan for these messed up people, and aren't prepared for what will happen when they pull the plug. These people aren't just going to die, they are going to rob and steal to survive. I don't have the answers, and I really don't think either party does. However if our country, and everyone in it can get past this us verse them mentality of Rep. V. Dem, liberal v. conservative, and deal with the real issues and the reality of where we are we will be a MUCH better country for it.

nocones wrote: So what does everyone who doesn't blame bush, and thinks we should give up on the people in NO think we should do with the people in NO.

who is "we" and why should "we" do anything with them? let them do for themselves.

Ignored!

MrJoshua wrote: Ignored!

What is the purpose of this post? If it's to let us know you're ignoring this thread, your obviously not. If it's to point out that you've read something some one has posted and didn't feel it needed a response, you've failed.

AngryCorvair wrote:

nocones wrote: So what does everyone who doesn't blame bush, and thinks we should give up on the people in NO think we should do with the people in NO.

who is "we" and why should "we" do anything with them? let them do for themselves.

We would be the citizens of the United States. I'm asking your opinion on what we should do, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'll mark you down in the Nothing column. What I'd like to find out (as I don't understand this view) is why people who think we should do nothing think this way, and how that would play out. I'm not saying I don't understand as If I think it's a bad argument, I just really don't understand, I don't see the logic in it, and it's never really been spelled out in a way that isn't just trying to attack the other view. Just a simple, this is why I have this view, and this is what I think will happen.

Daniel

As citizens, or as a government? As a federal government, or as a state/local government?