Bush Ratings At All-Time Low
Originally Posted by BSP_5c10n
But is it not in the NATURE of man to destroy ourselves? If you look at things that way, it's not really worth building (or rebuilding) anything... or living for that matter. However our primordial need to survive overshadows that fact, so we live on.
But no, I dont believe that is the TRUE nature of man, but what he has been "taught", for lack of a better word.
Originally Posted by phillycaster
New Orleans has been there for hundreds of years. Building the levees taller, stronger, is not a bad idea.
The rest of them we can ship to Philadelphia?
Yeah....but at what cost? How much are you willing to spend to protect NO? Clinton & company didn't think it was worth it in the 90's when they started cutting budget $$. How much are you willing to spend
Originally Posted by Duker
Spend whatever it costs to rebuild. They rebuilt washington dc after the 1812 war. New Orleans is older than washington dc
Originally Posted by bbcrud
Originally Posted by oldmanatee
Let me guess, you demand a balanced budget, too.
No, I do not think the devestation was a trivial thing....loss of live or property never are. I will stick by my personal responsibility statement from earlier.
And here is a heads up, sparky....you are not important enuff to be watched. Don't flatter yourself. You do know who the NSA is watching, don't you?
No, I do not think the devestation was a trivial thing....loss of live or property never are. I will stick by my personal responsibility statement from earlier.
And here is a heads up, sparky....you are not important enuff to be watched. Don't flatter yourself. You do know who the NSA is watching, don't you?
Clinton did it and Bush is supposed to be better than Clinton. But, here were are with Presidential aproval ratings at the lowest point since Nixon. VP ratings at the lowes in history and Congressional approval ratings even lower.
Anyone notice a common theme here besides me?
And please don't try to use pet names oldmanatee, they come out sounding demeaning.
Let's maintain healthy, respectful debates. Like real Americans.
The so called balanced budget EVERY president has promised has been on paper only....Where would you have cut to get the $$ for NO?
Seriously I can't believe what I'm reading here. So if a major earthquake happens in Los Angeles (yes it has and could happen again) ... The government shouldn't pay to rebuild it? "Wow they're a bunch of morons for building a city near a fault line, screw them."
What if a powerful blizzard hits the northeast? "GEEZ why do people live there?! Don't they know that it snows up there?" lol
Hey while we're at it let's just secede from the gulf coast and let them deal with their hurricanes by themselves. Maybe we won't have to pay more taxes and our insurance rates will be lower.
Get real, people.
What if a powerful blizzard hits the northeast? "GEEZ why do people live there?! Don't they know that it snows up there?" lol
Hey while we're at it let's just secede from the gulf coast and let them deal with their hurricanes by themselves. Maybe we won't have to pay more taxes and our insurance rates will be lower.
Get real, people.
Originally Posted by Duker
Gonzo, I want to ask you a quick question, and I can respect your disagreement with the war, I just don't understand it.....but, after we took it to Iraq, how many attacks have been on our soil?
I'd say it was worth it.
I'd say it was worth it.
What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
The United States government has determined al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden bear responsibility for the attacks. Bin Laden initially denied and later admitted involvement and knowledge of the incidents. He had earlier declared a holy war against the United States and this is seen as a motive for the 9/11 attacks.
Duker wrote:
Spend whatever it costs to rebuild. They rebuilt washington dc after the 1812 war. New Orleans is older than washington dc
But no one is pumping oil out from under DC. BIG difference there.
Spend whatever it costs to rebuild. They rebuilt washington dc after the 1812 war. New Orleans is older than washington dc
But no one is pumping oil out from under DC. BIG difference there.
Originally Posted by BSP_5c10n
Seriously I can't believe what I'm reading here. So if a major earthquake happens in Los Angeles (yes it has and could happen again) ... The government shouldn't pay to rebuild it? "Wow they're a bunch of morons for building a city near a fault line, screw them....
But those in hurricane alley (for example), they have hurricanes EVERY YEAR, and every year you see news coverage showing the damage. And they all say the same thing, "We're gonna rebuild."
They need to take some respnsibility for their decisions.
Darwin. Survival of the fitest.
Originally Posted by oldmanatee
Gonzo, I want to ask you a quick question, and I can respect your disagreement with the war, I just don't understand it.....but, after we took it to Iraq, how many attacks have been on our soil?
I'd say it was worth it.
I'd say it was worth it.
Are you suggesting that we attacked Iraq simply to send a message not to attack us? If that is the case why Iraq? Why not North Korea who has openly threatened our national security?
And thanks for respecting my opinion. Like you said, I can respect your opinion, but I also don't understand where you are coming from.
Originally Posted by Duker
It is very close to the ocean, so close that it can be hit by even the oldest diesel subs still afloat
Gonzo ...
its simple, we wont attck N. Korea or even Cuba for that matter why ? BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO OIL !!! I know you know that, but everyone else seems to think there are other motivations here, like terrorism, atm we are the terrorists, as bad as that sounds.
Originally Posted by Gonzo_xb
Originally Posted by oldmanatee
Gonzo, I want to ask you a quick question, and I can respect your disagreement with the war, I just don't understand it.....but, after we took it to Iraq, how many attacks have been on our soil?
I'd say it was worth it.
I'd say it was worth it.
Are you suggesting that we attacked Iraq simply to send a message not to attack us? If that is the case why Iraq? Why not North Korea who has openly threatened our national security?
And thanks for respecting my opinion. Like you said, I can respect your opinion, but I also don't understand where you are coming from.
And I really do think the message was received.
Duker wrote:
It is very close to the ocean, so close that it can be hit by even the oldest diesel subs still afloat
Ok, I admit it....I dont know what you are trying to say with that comment.
It is very close to the ocean, so close that it can be hit by even the oldest diesel subs still afloat
Ok, I admit it....I dont know what you are trying to say with that comment.
I guess not thats where the improtant people live. Not like those looting welfare recipients
Originally Posted by oldmanatee
All the muslim nations are linked together to destroy us..You and me...And it has been proven that Iraq had supported al queda, Iraq had ignored years of UN warnings so they were the lucky winners of the big lottery....
Originally Posted by Duker
Its also only a few feet above sea level. SO it is not only badly located strategy wise, but its a flooded town waitng to happen. Are we going to argue about rebuilding it?
I guess not thats where the improtant people live. Not like those looting welfare recipients
There are lots of places a few ft. above sea level. But how many of those cities have mining operations going on underneath them? By mining underneath cities we take away that which supports them.






