On Jun 24, 3:26 pm, gatt <g...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 12:08 pm, gatt <g...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > I agree. New Orleans was just an accident waiting to happen. Its
> > ridiculous that anyone now would say we should spend more federal
> > money (our money) on this city.
>
> New Orleans is older than America. Consider that New Orleans was an
> old city when Chicago burned. New Orleans was an old city when
> virtually every earthquake hit Los Angeles and San Francisco. They're
> on fault lines. Tsunami zones....the entire US Pacific coast is an
> accident waiting to happen, including Alaska and Hawaii.
You may not have heard but New Orleans is below sea level. It doesn't
make sense to spend tax payer money to rebuild a city underwater that
will flood again. No other city you've mentioned is underwater.
> Did you know that Gulf****t and Biloxi, Mississippi have been nearly
> wiped off the map three times in the last forty years? Betsy, Camille,
> Geoges, Isidore, Ivan, Cindy, Andrew, Hugo... Stastically, the
> Mississippi coast will be hit again "before the end of the 2009" season.
> How many times are we going to rebuild Florida, Texas, South
Carolina...
None of which have had as difficult time recovering as New Orleans,
none of which are below sea level.
> New Orleans was an old city when Mt. St. Helens erupted, and when Mt.
> Hood erupted, and they say Mt. Rainier is a volcano waiting to blow, so
> why aren't we abandoning the entire Pacific Northwest?
We're not still trying to rebuild from Mt. St. Helens but you can bet
we'll still be trying to rebuild New Orleans in 10 years.
> Can you BELIEVE they're fighting wildfires in California again already?
> Seems like it was just last year, every year.
No, actually in California we have very strict restrictions on where
we can rebuild. There are high fire areas where we can't rebuild.
Explain to me again why it makes sense to rebuild a city underwater.
> I don't see why I should have to pay for FEMA services in Oklahoma or
> Kansas. I mean, those people are foolish enough to live in tornado
> alley, why should we have to pay for it, right?
I don't recall anyone saying anything about helping people affected by
natural disasters. I'm talking about the use of federal money to
*BUILD* a city below sea level; which is what is happening in New
Orleans. We should abandon the existing city and build on higher
ground. None of this has anything to do with assisting people in a
disaster.
> Jeeeeeeez. Next thing you know we'll be sending Oregon troops to avenge
> people who were killed in a terrorist target like New York City, which
> makes about as much sense as fighting a war because Hawaii was attacked.
> After all, it's a tsunami/hurricane/volcano accident waiting to
happen.
Oh, I didn't realize you are just irrational.
-Robert
|
