A lot of heartbreaking documentaries and a lot of political lip service.

Here is my question - on a practical standpoint; why in hell would we ever rebuild a city below sea level?

Why are we throwing our money away to rebuild a city which is destined to be destroyed again?

Why build a city that is dependent on levies at all - It is destroying the natural ecosystem and has already greatly depreciated the grass flats and ecosystem of the delta?

Wouldn't it be more fiscally responsible to help relocate these people to a more habitable location?

And finally, why don't any of our elected officials have the balls to at least discuss options other than rebuilding a city which we know fact certain will be destroyed again? Shouldn’t the rest of the Country be at least given the opportunity to vote on whether our tax dollars are worth temporarily saving this doomed city?

To pose another question.....would you rebuild New York City????

Here is a study done by the COE.

To understand what hurricane storm surges would do to the city, surge levels for hurricanes of categories 1 through 4 were calculated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the 1995 Metro New York Hurricane Transportation Study using NOAA's SLOSH computer model. SLOSH (Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes) is a computerized model run by the National Hurricane Center to estimate storm surge heights resulting from historical, hypothetical, or predicted hurricanes by taking into account pressure; size, forward speed, track and hurricane winds. According to the 1995 study, a category three hurricane on a worst-case track could create a surge of up to 25 feet at JFK Airport, 21 feet at the Lincoln Tunnel entrance, 24 feet at the Battery, and 16 feet at La Guardia Airport. These figures do not include the effects of tides nor the additional heights of waves on top of the surge.

Also any city along any river anywhere in the country should not be rebuilt due to flooding, oh, and if any major city in Claifornia suffered a devasting earthquake, they should also not be rebuilt because it could happen again, and any city along the east coast could suffer a major tsunami, and should not be rebuilt because it could happen again...so where in the US is there no force of nature that will destroy a city and use that for a reason not to rebuild???

I bet I can come up with a reason why not to rebuild your city if it were destroyed.

why rebuild california after earthquakes....we know eventually they will fall into the Pacific anyway. What a moronic stattement. Why rebuild anything in Florida, they will definately be leveled again sooner than later. No you shouldnt get a voice on our fate...I lost everything I owned 2 years ago today and could care less about what you think should happen here...think the rest of us should get a vote in how NYC carries on post 9-11?

OK maybe I misstated. What I meant to say is why are we using federal tax dollars to rebuild New Orleans? Other than the interstate highways and military complexes for national defense - why is it a federal issue?

If the people of Louisiana think it important - let them rebuild it. BTW yes I feel the same about all communities built on flood plains.

I you want to build on a flood plain - why should the federal government, using tax dollars from people smart enough to not build on a flood plain, bail you out? Guess what happens when you build on a flood plain - eventually it will FLOOD.

(I also feel the same about building on or near fault lines, but really want those folks to stay put - I like the distance between us) :D

The other thing I really don't understand is why are the levees a federal issue in the first place? Do they somehow protect the interstate commerce on the river? It seems to me the channel should be at least as navigable without the levees at flood stage. (I really am asking here)

If the levees were constructed solely to protect the residents choosing to live below sea level (so close to the sea) then why is anyone other than those residents responsible for their construction and maintenance?

Guys I feel bad every time I see the destruction that happens when it floods, anywhere - not just NO. Believe it or nor I gave generously to Katrina Relief efforts and even offered my home to those on here (well speardboard) fleeing NO. But feeling bad does not make me feel responsible and does not make me think it is a federal government issue every time it happens.

60 views and only 3 replys - and one of those mine. Nobody from outside of NO have an opinion - or are we just too worried about being too poltically correct to express our opinions?

60 views and only 3 replys - and one of those mine. Nobody from outside of NO have an opinion - or are we just too worried about being too poltically correct to express our opinions?

I agre with your basic premise, its a lousy location to build a city. The whole Mississippi flood abatement scheme has pretty much created a funnel that shoots the water towards the city and pushes the sediment off shore. If the river was allowed to flood naturally and the sediment was allowed toi replenish the barrier islands of coastal Louisiana there would be less hurricane damage there. As to rebuilding it, well they are Americans and I would rather see my tax dollars helping Americans in need than rebuilding Iraq. Where do you live? If I were a betting man I would guess somewhere that receives federal tax dollars. I personally dont have a problem with my tax dollars going to rebuilding New Orleans and I wouldnt mind it if they went to rebuilding your hometown if it were hit by a storm.

Well, for one thing you are kicking a dead horse. it's just one of those things, dude. Don't worry, be happy.:absolut:
Cheers

Well, for one thing you are kicking a dead horse. it's just one of those things, dude. Don't worry, be happy.:absolut:
Cheers

Thanks for that intellegent response. And quit bogarting that joint - pass it this way, dude.

I agre with your basic premise, its a lousy location to build a city. The whole Mississippi flood abatement scheme has pretty much created a funnel that shoots the water towards the city and pushes the sediment off shore. If the river was allowed to flood naturally and the sediment was allowed toi replenish the barrier islands of coastal Louisiana there would be less hurricane damage there. As to rebuilding it, well they are Americans and I would rather see my tax dollars helping Americans in need than rebuilding Iraq. Where do you live? If I were a betting man I would guess somewhere that receives federal tax dollars. I personally dont have a problem with my tax dollars going to rebuilding New Orleans and I wouldnt mind it if they went to rebuilding your hometown if it were hit by a storm.

I'm in Tallahassee - and you are probably correct that we are receiving federal tax dollars no matter how unjustified. The feds have paid every community to create dependence. Once the funds start flowing, our local gov't will never again know how to exist without them - am I being paranoid or is that their plan?:slap:

:whistle::DThanks for that intellegent response. And quit bogarting that joint - pass it this way, dude.

:whistle::D

:corkysm60: God I miss being 18

me too,I'm 37 but still like the fun!:moon:

I have to think you are a bit paranoid. That and you have a very narrow interpretation of the US Constitution and the powers its deliniates between the federal and state government. While I realize that there are those who believe the Constitution limits the role of the federal to a very few specific responsibilities, the history of the US, the Supreme Court, the Congress and every president over the past 200 years would say you are wrong. Still I would agree that the federal government has in the past 50 years expanded its role into areas that few would have thought possible 200 years ago.

I have to think you are a bit paranoid. That and you have a very narrow interpretation of the US Constitution and the powers its deliniates between the federal and state government. While I realize that there are those who believe the Constitution limits the role of the federal to a very few specific responsibilities, the history of the US, the Supreme Court, the Congress and every president over the past 200 years would say you are wrong. Still I would agree that the federal government has in the past 50 years expanded its role into areas that few would have thought possible 200 years ago.

I would think those roles have incremented into our lives every year for those past 200 years. It is self destrucuction just as it has been for every society that has chosen the path of socialism since the beginning of time. It eeked in at first and then barnstormed at the 'New Deal"

No socialist country has prospered the way a self-reliant capitalist country has and never will. The really odd thing is that every prospering capitalist country eventually devolves into a soft socialistic economy due to political correctness and then to ruin - it is a sad cycle doomed to be repeated by the US and expedited if the likes of Osama (oops sp error) or Shillary are elected.

I would think those roles have incremented into our lives every year for those past 200 years. It is self destrucuction just as it has been for every society that has chosen the path of socialism since the beginning of time. It eeked in at first and then barnstormed at the 'New Deal"

No socialist country has prospered the way a self-reliant capitalist country has and never will. The really odd thing is that every prospering capitalist country eventually devolves into a soft socialistic economy due to political correctness and then to ruin - it is a sad cycle doomed to be repeated by the US and expedited if the likes of Osama (oops sp error) or Shillary are elected.

Now that's a rational post I can agree with.:toast:

Now that's a rational post I can agree with.:toast:

Are you patronizing me?:confused:

That "limited view" as you call it is shared by many who have actually bothered to READ The Constitution. The perversion of that document's written intent by an intrusive federal government doesn't change it.
As to why we are going to pay to rebuild New Orleans...that's pretty simple, especially with a national election on the horizon. If ANY politician even HINTS that he or she won't be making so-called "Katrina recovery" a big priority ( read: throw lots of money at it) that individual will be immediately recognized as a right-wing hate monger by the national media and other candidates desparately pandering to anyone they can buy off with exorbitant promises.

I have to think you are a bit paranoid. That and you have a very narrow interpretation of the US Constitution and the powers its deliniates between the federal and state government. While I realize that there are those who believe the Constitution limits the role of the federal to a very few specific responsibilities, the history of the US, the Supreme Court, the Congress and every president over the past 200 years would say you are wrong. Still I would agree that the federal government has in the past 50 years expanded its role into areas that few would have thought possible 200 years ago.

A lot of heartbreaking documentaries and a lot of political lip service.

Here is my question - on a practical standpoint; why in hell would we ever rebuild a city below sea level?

Why are we throwing our money away to rebuild a city which is destined to be destroyed again?

Why build a city that is dependent on levies at all - It is destroying the natural ecosystem and has already greatly depreciated the grass flats and ecosystem of the delta?
So the delta ecosystem and the grass flats are more important than the people of this nation and a historical and cultural landmark? Hold on, PETA is on line two, they want to talk to you.

Wouldn't it be more fiscally responsible to help relocate these people to a more habitable location?
And where, pray tell would you relocate them that is both more habitable and currently open and how would you pay for it?
And finally, why don't any of our elected officials have the balls to at least discuss options other than rebuilding a city which we know fact certain will be destroyed again? Shouldn’t the rest of the Country be at least given the opportunity to vote on whether our tax dollars are worth temporarily saving this doomed city?

Sorry buddy, we live in a representative democracy. If you want to get everyone(technically) in on a vote for how to spend money and what to do, move to ancient greece. Yell at your constitution and the Romans if you don't like it.

As far as I'm concerned, we all pay into the same pot and we take as needed. LA paid into the same pot that the rest of the states did, but shit happened to LA and they drew down to fix it. That's how a federal government works, pooling together resources to handle things. If we were a confederacy, you would probably be happier since you and your state could decide if it wanted to pitch LA some cash or manpower to help out. Then again if we were a confederacy and Cuba invaded Florida, you guys would have to be asking for military power from every other state to help out if you couldn't handle things yourself.

When hurricane Andrew tore shit up back in 1992 in FL, you didn't see people from other states bitching about sending money and troops to FL to help out. In case you needed a reminder, here's Miami after that one.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Destruction_following_hurricane_andrew.jpg/800px-Destruction_following_hurricane_andrew.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Hurricane_andrew_fema_2563.jpg/800px-Hurricane_andrew_fema_2563.jpg

Should we have paid and sent people over to help recover and rebuild Miami and the rest of South Florida after that one or should we have tried to relocate the citizenry of South Florida elsewhere? What of the other parts of Florida that have been smashed by hurricanes, people living in Tornado Alley, etc. Should we just move everyone out of areas that have been destroyed before and likely will be destroyed again? Where do we put them? Maybe we can put all the Floridians in the unused parts of the desert in Nevada, Louisianans in Arizona, Tornado Alley folks in Utah, etc.:rolleyes:

Yep - all heartbreaking stuff I agree and have already stated as much. I still don't think it is a federal issue.

And btw - I still think it absurd to build a city under sea level so close to the gulf. :crazy: Actualyl it is absurd to build in any floodplain.

Are you patronizing me?:confused:



Nope, I agree with all you said.:slap:

Yep - all heartbreaking stuff I agree and have already stated as much. I still don't think it is a federal issue.

And btw - I still think it absurd to build a city under sea level so close to the gulf. :crazy: Actualyl it is absurd to build in any floodplain.

So, what would you suggest we do? Build like Hong Kong and just start stacking people skyward anywhere that you deem to be reasonable? Then, on top of that, what you you have us do with the land determined to be unhabitable by force of absurdity?

I guess our conceptions of the purpose of federal monies differ. I think of it more like a mutual aid society in poorer neighborhoods, where all the members pay into a slush fund that the neighborhood uses to make improvements and anyone can draw out of in case of emergency.

I'll have to re-read the constitution - I just can't seem to recall 'slush fund' even mentiuoned once. Course it has been a while since I've had a history class so I could be mistaken.

So I take it you think it is perfrctly logical to build below sea level so close to the gulf.

Anyone can brush up on their constitution here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articleiv

Thanks for the link - after a search, I must have missed the slush fund article. I'll do a more thorough search when I have more time.

Amendment X - seems apropos, but that looks like it puts it back on the states.

It is truly amazing how far the tentacles of the federal govenment have intertwined their way into so many facets of our lives, when it is apparent the constitution was really designed to prevent just that.

I'll do a complete read this weekend - it's amazing how much we forget in 20+ years. thanks again for the link

Go diving over the weekend, the Constitution can wait till Tuesday.

Just hit that number and fly up on the windmill. When you get finished comtemplating the constitution and it's obvious rape, I'll fly up there and get you down.:beer:

See if Billy Mac is available - you'll need reinforcements.:eek:

I'm determined to slay this dragon:soapbox:

I'll have to re-read the constitution - I just can't seem to recall 'slush fund' even mentiuoned once. Course it has been a while since I've had a history class so I could be mistaken.

I never said that is what was written. I said that it is how I view the federal government using the money it gets from us. My "conception" of it, IE how I think of it based on what I see. Whether or not that is true is another story.

So I take it you think it is perfrctly logical to build below sea level so close to the gulf.

Naturally its a bad idea, but we've been there forever already and its not like there is anywhere else for the folks to go that is logistically and fiscally reasonable.

I still want to know, if you see rebuilding NO and Louisiana as such a problem(and by proxy this would have to apply to Miami and South Florida), what is your plan for all of the people that would have to be reloacted and how would you fund it? Surely you must have a plan, or barring that at least an idea or something.

I took a quick read-over of the Constitution again(its been awhile for me too) and this seems appropriate to the topic at hand. Bolding added by me.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So, if Louisiana is a part of the United States and something happens that affects them then something has happened that affects the general welfare of said United States. Thus the Congress, having the power to raise federal money for such a use, can use said money to rebuild after disasters.

I never said that is what was written. I said that it is how I view the federal government using the money it gets from us. My "conception" of it, IE how I think of it based on what I see. Whether or not that is true is another story.



Naturally its a bad idea, but we've been there forever already and its not like there is anywhere else for the folks to go that is logistically and fiscally reasonable.

I still want to know, if you see rebuilding NO and Louisiana as such a problem(and by proxy this would have to apply to Miami and South Florida), what is your plan for all of the people that would have to be reloacted and how would you fund it? Surely you must have a plan, or barring that at least an idea or something.


So you know it is a bad idea and yet you fully support it. ...Alrightythen. Can't argue with that.

The country is large and there are plenty of places to go - I myself have been a construction gypsy and have lived in over 10 different cities and was able to find food and shelter in all of them...I've traveled through more and most people seemed to be surviving just fine.

I'm saying it would be a more practical use of my tax dollars to relocate people to above sea level locations than to rebuild what we know will be destroyed again. Sorry still don't feel responsible - but if they are going to spend my money anyways, I'd rather not see it completely wasted.

The Miami issue - are they still a part of the US? I wasn't sure after working down there for a bit. If they are still a part of us, it is obvious the English Language is definatetly not the National Language as it should be. If I could get to the Keys without going through south FL - I'd take that route.


And FINALLY- I don't see rebuilding NO as problem, I see rebuilding NO with FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS as a problem.

I took a quick read-over of the Constitution again(its been awhile for me too) and this seems appropriate to the topic at hand. Bolding added by me.



So, if Louisiana is a part of the United States and something happens that affects them then something has happened that affects the general welfare of said United States. Thus the Congress, having the power to raise federal money for such a use, can use said money to rebuild after disasters.

That is a loose interpretation of 'general welfare'. IMHO general welfare would be something that affects at a minimum a large percentage of the nation's population. New Orleans pre Katrina population is less than 1/2% of the country's population. I don't believe even the most liberal interpretation this could be stretched to mean 'general welfare'.

Once again - I'm not a hater and I don't hate the people or city of NO. I just don't understand why the feds are constantly getting bashed when I don't even see how it is their issue. I understand that generations have lived there and you feel entitled to keep living there - more power to you - but it is not the federal gov't's responsibility (utilizing my tax dollars) to have you do so IMO; and from what I can tell, the constitution does not support your belief either.

I am tired of and done with argument. The fed's will continue to keep dumping more of my tax dollars after the bad they have already spent, and there is nothing I can do about it. You and the rest of NO (even after having admitted it is a bad idea) will continue to complain they aren't spending it fast enough and are responsible for the slow recovery. :banghead:

But yet you vote the honorable Ray Nagin back to office.:redcard:

Funny how you assume I am from or currently live in NO.:confused: Look to the right of my name:slap:

I guess reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit.

Funny how you assume I am from or currently live in NO.:confused: Look to the right of my name:slap:

I guess reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit.

PERSONAL ATTACK !! PERSONAL ATTACK !! :toast:

Anyway,I felt alot of the same way as irnndn until I begin to apply it a little closer to home.Take Moore,Ok. for example.Anytime a major tornado goes thru the OKC area it's gonna make it's way thru Moore and all but level it.Everytime.Kinda had a change of heart and the const. passage you quoted I believe does in fact directly weigh on this matter.Like it or not,I believe 'general welfare' does include a major city like NO.
Furthermore,after having been down there last March; you come to appreciate the vast amount of our nation's history and culture derived from that area.Be a shame to just let it disappear in a dozer pile.

Funny how you assume I am from or currently live in NO.:confused: Look to the right of my name:slap:

I guess reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit.

I would have had to actually read it for it to be a reading comprehension issue.:moon:

I do admit however, that had I been paying more attention - I should have immediately picked up on your general whereabouts from your belief that our federal tax dollars are a part of a 'slush fund' to be divvied out at the whim of whoever is in power at the time.:awink:

I would have had to actually read it for it to be a reading comprehension issue.:moon:

Touche:beer:
I do admit however, that had I been paying more attention - I should have immediately picked up on your general whereabouts from your belief that our federal tax dollars are a part of a 'slush fund' to be divvied out at the whim of whoever is in power at the time.:awink:

Thinking of it that way makes more sense in case you ever make it to the top. A speargun for each individual sounds like caring for the general welfare of the US to me:biggrinangelA:

A speargun for each individual sounds like caring for the general welfare of the US to me:biggrinangelA:

Finally...something we can agree on.

That is a loose interpretation of 'general welfare'. IMHO general welfare would be something that affects at a minimum a large percentage of the nation's population. New Orleans pre Katrina population is less than 1/2% of the country's population. I don't believe even the most liberal interpretation this could be stretched to mean 'general welfare'.

You are fond of telling us what the Constitution says, but the part you seem to neglect is that it set up a Republic in which individuals cast votes for representatives who carry out their wishes. If voters think that rebuilding New Orleans constitutes maintaining the general welfare, then its true. Its not a matter of interpretation, its the will of the people. It they didn't want it rebuilt, then they could get rid of the politicians who were allotting money for that purpose.

Once again - I'm not a hater and I don't hate the people or city of NO.

You just hate Californians, huh?

You just hate Californians, huh?

Sorry to say - I pretty much hate what the majority of what that state's citizen’s stand for; which as I see it is a fundamentalism firmly implanted in socialism.

Ironic, as they were originally the rugged individualist that settled the frontier. I think your forefathers would be ashamed.

Sorry to say - I pretty much hate what the majority of what that state's citizen’s stand for; which as I see it is a fundamentalism firmly implanted in socialism.

Ironic, as they were originally the rugged individualist that settled the frontier. I think your forefathers would be ashamed.

I never cease to be amazed by attitudes like yours. Its as if all those farmers in the Central Valley, growing the majority of the nation's vegetables, were the same as the rugged sorts living in the sparsely populated nothern counties, who in turn were like people living in San Francisco or LA, and they were all like all the military retirees (the state has more than any other state), who in turn were like the movie stars making those trash violent films that you folks in the rest of the nation eat up while they crowd out the good films that I prefer.

And of course our Governor is a Republican.

The Congressional district in which I live is so conservative that the Democrats often don't even bother to field a candidate. Does that sound like a bunch of socialists?

It would be easy for me to categorize everyone in Florida as a redneck who let Bush get close enough to steal the election, but I know better. There are actually Floridians that I met at the Expo who are decent people who don't have their heads up their asses. I bet there are probably a few redneck farmers in California who are even right of you.

Edit- and you do realize that the great socialist, Ronald Reagan, was Governor of California, don't you. Sometimes I assume that people have a certain level of common knowledge, but I shouldn't make assumptions. You might well not know that if you think California has lead the way to socialism.

Edit- and you do realize that the great socialist, Ronald Reagan, was Governor of California, don't you. Sometimes I assume that people have a certain level of common knowledge, but I shouldn't make assumptions. You might well not know that if you think California has lead the way to socialism.

We don't hold that against him.

But look who you guys have now.
And some people want to change the Constitution so Arnold can be President, that would be a mess.:pissed:

I never cease to be amazed by attitudes like yours. Its as if all those farmers in the Central Valley, growing the majority of the nation's vegetables, were the same as the rugged sorts living in the sparsely populated nothern counties, who in turn were like people living in San Francisco or LA, and they were all like all the military retirees (the state has more than any other state), who in turn were like the movie stars making those trash violent films that you folks in the rest of the nation eat up while they crowd out the good films that I prefer.

And of course our Governor is a Republican.

The Congressional district in which I live is so conservative that the Democrats often don't even bother to field a candidate. Does that sound like a bunch of socialists?

It would be easy for me to categorize everyone in Florida as a redneck who let Bush get close enough to steal the election, but I know better. There are actually Floridians that I met at the Expo who are decent people who don't have their heads up their asses. I bet there are probably a few redneck farmers in California who are even right of you.

Edit- and you do realize that the great socialist, Ronald Reagan, was Governor of California, don't you. Sometimes I assume that people have a certain level of common knowledge, but I shouldn't make assumptions. You might well not know that if you think California has lead the way to socialism.

This is going take some thought. Yes, I know you state is diverse. I realize or at least hope you aren't like those in San Francisco, but if you swing that way, who am I to judge? - And I'm willing to bet the majority of the military retirees don't condone your political affiliations!

I agree with none of your current movie star types and therefore don't support or patronize their endeavors.

Your governor is republican but far from conservative - he is much more akin to the Kennedy’s into which he has married than a Reagan type conservative. And Reagan is definitely not a socialist as you ascertain. If he were, we need more of them.

You still think Bush “stole” the election? Grow Up – I still thank God Kerry didn’t steal it – what a f-up we would be in then. I’m guessing we’d still be ‘negotiating’ with the Taliban.





.

This is going take some thought. Yes, I know you state is diverse. I realize or at least hope you aren't like those in San Francisco, but if you swing that way, who am I to judge? - And I'm willing to bet the majority of the military retirees don't condone your political affiliations!

Lets stipulate that they don't. But that was my point. You condemn Californians en mass, but you don't like my politics, and at the same time don't think those military retirees agree with my politics.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways. If the military retirees don't condone my politics, then they must agree with your politics, and how can you condemn Californians in general?

And while you didn't see fit to reply to this point, all those farmers and farm workers up the middle of the state are hardly left wing communist sympathizers. But they are Californians.

I agree with none of your current movie star types and therefore don't support or patronize their endeavors.

So you are saying you don't see movies?

Your governor is republican but far from conservative - he is much more akin to the Kennedy’s into which he has married than a Reagan type conservative. And Reagan is definitely not a socialist as you ascertain. If he were, we need more of them.

But Reagan had a huge influence on this state. He closed community health centers and caused the mentally ill to be dumped on the street as homeless people, just the sort of thing you think is right. So how can you say we are all socialists or have led the country into socialism?

You still think Bush “stole” the election? Grow Up – I still thank God Kerry didn’t steal it – what a f-up we would be in then. I’m guessing we’d still be ‘negotiating’ with the Taliban.

Yeah, I guess it would have been a bitch to have a President who actually served in the military and got shot at rather than a guy who used his Daddy's influence to get a highly coveted slot in the Air National Guard so that he could avoid joining me and Kerry in Vietnam. And then he failed to show up for a flight physical and didn't even complete his Guard obligation. He was probably afraid they would detect his red nose. I'll always be mystified that you could talk yourself through that and have it make sense to you.

I have no problem with someone who said the war wasn't justfied and then tried to stay out of it. But Bush told his Harvard Professors where he was hiding by getting an MBA that he was all for the Vietnam War. When a Professor asked him why he wasn't over there fighting, he just laughed him off. He is nothing but a coward, and somehow that gets a free pass from you.

All I know is that I put my ass on the line, and so did Kerry, even though he didn't have to. Bush did not, and he could have. But he got very tough later when it came to sending the kids of others to die.

But for all I know, its a way of justifying to yourself the fact that you never served, if in fact you didn't. Maybe Bush is like you, so he has to be right, or you'll have to face yourself.

I’m guessing we’d still be ‘negotiating’ with the Taliban.
.

I can't believe I let that one get by.

Just maybe Kerry would have had the sense to go after the Taliban and Al Queda and finish them off rather than diverting resources to attacking a country that had nothing to do with either and was not a threat to us.

But just today, I read that the Taliban have taken back 50% of the areas that we declared secure last summer. Bush did a great job with them, didn't he. If we had devoted to the Taliban just a fraction of the resources being wasted in Iraq, we might have actually accomplished something there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/world/asia/02taliban.html?hp

OK, sorry for lumping you all together, but your state consistently votes as a whole - as liberally as any state in the union. As a whole, it is way out of touch with Middle America and some of the most liberalized ideologies are originated there. I suspect that many of those conservatives you have identified are somewhat embarrassed during national elections.

And you think Kerry served honorably. His fellow soldiers in the swift boats that served along side him have a different opinion. And don't you think if any of their allegations were false, Kerry would have sued their asses off.

Nope, he wanted out and out as quickly as possible. He had important work to do back home - give aid and comfort the enemy, just like our libs in congress are doing today with great support from the liberal media.

Obviously you think the war in Iraq is wrong; I don't. Maybe it has not been fought as effectively as it should have been, but I agree that Saddam had to go - and I believe even now - the worst thing we can do is retreat without total victory. If we loose it will be because of the great Americans like Pelosi and Reid demanding defeat for their little personal political victory - just damn shameful.

FYI - If it makes you feel any better, I didn’t get to serve - tried to join the Marines at 17 but couldn’t because pending BS Civil Suit. By the time it was finally dropped - they said I had too much steel in my body and too much lung damage from a motorcycle wreck.

This thread is now so far off topic it is irrecoverable. Said once before I was done with it and now I really am – If you want to continue this - why not start your own bash irnndn thread

David Smith – outta here

BTW - havn't been to a movie in years (other than 'adrenile rush' and 'sharks' in IMAX) don't rent movies and don't have HBO. I watch some on TV but even then avoid them if the likes of Sean Penn are in them.:smthumbup:

He is nothing but a coward, and somehow that gets a free pass from you.

All I know is that I put my ass on the line, and so did Kerry, even though he didn't have to. Bush did not, and he could have. But he got very tough later when it came to sending the kids of others to die.

But for all I know, its a way of justifying to yourself the fact that you never served, if in fact you didn't. Maybe Bush is like you, so he has to be right, or you'll have to face yourself.

I gotta take exception here ,Bill, as this is a card you really like to play.Bill, as far as I know, my ancestors were not illegal aliens.So does that mean I can't have an opinion on illegal immigration ? None were Israeli/Palestinian.So I can I not have an opinion on our involvement?Point is,not everyone has put themselves in the line of fire,but that doesn't make them less of a person or lacking a voice.It's a simply a matter of chosen life paths and to some degree you may need to make peace with this.I agree irnndn is out of line in lumping all Cali's into the great "California Queer" box(some of the greatest 'necks I've ever chaseed quail with were from SoCal,ironically),however in this day in age this ,after all,is an all-volunteer fighting force.

Why do I keep coming back - went back and re-read my post - NOT ONCE did I lump all Californians together - every reference I stated the 'majority' -

Anyone want to argue the 'majority' of Californians aren't liberal..

I think an apology is order.:awink:

I gotta take exception here ,Bill, as this is a card you really like to play.Bill, as far as I know, my ancestors were not illegal aliens.So does that mean I can't have an opinion on illegal immigration ? None were Israeli/Palestinian.So I can I not have an opinion on our involvement?Point is,not everyone has put themselves in the line of fire,but that doesn't make them less of a person or lacking a voice.It's a simply a matter of chosen life paths and to some degree you may need to make peace with this.I agree irnndn is out of line in lumping all Cali's into the great "California Queer" box(some of the greatest 'necks I've ever chaseed quail with were from SoCal,ironically),however in this day in age this ,after all,is an all-volunteer fighting force.

Aaron,

I guess you are saying that I'm saying that you don't have a right to an opinion on a war unless you have served. If so, that wasn't my point.

My point was that I'm mystified how anyone can think that a coward like Bush who went out of his way to avoid serving, all the while saying he thought the war was a great idea, is better qualified to make life and death judgments than someone who actually served and and saw death all around him.

And that was all in response to his statement that we would still be negotiating with the Taliban if Kerry had been elected. We have no way of knowing how Kerry might have handled it, but I don't think Kerry is quite so dumb as to have ignored the advice of all his military leaders and foreign policy experts just so he could prove he was tougher than his Daddy.

His Daddy had seen war. His Daddy didn't go on to Bagdad because he predicted that what has happened now would have happened, and he is on record as saying so at the time.

You don't have to have served in the military to make war and peace decisions, but it might be a good idea to listen to the advice of those who have. If I'm running a company and my strength is not in marketing, then maybe I better hire good marketing people and listen to them. Its not a coincidence that those who were advising caution were people like Powell and other generals who have seen war, while the tough guys were those like Rumsfeld and Cheney (5 student deferments) who had never heard a shot fired.

My bad then,'fraid I misunderstood your point.

Cheney (5 student deferrments) who had never heard a shot fired.

Unless it was at a lawyer in a corn field:awink:

irnndn,

I'm curious. Do you ever go spearfishing, or do you just roam the web fighting what you see as socialism?

I just did a quick search, and I didn't notice anything about going spearfishing.

irnndn,

I'm curious. Do you ever go spearfishing, or do you just roam the web fighting what you see as socialism?

I just did a quick search, and I didn't notice anything about going spearfishing.

Think you might have a new stalker,Bill. Next thing you know he'll be playing footsie with you 'neath the stalls of an airport shitter.:eek::corkysm60:

BTW-You talked to Les as of late ?

Think you might have a new stalker,Bill. Next thing you know he'll be playing footsie with you 'neath the stalls of an airport shitter.:eek::corkysm60:

Hey, its not my fault that I have "wide stance."

BTW-You talked to Les as of late ?

Yes, he's been torturing me with phone calls about those big stripers he's shooting. Who needs salt water rusting your cooling system, tidal currents, and great white sharks when you can shoot fish like that in fresh water.

The only thing that makes me feel better is when he says things like shooting a big fish on his first dive of the day at 60 feet. Sixty feet without even a warmup? That is out of my league, so I guess there is no use my jumping on a plane to Joplin.

I go occasionally - not as much as I'd like. Remember Bill I'm one of the worker bees. :p

my last trip if you're hot to see my pic http://www.spearfishingplanet.com/showthread.php?t=1248

Hey, its not my fault that I have "wide stance."



Yes, he's been torturing me with phone calls about those big stripers he's shooting. Who needs salt water rusting your cooling system, tidal currents, and great white sharks when you can shoot fish like that in fresh water.

The only thing that makes me feel better is when he says things like shooting a big fish on his first dive of the day at 60 feet. 60 feet without even a warmup? That is out of my league, so I guess there is no use my jumping on a plane to Joplin.

Course their's a point to coming out,a unique experience for ya,fun fish to shoot and people will marvel at your tan and teeth. Not real common in the Ozarks.Les will attest.
60 feet w/o a warm-up ? Man,if I dive with him I better get my game face on and bring a cheater bottle just in case.Damn sure gives me something to shoot for and train for.Sheesh.You come out and I'll meet up with ya guys once ya get to Beaver. You'll finally get to see what 'fly over'country looks like.

Sorry for the derail.;)

Think you might have a new stalker,Bill. Next thing you know he'll be playing footsie with you 'neath the stalls of an airport shitter.:eek::corkysm60:

BTW-You talked to Les as of late ?

Hey Aaron - FU2

Hey Aaron - FU2

Oh you don't mean that, Iron Indian.Learn to take a boot in the ribs from time to time.

Just cause I get kicked in the ribs - it doesn't mean I'm stayin down:bringiton:

Man, you all need to let this thread go. Lets focus on spearfishing and the challenges our sport faces rather than bitching about liberal this and conservative that.

Isn't this the politics section?

See if Billy Mac is available - you'll need reinforcements.:eek:

I'm determined to slay this dragon:soapbox:

:lol:

Man, you all need to let this thread go. Lets focus on spearfishing and the challenges our sport faces rather than bitching about liberal this and conservative that.

This coming from you,Steve ? Your one of the most politically outspoken people on the boards. You trying to say your turning over a new leaf ?