Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke
Rocketfan wrote:What weather site were you reading? Still at 115. I haven't seen a Cat-4 forecast for 2+ days.Fumblerooskies wrote:well then keep reading....while it may have slowed NOW, before landfall its supposed to intensify further and be a CAT 4 for 5 for that matter. It only weakened because it hit Cuba but is now out in open ocean.Rocketfan wrote: what news do you read?About 4-5 weather sites...and a few weather blogs...and the key is...I CAN READ!
...it WAS up to 140 MPH...and it is now 115 MPH...I call that losing some of its punch.
flamesbball84 wrote:Realist wrote:You guys are really showing your level of intelligence here. New Orleans is the mouth of the miss. river and the most important port in America. If it shuts down for a prolonged period of time, the nation as we run it shuts down.I don't think much of people who continuosly rebuild in disaster prone areas over and over again, complain when their buildings/homes and possessions get destroyed when they know they are in a disaster prone area, and then they spend billions of tax payers money on it. I don't care if they live in new orleans or middle of nowhere, I just don't think much of those people no matter what.
And if you want to close down everywhere that is threatened by natural disasters, let's go ahead and move everyone out of most of California, let's move our farmers away from the delta in the heartland, etc, etc.
Seriously, do some research and improve your IQ before posting. Thanks, MGMT.
It's like building a house in the middle of a forest and then complaining about a forest fire destroying your house. What the hell do you expect to happen?
Sly Fox wrote:Yeah, this assessments have already begun in the Gulf. The really big platforms seem to have handled Gustav rather well thanks to the adjustments made from the Katrina/Rita learnings.So far, so good it seems. Baton Rouge, further up the river, may be in some danger though. My cousin is saying it is getting pretty bad there. I think they are considering trying to evacuate the area, but it may be too late, causing more harm than good.
Realist wrote:Since you blatantly show a 100% lack of reading comprehension, I'll let you have the last argument on this one.flamesbball84 wrote:Realist wrote:You guys are really showing your level of intelligence here. New Orleans is the mouth of the miss. river and the most important port in America. If it shuts down for a prolonged period of time, the nation as we run it shuts down.I don't think much of people who continuosly rebuild in disaster prone areas over and over again, complain when their buildings/homes and possessions get destroyed when they know they are in a disaster prone area, and then they spend billions of tax payers money on it. I don't care if they live in new orleans or middle of nowhere, I just don't think much of those people no matter what.
And if you want to close down everywhere that is threatened by natural disasters, let's go ahead and move everyone out of most of California, let's move our farmers away from the delta in the heartland, etc, etc.
Seriously, do some research and improve your IQ before posting. Thanks, MGMT.
It's like building a house in the middle of a forest and then complaining about a forest fire destroying your house. What the hell do you expect to happen?
It's obvious you aren't very intelligent, if we moved everyone out of possible natural disaster areas, our country wouldn't function. We should admire people that do the work needed in those areas that sacrifice with the risk of living there. I guess you believe the entire coast should be vacated? I guess you like to hunker down in bunkers and grow your own food, being entirely self sufficient? More power to you if you do, but I highly doubt it.
If we didn't use taxpayer money to repair areas hit, we would lose much more revenue than the cost of repairing those areas. Again, you don't seem to comprehend basic economics or even logic, so I don't expect you to get it, but alas, I can't help but try to educate someone.
And are you going to build a bunker for when tornadoes rip through your area? No matter where you live, you are at risk of some type of natural disaster destroying your home. It's called insurance.
Realist wrote:I'm pretty sure I read it correctly. And by the way you spell, construct thoughts, and show utter lack of knowledge behind your opinions, it is obvious you aren't receiving much of an education.Just take note of the fact that he goes to LC, not LU
PAmedic wrote:you're absolutely right
Realist wrote:I'm aware, I figured if anyone he'd be the one on here to spout unintelligent nonsense about the subject.and yet you still have failed to comprehend my post.
Realist wrote:Then you should articulate it better, because I'm reading it fine. You obviously have trouble expressing your thoughts intelligently.read the new orleans thread then. it's the same stuff i've been saying that you apparently can't understand.
Realist wrote:I've read everything you posted. Basically you've said two things: You don't care for people who live in areas that are threatened by natural disasters, and you don't like taxpayer money paying for rebuilding it.
#1 is stupid because over half of America lives in disaster prone areas. You are essentially saying over half of America shouldn't live where they live. It is also stupid b/c if no one lived in those areas, the country wouldn't function as we know it. You wouldn't get food you are accustomed to, gas to drive, and you would have a much lower standard of living.
#2 is stupid because for one thing, many people have insurance. There isn't a ton of government bailouts for individuals. The cost is mainly tied up in infrastructure and repair for government owned buildings and infrastructure.
Your viewpoint is idiotic from an economic perspective as well, as if we didn't rebuild areas affected by natural disasters, the revenues lost for good from these areas would far outweigh any cost associated with repair. This is especially true of New Orleans.
I don't like typing things twice, but since you are a complete idiot, I figured I'd spell it out nice for you again.
Maybe you should attend a better college and get a real education.
Realist wrote:I've read everything you posted. Basically you've said two things: You don't care for people who live in areas that are threatened by natural disasters, and you don't like taxpayer money paying for rebuilding it.no, I said I don't think much of these people. never said I don't care about them. further proving you like reading comprehension skills. how many times do you want me to point this out to you? maybe you should revisit the English classes you had to take at winthrop, or are those even required winthrop? if they are, they obviously can't teach.
#1 is stupid because over half of America lives in disaster prone areas. You are essentially saying over half of America shouldn't live where they live. It is also stupid b/c if no one lived in those areas, the country wouldn't function as we know it. You wouldn't get food you are accustomed to, gas to drive, and you would have a much lower standard of living.
#2 is stupid because for one thing, many people have insurance. There isn't a ton of government bailouts for individuals. The cost is mainly tied up in infrastructure and repair for government owned buildings and infrastructure.
Your viewpoint is idiotic from an economic perspective as well, as if we didn't rebuild areas affected by natural disasters, the revenues lost for good from these areas would far outweigh any cost associated with repair. This is especially true of New Orleans.
I don't like typing things twice, but since you are a complete idiot, I figured I'd spell it out nice for you again.
Maybe you should attend a better college and get a real education.
flamesbball84 wrote:Realist wrote:I've read everything you posted. Basically you've said two things: You don't care for people who live in areas that are threatened by natural disasters, and you don't like taxpayer money paying for rebuilding it.no, I said I don't think much of these people. never said I don't care about them. further proving you like reading comprehension skills. how many times do you want me to point this out to you? maybe you should revisit the English classes you had to take at winthrop, or are those even required winthrop? if they are, they obviously can't teach.
#1 is stupid because over half of America lives in disaster prone areas. You are essentially saying over half of America shouldn't live where they live. It is also stupid b/c if no one lived in those areas, the country wouldn't function as we know it. You wouldn't get food you are accustomed to, gas to drive, and you would have a much lower standard of living.
#2 is stupid because for one thing, many people have insurance. There isn't a ton of government bailouts for individuals. The cost is mainly tied up in infrastructure and repair for government owned buildings and infrastructure.
Your viewpoint is idiotic from an economic perspective as well, as if we didn't rebuild areas affected by natural disasters, the revenues lost for good from these areas would far outweigh any cost associated with repair. This is especially true of New Orleans.
I don't like typing things twice, but since you are a complete idiot, I figured I'd spell it out nice for you again.
Maybe you should attend a better college and get a real education.
- By AATL
- By TH Spangler