Skip to comments.
U.S. Vows Stronger Levees in Big Easy(More billions down the proverbial rathole!)
The Washington Times ^
| December 16, 2005
| Bill Sammon and Audrey Hudson
Posted on 12/16/2005 8:51:51 AM PST by kellynla
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
To: kellynla
I do know this, LA will be a memory before the Easy goes to sea.
To: kellynla
I would wait untill the President and Congress find out how much the Judiciary is going to give away, before setting any spending levels. The Judiciary is probably going to bust the bank.
22
posted on
12/16/2005 9:52:37 AM PST
by
Mark was here
(How can they be called "Homeless" if their home is a field?.)
To: kellynla
Why rebuild the WTC when terorrists can just blow it up again?
weak argument.
23
posted on
12/16/2005 9:53:29 AM PST
by
Bogey78O
(<thinking of new tagline>)
To: Bogey78O
"Why rebuild the WTC when terorrists can just blow it up again?"
apples & oranges
and if you can't distinguish the difference then that's your problem. LOL
24
posted on
12/16/2005 10:08:18 AM PST
by
kellynla
(U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
To: kellynla
Galveston Texas raised the city by 17 feet in places and built a seawall on their own without federal help. Chicago and San Francisco rebuilt themselves without federal help.
The Feds did rebuild Plattsburg Missouri after the floods of 1994 but they moved the town to higher ground.
25
posted on
12/16/2005 10:46:36 AM PST
by
Swiss
To: Swiss
and moving N'awlins to higher ground seems like the obvious long term solution...
exactly why the clowns in D.C. & Louisiana won't do it. LOL
26
posted on
12/16/2005 11:21:34 AM PST
by
kellynla
(U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
To: kellynla
"and if you can't distinguish the difference then that's your problem. LOL"
Hmmmmm, isn't that just another way of saying you've raised a good point that I have no answer for so therefore I'm just going to respond with this clever saying so I won't have to?
To: Blood of Tyrants
Why bother with that when the terrorists could just ship in a nuke and blow the whole Crescent City into orbit?
28
posted on
12/16/2005 12:04:21 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(Not transferable -- Good only for this trip)
To: WatchOutForSnakes
"I have no answer for?"
Ohhhhhh, I pointed out the answer in my first post.
Now all you have to do is reread the next line.
"move the city to higher ground"
let us know when you catch up! LOL
29
posted on
12/16/2005 12:46:10 PM PST
by
kellynla
(U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
To: kellynla
Not really. nything destroyed can be destroyed again. Citing realistic odds would be better then just throwing out what may happen.
30
posted on
12/16/2005 12:56:21 PM PST
by
Bogey78O
(<thinking of new tagline>)
To: kellynla
Maybe you should re-read my post. The thing I think you have no answer for is why is it apples and oranges. The poster said why rebuild the WTC if it can just be blown up again. You responded apples and oranges and then your cute little statement.
How is "move it to higher ground" an explanation of why it is apples and oranges? If you have a reasonable explanation why not just share it with us instead of writing in riddles?
To: willyd
The city is not completely destroyed and much of it is not below sea level.
Jeez. I wish the MSM would stop showing pictures of parts of the city underwater.
Older parts of the city are fine. The French Quarter and much of Uptown is fine.
I went Saturday.
32
posted on
12/16/2005 1:43:28 PM PST
by
Roux
To: Roux
I know this...I am talking about the parts that would be under water if there were no levee at all.
33
posted on
12/16/2005 1:57:40 PM PST
by
willyd
(No nation has ever taxed its citizens into prosperity)
To: kerryusama04
Shouldn't they find out how many people are going back before we go to this expense?
-----Would we believe how many even if they told us? Some of their citizens/police didn't exist anyway. They were just means of extorting money. I have got so I only believe what the FREepers from down there say because you cannot trust the media or the politicians (they will say more people are coming back in order to get more money). If the FREepers can't tell us, then we will have to wait on an answer. (JMHO)
34
posted on
12/16/2005 2:49:42 PM PST
by
WasDougsLamb
(I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man)
To: WasDougsLamb
Point taken. I would tend to believe the right wing acronym organizations in d.c. A little, but the right wing, gun toting, self sufficient FReepers in NOLA would certainly be the best source.
35
posted on
12/16/2005 4:03:59 PM PST
by
kerryusama04
(The Bill of Rights is not occupation specific.)
To: kellynla
"move the city to higher ground"Please tell exactly where YOU would move it. On what location are you going to build this "new" city, and how are you going to pay for it? Also, what are you going to do to displace the current landowners of your "new" location? The details, please.
To: WasDougsLamb
Would we believe how many even if they told us? Some of their citizens/police didn't exist anyway. They were just means of extorting money. I have got so I only believe what the FREepers from down there say because you cannot trust the media or the politicians (they will say more people are coming back in order to get more money). If the FREepers can't tell us, then we will have to wait on an answer. (JMHO) It turns out that the phantom police is an urban legend based on a political spoof during the storm.
Snopes
37
posted on
12/16/2005 4:49:06 PM PST
by
CajunConservative
(Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Jindal.)
To: Uncle Sham
got a map?
pick a spot!
There's plenty of state and federally owned land in LA.
38
posted on
12/16/2005 5:12:35 PM PST
by
kellynla
(U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
To: kellynla
In order to "move the city" to higher ground you would first have to Condemn Private Property via Eminent Domain.
I did not think that concept of a Government seizing private property was advocated by many conservatives.
To: Uncle Sham
Oh yest it is ironic how many people here all of a sudden support Eminent Domain being used to seize private property.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson