Printable View
AGAIN, quote where I said "black". Just because some people here are unable to seperate stereotypes and color does not make me a klansman, it only makes you illiterate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Lemur, feel free to apologise when ever you get the chance for your ad hominem attack. Be a man, admit you were wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
As for apologies, DevDave, I'll take a three warnings and an instagib before I'll apologize for pointing out your amusing but tasteless race-baiting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Look, I'm not arguing either way. All I'm saying is that your post (unintentionally, judging by the tone of your later posts) in referring to the majority of the city reads as if it's referring to blacks implicitely due to the demographics of New Orleans.
And I'll continue to tell Lemur and yourself to seek help for your obvious internal prejudice of "blacks" when you ASSUME the words I posted was referring to people of a darker pigment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Lemur, you went after me personally and if you can't see what you did was wrong and am not man enough to apologise then you have more issues than just being wrong on this issue. You should reread everything in this thread and AGAIN use logic instead of personal prejudice to summise what has been said by both you and I. Eminem and K-Fed. Word.
Then I would suggest that you or some other moderator do their job and provide the warnings that you, yourself, are requesting even though a simple apology would do. I've been warned for much less than calling someone a klansman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Some of my best friends are Devstatin Daves. That doesn't mean I would want my daughter marrying one, or that I want a Devastatin Dave living on my block.
Jeez, people. Everybody knows that the majority population of New Orleans isn't black, it isn't white, it's chocolate!
:focus:
And Dave, Lemur is not a mod for the Backroom, he has no special powers or responsibilities here.
So then its ok for him to personally insult me. OK...:juggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Lemur, you really should get back on topic, I'd hate for you to get warned for trolling. :beam:
That'll teach me to have supper before checking the Backroom.
Gentlemen, lines have been o'erstepped in a big way. The subject was being discussed sensibly before we veered off on this unoriginal tangent, so I will leave it open for now, in the hope that the discussion can get back on track.
Let me remind members that if they find a post offensive or think it breaks the forum rules, they should use the report post button, not stoke up the flames by personal attacks. A Backroom moderator may not be immediately available, but will usually drop by soon enough as we cover all time zones.
Get back on topic and play nicely, otherwise - well, you all know the drill by now. :beadyeyes2:
Thank you kindly.
:bow:
No, it isn't. But from this thread and the Craig thread, you seem to think he has duties here. If you are trying to get a Backroom mod fired before your vacation, you need to work on Pape, BQ, or Kukri, but I don't see them taking the bait. I'd advise Lemur for his sake to put you on ignore, but I don't think a mod can. One of the drawbacks of his duties, I suppose. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
:focus:
Edit-> Beaten by BQ. Sorry. Eat your meal before checking the Backroom, you don't want to ruin your appetite. ~D
I did use the report button, but Lemur continues personal insults, I didn't but I guess that really doesn't matter since he's in the club. I feel like a black guy wanting to join Augusta, oh well, back to topic.
Again, the people of "Nawlins", a large population of which has ALSWAYS been dependent on the government, have had TWO years to get back on their feet with the most disaster money ever given in history as complared to population per person. They, if they had less propencity to laziness and colt 45, could have used this as an oppertunity to better themselves but they haven't instead this will be another excuse to live like parasites for the remainders of their lives and for generations to come.
Let me stress AGAIN, the word "black" is not in any part of the post. And it is in no means speaking of blacks, it is speaking of the pieces of #### that I've been supporting since they popped out of the welfare mother my parents have supoorted before me. If the person that lazy, drinking Colt, and popping out babies they can't afford happens to be black, it doesn't make me a Klansman for saying they suck and would do us all a favor if they either sterilize themselves or break another levy while wearing a pair on concrete boots. Thank you...
This entire thread makes me laugh. It's a perfect example of the backroom at it's most argumentative and disgusting.
I think it's important to distinguish the difference between the people who were affected being taken care of and the infrastructure being rebuilt.
By and large, it seems the people have been taken care of enough. They shouldn't need, nor receive, benefits until they die.
The infrastructure of the city is less important than ensuring the people have adequate shelter and food. It seems evident that this rebuilding, stupid as it may be, is not going forward well. But to hoist all the blame on the feds is wrong.
As to why Bush promised to rebuild it - anyone else remember how people (by which I mean American liberals) seemed to be practically demanding it be rebuilt, that anything else would be racist, etc. ?
CR
I guess I just wish that some politician with clout would have the guts to talk about how it should be rebuilt. Heck, maybe that's one of the real reasons reconstruction has been so laggardly. Sort of like Israel's settlements, changing the reality on the ground before you go into negotiations.
Honestly, I think New Orleans should be a much smaller city, concentrated on areas of high ground. It seems insanely wasteful to rebuild all of it.
Lemur's preferred outcome:
- Rebuild on higher ground only
- Scale city back in size
- Re-settle the poorest in scattered-site housing in other cities
But I guess a lot of that is happening already, with or without public discussion.
There may or may not be an inertial state of laziness in the typical New Orleans resident. I don't know. I don't have the stats on welfare, and don't really feel like looking them up. I did say this:
Call it closure or whatever. If you promise people you will rebuild, they are going to expect it and assume you will take responsibility for it. I believe I posted ages ago in a Katrina thread that the citizens should be hired on to the rebuilding effort (think 30's era depression work), which would a) get them off their butts and working, and b) give them a sense of empowerment, pride, and ownership. But forcing people to work is soooo 20th century, so it's not going to happen. What the government needs to say is "we are done here, we aren't recommending you live below sea level in a hurricane zone, you need to find another place to live and get on with your life". The administration doesn't seem to want to rebuild the lower parts of the city, and I have to say I agree with that decision. But they need to grow a pair and just say it.Quote:
Originally Posted by me
You can't do that because when you state the obvious people like Lemur will say, "And the cross your have burning on your lawn is just an illuminated symbol of Christianity, and the white hood and robe is just a clever method for actively drying the sheets." and make it, not a culture problem but a RACE problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
It's true, race does make everything unbelievably convoluted. I have no doubt that if the majority of New Orleans were white, this would have been handled differently. Not better or worse, necessarily, but differently. The administration would have been on a surer footing dealing bad news with a white population.
I can agree with you there Lemur, but I believe it has less to do with color but more to do with the attitude of New Orleans. If you have ever been or lived there you would understand what I mean, and no, its not a black thing.
It's not a culture problem, it's not a race problem, it's an elevation problem. However, the fact that few of the displaced residents vote Republican probably aided the decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Edit-> To make the decision more palatable to the rest of the country, maybe they should outline, in gory detail, how much it will cost each citizen in tax dollars to rebuild NO, only with no guarantee it will remain above water. Maybe throw in current debt numbers and the possibility of a tax increase to pay for it. See how the public opinion seems to turn their way after that.
Aye. I don't really know anything about if, how or why not the people that were affected were compensated, and I don't really care much. (well I do care about the people, but not so much about the politics of America's disaster relief methods etc)Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I do care about the city of New Orleans. Surely it is one of America's most distinct cities? With a unique blend of cultures, creating unique and singular architecture, music, festivals? Not every town in the US should be another Akron, Ohio.* New Orleans is one of a kind, a rare diamond.
America has got a history and a distinctive culture too, a historical heritage that is not the lesser of any European country. Why not go the extra mile to preserve it? By public funding if need be. New Orleans is worthy of a special effort.
Venice is forever threatened, but would the Italians give it up to the sea? Amsterdam is below sea level, yet they somehow manage. I think New Orleans should be rebuild too, at the same location, including the lower parts. It can be protected from future floods and hurricanes if there is the will.
* Knowing God's sense of humour, the odds of there being at least one person from Akron, Ohio among the twenty people reading this are infinitely higher than there would be in a rational universe governed by the laws of physics, so: my apologies for having offended your beloved pearl of Ohio.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to rebuild- I'm say we shouldn't pay for people to rebuild in coastal areas, below sea level. We encourage poor decision-making whenever the federal rides to the rescue and bails everyone out for doing something that no intelligent person should do in the first place. I'm afraid we're going to see something similar in the housing market. People have taken out mortgages that are well beyond their means to pay for and now they start clamoring for the government to protect them from their own bad choices.
As to why Bush promised to completely rebuild NO? I dunno... he's an ass? :beam:
Seriously though, what else could he have said? "All you poor minorities will have to find somewhere else to live- you had no business building houses there in the first place." ... I can imagine everyone's reaction to that. Political cowardice? Perhaps, but do you really think John Kerry(or any other politician) would've had the guts to say different had he been president?
Throw in flood plains while you're at it. And the idiots who build multi-million dollar homes on Floridian sand bars, and expect the U.S. Government to pick up the tab when their view goes from oceanfront to breakers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
You're right, we encourage bad decisions by subsidizing mistakes. The more I think about it, though, the more I'm convinced that the slothful rebuilding of infrastructure in New Orleans is deliberate, or at least tacit. Since it would be political suicide, as you point out, to say, "Stop living below sea level in Hurricane Alley," the government is doing something by doing nothing.
Heck, if you believe what you read, the canal that did the most flooding hasn't even been fixed, and it's two years on.
I may need to don my tinfoil for this one, but again, if you believe what you read (Times-Picayune), Mississippi, which votes predominantly Republican, has received twice as much funding as Democratic Louisiana.
What other city would have given us this gem:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
~DQuote:
Originally Posted by A Streetcar Named Marge
Heresy! If the citizens were hired to do the work, then how would politicians funnel the rebuilding contracts to cronies and campaign donors?Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Well, I'm sure there would be exclusive material supply/delivery contracts, logistical support, waste management, and other services that could only be provided by "professionals". Surely somebody made money off the New Deal. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
And that is the BIGGEST reason why, if you are New Orleans resident, you should be pissed. This is also why the federal government should do a better job of getting the locals involved instead of bowing to preasure to "do something". The money will not go to the "people", it will be "spent for the people". That's the problem. It continues the cycle for government dependence, the problem that the citizens of New Orleans (white, black, hispanic, martian) have had for the past century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I debated replying to this thread, mainly because I find the view some Americans hold of their Federal Government to be well, unfathomable.
A man who grew up in a unified state (those were the days) the pertinant question is this:
Who besides the Federal Government has the money to rebuild the infastructure?
In the long term infastructure, sewage, water, electricity, law enforcement, healthcare, emergenct rescue etc. are the things the people cannot rebuild themselevs and their maintainance is the responsibility of the government.
Without infastructure the the city will never be rebuilt. No contractor will build houses without facilities.
After two years the cleanup should be complete and work should be beginning on the planning of the new city.
I'm not sure I understand your point, Philipis. The Federal Government has pledged to rebuild a city 12 feet below sea level in the middle of hurricane alley. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of, yet I have to pay for this assaninity. And the only reason they're rebuilding it where it was? To pander to voters that know full well they don't belong where they want to build. And what's more, all the infrastructure in the world won't make these people happy. Just listen to them... they think they're entitled to 50K a year and a free house for the rest of their life. Why? For being dumb enough to live next to a storm dyke 12 feet under water?
Frankly, I find the European view of the State unfathomable. You act as though the money the government distributes is their very own money, earned by the sweat of their brow. Well, if having the tax man rob people is hard work, you might have a point, but the money the State spends come from you and me, friend. Shouldn't we get a say when we see it being thrown away like this? I mean for crying out loud, Congress should just start lighting cigars with $100 bills, it would be cheaper. :dizzy2:
My point was that essentially I agree with you in that your government shouldn't be giving handouts but fixing the broken parts of the city that are their responsibility, i.e. infastructure. As to people not living there, I suggest you evacuate San Fransisco as well then. New Orleons is one of the relatively few places non-Americans can identify and which cleary had it's own vibrant culture. That makes it a valuable part of your nation from where I'm sitting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
If it was impossible to guard against future hurricanes and flooding I'd say you should abandon it, but it isn't impossible and it's worth thinking about how many times the city wasn't destroyed.
The European view is very simple. You pay taxes and as a result the state stops you from being robbed, saves you when your house burns down and fixes you when you're ill. It also provides a certain level of stability, supports national buisness intersts and stops other people from invading.Quote:
Frankly, I find the European view of the State unfathomable. You act as though the money the government distributes is their very own money, earned by the sweat of their brow. Well, if having the tax man rob people is hard work, you might have a point, but the money the State spends come from you and me, friend. Shouldn't we get a say when we see it being thrown away like this? I mean for crying out loud, Congress should just start lighting cigars with $100 bills, it would be cheaper. :dizzy2:
In this case something has gone very wrong for the people of "The Big Easy" and it is the responsibility of the government to fix it for them because it's not something the people themselves are responsible for. The city was virtually destroyed so it is encumbent on the government to provide facilitate the building of a new city.
To put it another way, to restore the status quo.
In America it seems you neither like nor trust your government on an institutional level. You want to maintain State Governments dsepite the injustices and frankly inane legal oddities it causes.
You don't want your government to look after you, which is why you don't have universal healthcare yet.
You are correct. We don't want the government to look after us. At least, people that work don't. In America, Socialism means I stay home and loaf, you go to work and we split your paycheck. Which is why so many of us are opposed to it. I believe Hore Tore and others when they say that's not how its supposed to work, but I'm telling you, that's exactly how it works over here.
Even if I couldn't take care of myself, the Federal Government would be the last place I'd turn for help, if for no other reason, then they are so utterly inept. A good charity turns 92% to 93% of the money it collects for a cause over to that cause. A bad one, maybe 80%, maybe, on a really bad case, 70%. When the Federal Government introduces a new tax, earmarked specifically for a cause, do you know what the payout is? Typically, about 30%. The other 70%? I'll let you guess where it goes.