Posted on 09/26/2005 5:27:07 AM PDT by OESY
After Hurricane Betsy swamped New Orleans in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson... pledged federal protection. The Army Corps of Engineers designed a Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane Barrier to shield the city with flood gates like those that protect the Netherlands from the North Sea. Congress provided funding and construction began. But work stopped in 1977 when a federal judge ruled, in a suit brought by Save Our Wetlands, that the Corps' environmental impact statement was deficient....
Speaking for environmentalists, the Center for Progressive Reform called the charges in the Los Angeles Times "pure fiction" because the judge stopped construction only until the Corps prepared a satisfactory environmental analysis. The Corps instead dropped the barrier in favor of levees that were less controversial, but which failed. So, the Center argues, fault lies with the Corps' bumbling rather than with the environmentalist lawsuit.
That's not fair. The Corps cannot stop a project, conduct a lengthy study, go back to court, and then be sure it can pick up where it left off. Large federal projects ordinarily cannot proceed unless executives and legislatures at several levels of government agree on the same course of action at the same time. That's why litigation delay can kill necessary projects. However responsibility is apportioned, but for the lawsuit, New Orleans would have had the hurricane barrier.
The federal government's reaction was equally unsophisticated. The Corps denied that the originally planned barrier would have saved the city from Katrina, but nonetheless affirmed that it was starting design of a similar barrier to protect against future hurricanes. The Department of Justice emailed field offices asking for evidence of "claims brought by environmental groups" against other Corps projects to protect New Orleans. A Sierra Club attorney complained, "Why are they trying to smear us like this?"...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Sounds like a commie environmentalist. This just proves that environmentalists can sometimes do as much damage as the people trying to destroy the environment.
Yet another good reason for tort reform. And another good reason to hate lawyers. they've been trying to tear apart this country for decades.
There is never a good enough reason to "hate" anybody.
Headline should read Sierra Club cause of death & destruction in New Orleans.
Or, Sierra Club Lied People Died.
Same problem here in Oregon. Coastal river mouths are silted in and the enviro nazis won't permit dredging even after previous floods. Look for a repeat.
Headline should read Sierra Club cause of death & destruction in New Orleans.
Or, Sierra Club Lied People Died.
Same problem here in Oregon. Coastal river mouths are silted in and the enviro nazis won't permit dredging even after previous floods. Look for a repeat.
"There is never a good enough reason to "hate" anybody."
Trite cliche. I'll respond in kind: Never say never.
I hate Osama bin Laden, and I think I have good reason.
RULE OF THUMB: If the "Environmentalists" are for it, oppose it. If they're against it, support it.
And do not give ONE PENNY to "Environmentalist" charities or causes.
The problem is that the locals in both NOLA and LA will screw it up even more than the feds ...
An army would be rather ineffective if the troops couldn't generate a little hate towards the enemy.
That is an absolutely feeble statement. Consider the following list:
...for starters. I hate them all, loathe them, despise them and all their works, regret that they ever lived, and in the case of the living ones would personally kill them with my bare hands and enjoy it.
I think there is plenty of good reason to hate each man on this list. We have several mass murders and sponsors of mass murder, a cannibal, and a traitor. I can hate them quite thoroughly and desire to send them all to Hell at the nearest opportunity, and square it with my religion with no difficulty.
Then there's the whole list of people that I hate, just not enough to want to strangle personally. I will celebrate when they're gone, though. Jane Fonda is an example of this category. I wouldn't harm a hair on her old gray head, but I'll do a happy dance when she's in Hell. I think there's plenty of reason to hate someone who was a traitor on the scale of Pollard but never had his opportunities to stick it to her homeland.
Lawyers in general is a pretty wide net to cast into the "hate" pool, but I understand why people do. Their net impact on civilisation as a group is highly negative. But you have to keep things in proportion. All the lawyers who worked to undermine the levies were counteracted by lawyers working to stop them, who just didn't succeed.
Many lawyers have no morals of their own and would just do anything for a dollar. When they are doing something evil they are very skilled at rationalizing it: "This baby-raper needs good representation. Why, I'm just like John Adams defending Captain Preston of the 29th Foot! And if my guy walks and more babies get raped, why, I'm innocent as the west wind. It's the fault of the prosecutor for not besting me! After all, I'm just a lawyer, I don't really believe in or stand for anything, except the rule of lawyers over common people."
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
I think we all need to learn how to hate correctly. I don't mind if people hate me if they hate me for the right reason(s).
Let's ask them if we have enough wetlands now. After all if something has had water on it once, why then it can never be dried out. Is it OK to dry out New Orleans or would they rather see it wet?
I have never understood why this country allowed the wetlands crowd to take control of the land. I am willing to bet that most of the damage of this series of hurricanes can be laid at the feet of the environmental groups, who always know better than anyone else. Just because they have no common sense is not a reason for leftest judges to dismiss their lawsuits.
"iconoclast.ca" is one of those scams that presents other people's content in its own frame (and, unlike the NYT's about.com, doesn't even let you opt out of the frame).
The real article iconoclast is presenting as its own is here:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19418
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
brownsfan: "I hate Osama bin Laden, and I think I have good reason."
BlueMondaySkipper: "I think we all need to learn how to hate correctly. I don't mind if people hate me if they hate me for the right reason(s)."
Osama? Is that you?
There was an excellent line in the article to the effect that both bureaucrats and environmentalists think that government is a force for good but that it's an argument over which should be in charge... The Enviros, or the Bureaucrats. Well I can answer that one easily! Neither!!!
There are many other astute observations in this editorial and I hope it gets wide circulation and further amplification in both new media and old.
Schroenbroad actually wants the US to turn over tens of billions to the tender mercies of Louisiana politicians?
The environmentalists would have preferred that every sign of development in that part of Louisiana were wiped off the surface of the Earth by that hurricane and that no human being would ever return to develop it again.
You have heard that the law says, "Love your neighbour and hate your enemy."
But I tell you, love your enemies. Ask God to do good to those who trouble you.
5 Matthew 43-44 (Regarding the teachings of Jesus).
Or maybe our armies should behave like the armies of Saladin?
See post 22.
Hate justifies dehumanizing the object of it, and perverts the ability to acheive a worthy goal:
"One tribe will fight against another tribe. And one country will fight against another country. The people will have no food to eat. Many people will be sick. The earth will shake in many different places.
All these troubles are only the beginning of troubles that will come.
Then people will trouble you and kill you. All nations will hate you because you are true to me.
Then many people will stop believing. They will give one another over to trouble. They will hate one another."
Matthew 24:7-10
So tell me - how is hating being conservative?
You forgot Hillary Clinton. I don't hate Pollard, like I do the other people on your list. I do think he thought he was doing the right thing. That being said, I still think he should be locked up forever. The people that I hate are the ones that make excuses for him.
That's why they're blaming Bush and trying to block an investigation.
But the truth can only be supressed for so long. It always comes out in the end.
You forgot the part about turning plowshares into swords.
I did not forget anything. 3 Joel is the only passage I know of where plowshares are beaten into swords. Where does that chapter teach that there is ever a good reason to hate somebody?
Also, please answer my question - "How is hating being conservative?"
I'll answer your question with a question - What do emotions like love and hate have to do with being a conservative, a liberal, or any other political self-classification?
Lawyers did it.
Your question does not answer anything.
The emotions or sentiments attached to a political orientation or organization has everything to do with their successful growth. How well have conservatives fared when they have been targeted with the "Hates blacks," "Hates womens rights" or "hates homosexuals" templates? How well are the libs doing now, when all they can do is "Hate Bush"?
Do you think that you will get anything accomplished for tort reform, if you look at a story and remark "Just another reason to hate lawyers."
I take it that you cannot find how 3 Joel teaches that hate for an enemy is good. This is because you cannot justify hate on any ethical basis. Actually I would like to see you try - that would be amusing.
Bottom line - if you teach hate (Which is not an emotion) to acheive a political objective in the United States, you should correctly be considered an idiot. That's what "emotions [sic] like love and hate have to do with being a conservative."
You should already understand that hate is the antithesis of conservatism. So - are you a troll?
well, most of New Orleans has returned to nature. Guess the enviros won a round.
Perhaps because you're too dense to understand that politics and religion are two different things.
(deleted blather about hate and such)
Here's the definition of conservatism from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "Conservatism: Disposed to keep the established ways; opposition to change."
I don't see anything in that definition that says I can or cannot hate lawyers.
Are they? So I suppose you are one who believes that there should be a wall between government or religion? Or that a government can rule quite well where the opium of the people has been eradicated? Perhaps you should read some de Toqueville:
It's obvious there still remains here a greater foundation of Christianity than in any other country of the world to my knowledge, and I don't doubt but that this disposition still influences the political regime. It gives a moral and orderly turn to ideas, it arrests the wanderings of the innovating spirit; especially does it make very rare that moral disposition, so common with us, to launch oneself through all obstacles, per fas et nefas , toward the chosen goal.
'It is certain that a party, however anxious to obtain a result, would still think itself obliged to attain it only by means which would have an appearance of morality and would not openly shock the religious beliefs, always more or less moral, even when they are false.
excerpted from Tocqueville and Beaumont in America by George Wilson Pierson.
As far as dictionaries, yours seems to be out of date:
con·ser·va·tism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-sûrv-tzm) n. 1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order. 2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order. 3. The principles and policies of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or of the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada. 4. Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company
To me, my church and the scriptures are a traditional institution at the center of conservatism.
You sir, are free to hate anybody you want. If you do, however, do not expect to accomplish anything or be accepted among true conservatives.
That would, by definition exclude Jews, Hindus, Bhuddists, Athiests, and Muslems from being what you call conservatives. That's fine if you believe that, but it's only your opinion, peppered with a few select out-of-context verses from your favorite pile of texts. You sir, are free to hate anybody you want. If you do, however, do not expect to accomplish anything or be accepted among true conservatives.
Of course I am - it's a free country, and I want to conserve that tradition. And don't purport to think that your OPINION of conservatism is the mark of true conservatism. It's a much broader word than you would like.
Let's see - I want to pay less for my heating bill so I turn the thermostat down. Does that make me a conservative?
So tell me how conservatism is so broad to include people, like you, who think hate is good or constructive. Cite to any tradition, religion or ethical source you wish.
That would, by definition exclude Jews, Hindus, Bhuddists, Athiests, and Muslems [sic] from being what you call conservatives.
Actually, it doesn't. My original thesis was, "There is never a good enough reason to 'hate' anybody," which referred to ALL ethical standards. I cited to the underpinnings of Judeo-Christian society because my assumption was that you were trying to sell tort reform in the United States through federal legislation by fomenting hate for lawyers. I therefore cited what was most relevant to the largest number of the existing voting US population. So my standard was simply pragmatic. So you can set up a straw man and knock it down all you want, but nobody will be impressed.
I'll bite on your inclusiveness theme. Lets put all the religions you cited within the meaning of a "traditional institution." Putting aside Islam, how do these religions teach that hate is good or constructive?
Answer: They don't.
So alas, anyone is free to hate and feel good about it, just as you are doing, while justifying it through the recreation of any traditional institution standing in the way of feeling good. In the end, such behavior will win over so many, that the trial lawyers will end up thanking you. Conservatives will not.
Yes the environmentalists hate black people just like Bush...lol
Therein lies the problem, my Dog Gone FRiend!!! Not only does all of America have a Memory Loss Problem... Even my fellow FReepers have it as well!!!
Sometimes they can't even sort out what's worth remembering "for so long," in the first place!!!
They're getting away with it because of this!!! (don't try to tell me they're not... Dan Blather almost did if Buckhead hadn't pulled his covers in time almost by accident!!!)
Dan Rather's goal was to fool the public temporarily. It wouldn't have mattered if the truth had been exposed after the election. It would eventually have come out, but President Kerry wouldn't have called for a new election.
Hippie Song lyric:"All we need is love... Lah Dee Dah Dah Daaaaaaaaa..." Phhhhhhhht!!!
But of course the Judasishiary has certainly over played their role to the hilt!!!
The environmentalists would have preferred that every sign of development in that part of Louisiana were wiped off the surface of the Earth by that hurricane and that no human being would ever return to develop it again.""
Many people do not realize there is a group with a concerted effort to do just that. It seems so far out, that the comment gets dismissed over and over again. Go to www.wildlandsprojectrevealed.com and read for your self. This is an offshoot group from Earth First, the group that put spikes in trees slated for harvest in the 70's and 80's. The also turned loose beef cattle from open ranches with miles of fences, causing fatal car accidents and dead cows. This group is very dangerous, and there is an entire network of like minded groups all over the USA. I have tracked connecting groups and they get lots of donations because people don't realize the true intentions of the group, and they are looking for a tax write off. If in doubt about who you contribute to, see if Ted Turner is contributing, and you can bet it is an Environazi group. He is one of the worst.
It ain't you silly person!!! It's wanting to terminate those who tear down our greatest American and human traditions, beliefs and customs with EXTREME PREJUDICE!!!
So smartypants we just dislike them as intensely as it's humanly possible... OK??? Now take your phony sense of moral superiority and SHOVE IT!!! (It's insulting!)(Jesus taught... You insult)
I hope they take it right in the shorts. And good and hard.
Dude, you've apparently gone off the deep end. Logic escapes you as you try to weave a twisted rationalization of why you feel that one person's disdain of the nation's trial lawyers and what they stand for is of significant importance in the grand scheme of things.
I hate them and you don't like that. Get over it.
This is my favorite part of the whole thing!!! Federal power is NOT your friend if you are a "Considerate Conservative!" Government is nothing but pure force when you boil it down to it's essence and quit trying to fool yourself!!!
I like your answer, SW: "NEITHER".
These "environmental" groups, and the damage they do, needs to be further exposed (along with bogus Government "conservation" projects like the SNC).
You hate them and you think that's good. Fine. Stay happy.
If so, you're no conservative - just a destructive person.
Believe me, I got over accepting hate a long time ago.
Disdain them for their actions - that is a defensible argument.
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.