I don't disagree with anything you said, but the same thing could be said of
San Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami, Seattle and probably others. All of them
are in the path of potential large scale destruction.
I bet you didn't know that a volcano in the Canary Islands is extremely
unstable and likely to collapse into the sea. When it does, it will send a
200' tsunami onto the US east coast. Can you imagine what a 200' tsunami
will do to NY, Boston, etc?
Or that Yellowstone Park is a supervolcano, with an overdue eruption. The
last time it errupted, it put several feet of ash over much of the US.
So what are you going to do? You just have to do the best you can, and hope
to dodge the bullet.

(New Orleans has a bigger problem than being below sea level. Eventually
the course of the Mississippi will change to go well west of the city. When
that happens, they will have no drinking water since the sea will back up
into what is now the Mississippi. The Army Corp of Engineers is stopping
from happening, but it seems inevitable in the next 100 years.)

Now, what does any of this have to do with home repair?

wrote in message
...
Why was New Orleans built below sea level? That's just plain stupid.
Apparently what they call the "bowl" must have been a lake or
something at one time. I can understand the original part of the city
was built long ago, and probably before they knew what they were
doing, but you'd think someone would have stopped development long
ago. The stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me. From
what I have seen on the news, the entire city is or will be destroyed.
But they will probably rebuild it and all of us will have to pay for
the rebuilding with our taxes. Dont get me wrong, I feel very sorry
for the people that lived there, but who allowed this stupidity to
occur? It seems that the government is adding new laws almost daily
to protect us from ourselves, yet they did nothing to stop the
development in that city, knowing that sooner or later it would fail.
It dont take a genious to know what dangers existed. its pretty much
basic science.

I am just searching the web to find out how many feet they are below
sea level, but you'd think they would have used fill to at least bring
buildings at or above sea level. Maybe thats not possible, which is
why I am trying to find the depth.

They said that even that dome which was used for shelter during the
hurricane is filling with water today. That appears to be a fairly
new building, yet that too is below sea level. STUPID !!!!

Mark

This is Turtle.

New Orleans when it was established in the 1700's was 10 feet above sea level.

Now 200 years later and falling about 1/8 of a inch a year is -3 feet below sea
level. Now this is Jackson square and Canal street. other places are as much as
8 feet below sea level.

Now Man will never stop being stupid as long as he is being entertained by life.

TURTLE

clipped


This is Turtle.

New Orleans when it was established in the 1700's was 10 feet above sea level.

Now 200 years later and falling about 1/8 of a inch a year is -3 feet below sea
level. Now this is Jackson square and Canal street. other places are as much as
8 feet below sea level.

Now Man will never stop being stupid as long as he is being entertained by life.

TURTLE



Well said, Turtle. How are you getting along?

"Norminn" wrote in message
...
clipped


This is Turtle.

New Orleans when it was established in the 1700's was 10 feet above sea
level.

Now 200 years later and falling about 1/8 of a inch a year is -3 feet below
sea level. Now this is Jackson square and Canal street. other places are as
much as 8 feet below sea level.

Now Man will never stop being stupid as long as he is being entertained by
life.

TURTLE

Well said, Turtle. How are you getting along?


This is Turtle.

Thank you there.

I'm doing pretty good but i have this room spinning around on me. Do you have
any brakes to stop the room from spinning around ? i have tried laing down and
holding on to the wall but it keep spinning around.

TURTLE

Why do you not archive? Tom

People of the USA

The weather god apologises for the unfortunate collateral damage & loss of
life to the people of America in his efforts to point out to your government
that global warming is a problem.

The USA is one of the worlds largest producer of emissions contributing to
global warming and has a government not interested in doing anything about
it. If you do not take this hint, then the weather god will mobilise his
full forces and implement a plan for full regime change in the USA.

Drive smaller more efficient cars or learn to swim, such a simple
transportation choice !!

Kind Regards
The weather god & his war War Against Pollution

Marcus wrote:
People of the USA

The weather god apologises for the unfortunate collateral damage &
loss of
life to the people of America in his efforts to point out to your
government
that global warming is a problem.

The USA is one of the worlds largest producer of emissions
contributing to
global warming and has a government not interested in doing anything
about
it. If you do not take this hint, then the weather god will mobilise his
full forces and implement a plan for full regime change in the USA.

Drive smaller more efficient cars or learn to swim, such a simple
transportation choice !!

Kind Regards
The weather god & his war War Against Pollution




Borrowing from http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/...0508300805.asp

If cable TV had existed in 1886, everyone in the U.S. might have been
whipped into a hurricane panic. A record seven hurricanes made landfall
that year, including a Category 4 storm that hit Texas and would have
had on-the-spot cable newscasters dramatically fighting the wind to
deliver their reports. All during the 1890s, reporters could have done
the same along the Atlantic seaboard, as it was hammered by more
powerful hurricanes than it would be in any decade except the 1950s.

Hurricane Katrina, which slammed the Gulf Coast and got
eyewall-to-eyewall media coverage, is sure to increase the sense that
there is an epidemic of hurricanes (along, of course, with an epidemic
of shark attacks and missing blond girls). Which inevitably raises the
question: "What can we do about it?" For some scientists and activists —
working on the assumption that anything they don't like must be caused
by industrial emissions — the answer is stop global warming.

There is hardly an undesirable natural event, from wildfires to
hurricanes, that former Vice President Al Gore hasn't blamed on global
warming. As if it weren't for fossil-fuel emissions, the weather would
always be predictable and pleasant. An outfit called Scientists and
Engineers for Change put up a billboard in Florida before last year's
presidential election stating it starkly: "Global warming = Worse
hurricanes. George Bush just doesn't get it." Ah, yes: Why are Bush and
the neocons focused on the war in Iraq, when there is a very real threat
to the U.S. they should be addressing in the waters of the Atlantic?

Has global warming increased the frequency of hurricanes? One of the
nation's foremost hurricane experts, William Gray, points out that if
global warming is at work, cyclones should be increasing not just in the
Atlantic but elsewhere, in the West Pacific, East Pacific, and the
Indian Ocean. They aren't. The number of cyclones per year worldwide
fluctuates pretty steadily between 80 and 100. There's actually been a
small overall decline in tropical cyclones since 1995, and Atlantic
hurricanes declined from 1970 to 1994, even as the globe was heating up.

It seems that Atlantic hurricanes come in spurts, or as the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration puts it in more technical
language, "a quasi-cyclic multi-decade regime that alternates between
active and quiet phases." The late 1920s through the 1960s were active;
the 1970s to early 1990s quiet; and since 1995 — as anyone living in
Florida or Gulfport, Miss., can tell you — seems to be another active phase.

But if hurricanes aren't more frequent, are they more powerful? Warm
water fuels hurricanes, so the theory is that as the ocean's surface
heats up, hurricanes will pack more punch. An article in Nature — after
questionable jiggering with the historical wind data — argues that
hurricanes have doubled in strength because of global warming.
Climatologist Patrick Michaels counters that if hurricanes had doubled
in their power it would be obvious to everyone and there would be no
need to write controversial papers about it.

Indeed, if you adjust for population growth and skyrocketing property
values, hurricanes don't appear to be any more destructive today.
According to the work of Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, of
the top five most destructive storms this century, only one occurred
after 1950 — Hurricane Andrew in 1992. An NOAA analysis says there have
been fewer Category 4 storms throughout the past 35 years than would
have been expected given 20th-century averages.

None of this data matters particularly, since proponents of global
warming will continue to link warming with hurricanes. It generates
headlines in a way that debates about tiny increments of warming don't.
And it feeds a conceit that is oddly comforting: that whatever is wrong
with the world is caused by us and fixable by us. Alas, it's not so.
Mother Nature can be a cruel and unpredictable mistress, and sometimes
all we can do is head for the high ground.

Jerry Albro wrote:

Marcus wrote:
....
that global warming is a problem.

....
... if
global warming is at work, cyclones should be increasing not just in the
Atlantic but elsewhere, in the West Pacific, East Pacific, and the
Indian Ocean. They aren't. ...


Nicely put, Jerry.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Jerry Albro wrote:

Marcus wrote:
...
that global warming is a problem.

...
... if
global warming is at work, cyclones should be increasing not just in the
Atlantic but elsewhere, in the West Pacific, East Pacific, and the
Indian Ocean. They aren't. ...


Nicely put, Jerry.

I will say this though. The ocean level rising due to global warming do
exacerbate the problems and damage when hurricanes hit.

"FDR" wrote in message

I will say this though. The ocean level rising due to global warming do
exacerbate the problems and damage when hurricanes hit.

If it is in fact "global warming" and not just part of a 500 year weather
cycle.

Thank you, but not my work, merely quoting the good work of others...
-J

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Jerry Albro wrote:

Marcus wrote:

...

that global warming is a problem.


...

... if
global warming is at work, cyclones should be increasing not just in the
Atlantic but elsewhere, in the West Pacific, East Pacific, and the
Indian Ocean. They aren't. ...



Nicely put, Jerry.

Jerry Albro schrieb:

Has global warming increased the frequency of hurricanes? One of the
nation's foremost hurricane experts, William Gray, points out that if
global warming is at work, cyclones should be increasing not just in the
Atlantic but elsewhere, in the West Pacific, East Pacific, and the
Indian Ocean. They aren't. The number of cyclones per year worldwide
fluctuates pretty steadily between 80 and 100. There's actually been a
small overall decline in tropical cyclones since 1995, and Atlantic
hurricanes declined from 1970 to 1994, even as the globe was heating up.

....
But if hurricanes aren't more frequent, are they more powerful? Warm
water fuels hurricanes, so the theory is that as the ocean's surface
heats up, hurricanes will pack more punch. An article in Nature - after
questionable jiggering with the historical wind data - argues that
hurricanes have doubled in strength because of global warming.
Climatologist Patrick Michaels counters that if hurricanes had doubled
in their power it would be obvious to everyone and there would be no
need to write controversial papers about it.
....
If you see it that way: How many hurricanes do you need, until you are
convinced? It's simply not the question, whether there's a water-tight
scientific evidence. If the value - and I'm not only talking money
terms of U.S. property here - at risk is very high, you should keep
the risk very low.
Example: Imagine 10 glasses of water, one poisonned. You would juge it
an acceptable risk in some game show, if someone else drinks. For
yourself you would need 100 glasses to one to accept the risk to drink.
For your kids, you wouldn't even accept 1000 glasses to one, if you
know they will drink.
And it's not only the US-Americans at stake here. Would you accept, if
Canada would run unsafe Nuclear Plants close to the US-Border simply
argueing: Heck, an accident will kill just US-citizens... Certainly
not. In most cases these "stronger-than-ever" hurricanes devastate
other states around the Gulf. This time, the global warmers have
recieved a message... The rest of the world hopes, that they will
understand this time. If not, well more messages are already under way.
That's cruel, extremely cruell -- I just saw the TV-reports with
victims desparately shouting up to the helicopters....

"geographer" wrote in message
It's simply not the question, whether there's a water-tight
scientific evidence.

That's bull****. If it can't support itself under scientific scrutiny, and
global warming myths currently CANNOT, then it has no business being
repeated as if it were anything close to resembling facts.

On 1-Sep-2005, "wkearney99" wrote:

That's bull****. If it can't support itself under scientific scrutiny, and
global warming myths currently CANNOT, then it has no business being
repeated as if it were anything close to resembling facts.

If there's bull**** being spread, it's your claim that global warming
is a myth. Global warming is based on a lot of solid evidence and is
a fact. What is in doubt is whether the causes of gloal warming are
related to human activities and whether changing those activities
will stall or reverse global warming.

Mike

Marcus Wrote:
People of the USA

The weather god apologises for the unfortunate collateral damage & loss
of
life to the people of America in his efforts to point out to your
government
that global warming is a problem.

The USA is one of the worlds largest producer of emissions contributing
to
global warming and has a government not interested in doing anything
about
it. If you do not take this hint, then the weather god will mobilise
his
full forces and implement a plan for full regime change in the USA.

Drive smaller more efficient cars or learn to swim, such a simple
transportation choice !!

Kind Regards
The weather god & his war War Against Pollution

LOL. Is this a joke? God has nothing to do with this. If you build a
city in a swamp between two lakes a huge river next to an ocean soon or
a later it will get wiped out. New Orleans has suffered through a few
hurricanes that have wiped it out. They just keep building there. It
has been through many plagues and flooding. It's in a bad location. The
city of New Orleans was also wiped out by the fire of 1794. To blame
this on God or global warming is rediculous.
Everybody knows global warming is caused by cows flatulance. As soon as
we put corks in the cows back ends the better off we'll all be. : )


--
superflysmith
------------------------------------------------------------------------
superflysmith's Profile: http://www.homeplot.com/member.php?userid=38
View this thread: http://www.homeplot.com/showthread.php?t=57792

superflysmith wrote:
Marcus Wrote:

People of the USA

The weather god apologises for the unfortunate collateral damage & loss
of
life to the people of America in his efforts to point out to your
government
that global warming is a problem.

The USA is one of the worlds largest producer of emissions contributing
to
global warming and has a government not interested in doing anything
about
it. If you do not take this hint, then the weather god will mobilise
his
full forces and implement a plan for full regime change in the USA.

Drive smaller more efficient cars or learn to swim, such a simple
transportation choice !!

Kind Regards
The weather god & his war War Against Pollution


LOL. Is this a joke? God has nothing to do with this. If you build a
city in a swamp between two lakes a huge river next to an ocean soon or
a later it will get wiped out. New Orleans has suffered through a few
hurricanes that have wiped it out. They just keep building there. It
has been through many plagues and flooding. It's in a bad location. The
city of New Orleans was also wiped out by the fire of 1794. To blame
this on God or global warming is rediculous.
Everybody knows global warming is caused by cows flatulance. As soon as
we put corks in the cows back ends the better off we'll all be. : )



Don't blame the poor cows.
Everyone knows that any Global Warming is caused by the hot air
emanating from politicians.



--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:28:00 +0100, "Marcus" wrote:

If you believe in God, it's time for you to pray. He's probably
asleep. Maybe, if you donate lots of money to Pat Robertson,
Benny Hine, Robert Tilton etc. Their Gods may perform
miracles?

People of the USA

The weather god apologises for the unfortunate collateral damage & loss of
life to the people of America in his efforts to point out to your government
that global warming is a problem.

The USA is one of the worlds largest producer of emissions contributing to
global warming and has a government not interested in doing anything about
it. If you do not take this hint, then the weather god will mobilise his
full forces and implement a plan for full regime change in the USA.

Drive smaller more efficient cars or learn to swim, such a simple
transportation choice !!

Kind Regards
The weather god & his war War Against Pollution

Here's a good read for those exercised by conflicts between man and
natu
The Control of Nature -- by John McPhee; Paperback

TB

wrote:
Why was New Orleans built below sea level? That's just plain stupid.

Yep. We should play it safe and not cross oceans to explore because it
can kill ya'. Don't build in a valley because a flood might get you.
Don't build on a mountain because a landslide might get you. Don't
build in SF or LA because an earthquake might get you. I've got to move
because I live on the water and the next hurricane might get me. I
can't go back where I used to live because a sink hole or a tornado
might get me. The first people that came over here had laws about
taking care of orphans and the less fortunate, kind of a commie deal in
today's thinking but it worked. You have to be a little crazy to risk
getting eaten by bears or scalped in order to build a home where you
want to live. They filled in a stinky swamp and built Chicago. And
life would not be what it is today without the flavor added by a city
like New Orleans. Someone knocked down a skyscraper in NYC, killed
3,000 people, but they are going to build another. Because they can.
Funny thing about the site of Twin Towers is that the site didn't used
to be solid ground. It was on the edge of New York Harbor. When they
were building it, they found remains of a ship that had burned on the
site about 1614. The captain of the ship, Adrian Block, didn't sit there
and die. He had his guys build another so he could get back home. He
brought back furs, which was the gold of the day and for a long time
later. On his way back home, he discovered that Long Island is an
island and discovered the Connecticut River, so some of my ancestors had
a place to settle. I say, "Go for it!"

Here in DC we're pretty safe from natural disasters, except I am sure
they're sitting around in a tent in the desert right now, trying to figure
out how to kill us with a dirty bomb, suicide attack, or God (Allah) only
knows.

"Buck Turgidson" wrote in
news:Q_nRe.3473$rj.1519@lakeread07:

Here in DC we're pretty safe from natural disasters, except I am sure
they're sitting around in a tent in the desert right now, trying to
figure out how to kill us with a dirty bomb, suicide attack, or God
(Allah) only knows.




Dirty bomb,hell;they plan to use a real nuke.

I suspect Iran will be the one to supply it,too.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Obviously, where people settle and build homes of any kind has
everything to do with immediate needs and opportunities, i.e jobs.
Considerations of possible future dangers are far back in anyone's
mind, and will of course be downplayed by the real estate
developers/speculators.

Besides, most people don't know enough to realize what bad or good
construction is, and it's too easy for builders and real estate
developers to cheat. A well built home in a good, safe location is
beyond the reach of everyone but a small minority. And as was noted
above, even people with considerable means do it wrong too.

wrote:
Why was New Orleans built below sea level? That's just plain stupid.
Apparently what they call the "bowl" must have been a lake or
something at one time. I can understand the original part of the city
was built long ago, and probably before they knew what they were
doing, but you'd think someone would have stopped development long
ago. The stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me. From
what I have seen on the news, the entire city is or will be destroyed.
But they will probably rebuild it and all of us will have to pay for
the rebuilding with our taxes. Dont get me wrong, I feel very sorry
for the people that lived there, but who allowed this stupidity to
occur? It seems that the government is adding new laws almost daily
to protect us from ourselves, yet they did nothing to stop the
development in that city, knowing that sooner or later it would fail.
It dont take a genious to know what dangers existed. its pretty much
basic science.

I am just searching the web to find out how many feet they are below
sea level, but you'd think they would have used fill to at least bring
buildings at or above sea level. Maybe thats not possible, which is
why I am trying to find the depth.

They said that even that dome which was used for shelter during the
hurricane is filling with water today. That appears to be a fairly
new building, yet that too is below sea level. STUPID !!!!

Mark


Why? For the same reasons people move back around Mt. Vesuvius after an
eruption kills many and chases others away. That volcano has blown about
35 times since the first eruption to be recorded in detail, the 79 AD one.

I think we humans like to take chances like that because it makes us
feel "brave". It's the "Hey, watch this" syndrome.

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia

(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)

"Truth exists; only falsehood has to be invented."

Jeff Wisnia wrote:
....
Why? For the same reasons people move back around Mt. Vesuvius after an
eruption kills many and chases others away. That volcano has blown about
35 times since the first eruption to be recorded in detail, the 79 AD one.
....

So let's see--that's an average recurrence of ~50 year--just about that
of Cat 3 or greater hurricanes, I think???

Any wonder why lessons are forgotten so easily?

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Jeff Wisnia wrote:
...

Why? For the same reasons people move back around Mt. Vesuvius after an
eruption kills many and chases others away. That volcano has blown about
35 times since the first eruption to be recorded in detail, the 79 AD one.

...

So let's see--that's an average recurrence of ~50 year--just about that
of Cat 3 or greater hurricanes, I think???

Any wonder why lessons are forgotten so easily?

If we get another 500 year storm next year, we will know we are in trouble.

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Jeff Wisnia wrote:
...

Why? For the same reasons people move back around Mt. Vesuvius after an
eruption kills many and chases others away. That volcano has blown about
35 times since the first eruption to be recorded in detail, the 79 AD one.

...

So let's see--that's an average recurrence of ~50 year--just about that
of Cat 3 or greater hurricanes, I think???

Any wonder why lessons are forgotten so easily?

Andrew and Katrina fell on almost the same date during the year.
Difference from "A" to "K" is....10 more named storms?

Duane Bozarth wrote in
:

Jeff Wisnia wrote:
...
Why? For the same reasons people move back around Mt. Vesuvius after
an eruption kills many and chases others away. That volcano has blown
about 35 times since the first eruption to be recorded in detail, the
79 AD one.
...

So let's see--that's an average recurrence of ~50 year--just about
that of Cat 3 or greater hurricanes, I think???


I note that Hurricane Charlie when it hit Port Charlotte in Florida,was a
Cat 4 hurricane,Andrew a few years ago was a Cat 5,and Katrina was a Cat 4.
That's THREE Cat3 hurricanes in less that 10 years.



Any wonder why lessons are forgotten so easily?


Forgotten?;they were never learned.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

wrote in
:

Why was New Orleans built below sea level?

It originally was not below sea level,but after levees were built to block
the seasonal floods,the land inside began to SINK,no longer being
replenished from the silt carried by the yearly floods.The "delta" was
created by(and maintained by) silt from the Mississippi River.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

What is equally disturbing is the fact that the government and the insurance
companies continue to condone and insure building in areas where it is known
that they will have disasters and large insurance losses.

Because they do this the rest of us that refuse to build in these danger
zones must pay higher premiums to cover such losses.

I sent contributions to the Red Cross and the Salvation Army; but, it will
be very annoying if my premiums go up because others will not learn

wrote in message
...
Why was New Orleans built below sea level? That's just plain stupid.
Apparently what they call the "bowl" must have been a lake or
something at one time. I can understand the original part of the city
was built long ago, and probably before they knew what they were
doing, but you'd think someone would have stopped development long
ago. The stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me. From
what I have seen on the news, the entire city is or will be destroyed.
But they will probably rebuild it and all of us will have to pay for
the rebuilding with our taxes. Dont get me wrong, I feel very sorry
for the people that lived there, but who allowed this stupidity to
occur? It seems that the government is adding new laws almost daily
to protect us from ourselves, yet they did nothing to stop the
development in that city, knowing that sooner or later it would fail.
It dont take a genious to know what dangers existed. its pretty much
basic science.

I am just searching the web to find out how many feet they are below
sea level, but you'd think they would have used fill to at least bring
buildings at or above sea level. Maybe thats not possible, which is
why I am trying to find the depth.

They said that even that dome which was used for shelter during the
hurricane is filling with water today. That appears to be a fairly
new building, yet that too is below sea level. STUPID !!!!

Mark

barbarow wrote:
What is equally disturbing is the fact that the government and the insurance
companies continue to condone and insure building in areas where it is known
that they will have disasters and large insurance losses.

Floida made pretty severe restrictions after Andrew - if 50% damaged,
have to rebuild on stilts, etc. I can imagine the howling if anyone
even THOUGHT of passing laws against building "on the water". There is
a feeding frenzy already, town ignores it's own regs on density, etc.
There are lots of folks wealthy enough to gut a nice waterfront home and
rebuild 3x as large; those same folks are wealthy enough to make large
campaign donations to political party of their republican choice )I
have met only one person, in 10 yrs. in Florida, who admits to being a
Democrat. Honest. I wouldn't kid ya'. A local planner recently
suggested a moratorium on building permits, and they haven't found his
body floating yet, but the response was negative.

I grew up in a nice city that didn't build up to the water's edge and
knew how to reverse rivers when they flowed the wrong direction )

Why was New Orleans built below sea level? That's just plain stupid.

Location is more critical than elevation. Consider the strategic military
value of being the last town on the river that reaches the entire middle
US. A little war around 1812 hinged on things like that.

Nawluhns is also the closest thing to the third-world in the US, in terms
of civil engineering, compounded by a corrupt culture. Such character is
not going to prudently invest in infrastructure to withstand such a test as
Katrina.

Richard J Kinch wrote in
:

Why was New Orleans built below sea level? That's just plain stupid.

Location is more critical than elevation. Consider the strategic
military value of being the last town on the river that reaches the
entire middle US. A little war around 1812 hinged on things like
that.

Nawluhns is also the closest thing to the third-world in the US, in
terms of civil engineering, compounded by a corrupt culture. Such
character is not going to prudently invest in infrastructure to
withstand such a test as Katrina.


Corrupt,definitely;even their POLICE are looting.

During natural (or unnatural)disasters,looters should be shot on the spot.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik writes:

Corrupt,definitely;even their POLICE are looting.

No, you and I loot, police, ahem, "commandeer".

During natural (or unnatural)disasters,looters should be shot on the
spot.

Not possible. The National Guard troops are not trusted with live
ammunition.

Richard J Kinch wrote in
:

Jim Yanik writes:

Corrupt,definitely;even their POLICE are looting.

No, you and I loot, police, ahem, "commandeer".

the report I saw was two female officers with shopping carts full of
Woman's SHOES!

Police ARE allowed to commandeer needed items,but I don't believe ladies
shoes falls into that category.



During natural (or unnatural)disasters,looters should be shot on the
spot.

Not possible. The National Guard troops are not trusted with live
ammunition.


I would not bet on that.
Besides,it's easy enought to have your own magazines of ammo;the AR-15 uses
the same ammo and mags as the M-16's.

*I* sure would have ammo.

Also,civilians could and should shoot looters on the spot.
In Florida,it's legal;burglary is a forcible felony,and one can use deadly
force to stop forcible felonies. I'd write "looter" on their foreheads,too.

"Not in my neighborhood".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik writes:

In Florida,it's legal;burglary is a forcible felony,and one can use
deadly force to stop forcible felonies.

No, there is more to it than that, my friend. Deadly force is not always
legally justifiable in such circumstances.

Corrupt,definitely;even their POLICE are looting.

No, you and I loot, police, ahem, "commandeer".

During natural (or unnatural)disasters,looters should be shot on the
spot.

Not possible. The National Guard troops are not trusted with live
ammunition.

They are for antiwar events, such as the Kent State student protest against
the Vietnam war. Then the National Guard murdered 4 students, just for fun.

Bert Byfield writes:

Not possible. The National Guard troops are not trusted with live
ammunition.

They are for antiwar events, such as the Kent State student protest
against the Vietnam war.

I'm talking about today. Not the 60s.

Bert Byfield wrote:

....
...the Kent State student protest ...the National Guard murdered 4 students, just for fun.

Absolute nonsense...they were put in a tenseful situation and,
essentially, panicked...

Bert Byfield wrote in
:

Corrupt,definitely;even their POLICE are looting.

No, you and I loot, police, ahem, "commandeer".

During natural (or unnatural)disasters,looters should be shot on the
spot.

Not possible. The National Guard troops are not trusted with live
ammunition.

They are for antiwar events, such as the Kent State student protest
against the Vietnam war.


Then the National Guard murdered 4 students,
just for fun.




People like you make me SICK.You think they shot people "just for FUN".
They were surrounded by a large,hostile crowd,with people throwing things
at them.You have absolutely NO evidence that the shootings were FUN for
them.

G-D socialists.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Richard J Kinch wrote:

Jim Yanik writes:

Corrupt,definitely;even their POLICE are looting.

No, you and I loot, police, ahem, "commandeer".

During natural (or unnatural)disasters,looters should be shot on the
spot.

Not possible. The National Guard troops are not trusted with live
ammunition.

Absolute nonsense...