Tornado Alley vs Katrina - Page 4

JaJae · 05-11-2007, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

There's plenty of reasons why people are seperating the poor black Katrina folks from that crowd and insisting they shouldn't get shit. I have YET to see a single VALID reason.

It has nothing to do with their race or their economic level. So let's try to keep that out of the arguments, it's been used as an emotional tool to get Katrina victims money when in reality it has nothing to do with people's views. There's been a lot of race baiting and racial cards thrown out and it isn't by the people who didn't want to rebuild New Orleans.

It had to do with the fact that these people chose to stay there rather than leave. And then after the fact people aren't willing to spend billions to rebuild a city below sea level so the next hurricane can do the same. The odds of that town being hit by a bad tornado again anytime soon is very unlikely. The odds of New Orleans getting hit again in our lifetime is possible and very likely.

DosEquis · 05-11-2007, 11:37 AM

Natural disasters happen regardless of the location in the country. The chances of a tornado actually hitting a town is fairly slim. They do only have minutes of warning. Katrina people had DAYS to watch it come toward them.

The last time a tornado hit omaha, ne was 1975. So far it has been nearly 32 years since the last one was here. Most tornados are in the middle of no where, a place nice and flat which allows it to form easier.

How often are earthquakes, wild fires, and mud slides going on in cali? How often does Florida get hit with hurricanes?

Rarely do i agree with ballz but this thread is weak.

Donkey® · 05-11-2007, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by lew

Every single person in this thread disagrees with you. Keep fighting the good fight though!

Because that somehow matters?

Originally Posted by lew

And again, I agree that none of them should get federal money - but that's because it's not their job to give us money; not because comparing a tornado is anything like a hurricane.

I personally don't care either way. I think people are stupid for moving certain places and then crying when something happens to their home. I also think the goverment should take care of it's people when things do happen. That's why it's a problem when one group of people involved in disaster are disparaged and called names and another group of people are hailed as victims that need immediate empathy and support.

7960 · 05-11-2007, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Can't live in CA cause of an increased risk of earthquakes.

Can't live anywhere on the gulf coast or even most states on the east coast, cause of an increased risk of hurrianes.

Can't live in the midwest because of tornadoes.

Can't live in the north because of an increased risk of blizzards.

Can't live in the western states because of an increased risk of drought.

By your argument, people shouldn't live there, because they 'might die'. Which means, the US is uninhabitable.

Brilliant.

OR

If you choose to live there then STFU when something happens and you're not prepared.

7960 · 05-11-2007, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Why do whities in tornado alley get the sympathy and money with no complaints yet the WASPs and people like you complained about the people affected by Katrina in New Orleans? Go ahead and digest all that and come back to the thread when you're ready to make some sense.

Who says they get sympathy and money with no complaints?

But then again, like I said, when is the last time one of them asked me to house them for 16 months? Never, that's when. And before you say "maybe whites get their claims paid faster" how about you actually show that. Because I could just as easily come back with "maybe those whites actually have disaster insurance but blacks living 22' below sea level in New Orleans are too stupid to have flood insurance and that's why they didn't get any money."

So go ahead and digest all that and come back to the thread when you're ready to begin making some sense.

6SpeedTA95 · 05-11-2007, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Sigh. The lengths you guys will go to defend hypocrisy.

If I choose to live in a home next to a volcano.
If I choose to live in a home on a fault line.
If I choose to live in a home in tornado alley.
If I choose to live in a home on a flood plain.
If I choose to live in a home on a coastal area.

I should not be compensated for my home being destroyed by lava, earthquake, tornado, flood, hurricane or tsunami...with FEDERAL money. OR, they ALL should be compensated with FEDERAL money. There's plenty of reasons why people are seperating the poor black Katrina folks from that crowd and insisting they shouldn't get shit. I have YET to see a single VALID reason. All this talk about timeframes and warnings is fringe bullshit that has nothing to do with anything. Keep at it though...it's amusing.

A tornado can happen anywhere, not just tornado alley

In fact there probably isn't a state in the US that hasn't had a tornado. They happen every year in the US and Canada. Last time I checked Hurricanes happened in coastal areas. When's the last time a hurricane formed in Lincoln Nebraska? When's the last time someone only had 10 mins notice of an impending hurricane?

The same can be said for earthquakes, you don't know when and where they're going to strike. If you choose not to get flood insurance and you live in a flood plain thats completely different then getting home owners insurance living on the coast and getting hit by a hurricane or having a tornado destroy your house or having an earthquake destroy your town. These comparisons make no sense at all.

ballz2wallz · 05-11-2007, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

If I choose to live in a home next to a volcano.
If I choose to live in a home on a fault line.
If I choose to live in a home in tornado alley.
If I choose to live in a home on a flood plain.
If I choose to live in a home on a coastal area.

I should not be compensated for my home being destroyed by lava, earthquake, tornado, flood, hurricane or tsunami...with FEDERAL money.

I agree with this.

We shouldn't have helped the Katrina victims, and we shouldn't help anybody else with natural disasters. Save their lives in the midst of it, sure. Help them rebuild, no way. The states have money, insurance companies are there for a reason, and the more the federal government bails people out, the more people will depend on them, and the worse the 'welfare state' gets.

DosEquis · 05-11-2007, 12:49 PM

Allstate to stop insuring Calif. homes - U.S. Business - MSNBC.com

Diesel66 · 05-11-2007, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Yes...in tornado alley. Just like nobody knows where hurricanes will hit until they hit land.

KATRINA Graphics Archive

It was aimed right at the New Orleans/Mississippi area 2 days before the hit. If you live near the coast, evacuate.

6SpeedTA95 · 05-11-2007, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I agree with this.

We shouldn't have helped the Katrina victims, and we shouldn't help anybody else with natural disasters. Save their lives in the midst of it, sure. Help them rebuild, no way. The states have money, insurance companies are there for a reason, and the more the federal government bails people out, the more people will depend on them, and the worse the 'welfare state' gets.

I tend to agree. I do think its ok for the government to provide trailers and things of that nature to help victims. But help rebuilding? Isn't that what insurance is for?

Donkey® · 05-11-2007, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I agree with this.

We shouldn't have helped the Katrina victims, and we shouldn't help anybody else with natural disasters. Save their lives in the midst of it, sure. Help them rebuild, no way. The states have money, insurance companies are there for a reason, and the more the federal government bails people out, the more people will depend on them, and the worse the 'welfare state' gets.

And THIS is what I am looking for. A CONSISTANT stance. NOBODY deserves it? I can agree with that. EVERYONE deserves it? I can agree with that as well. I would be happy with either. If the people of New Orleans are "stupid and ignorant" for living where they lived...then so are the people next to the Mississippi and so are the people in tornado alley.

lew · 05-11-2007, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And THIS is what I am looking for. A CONSISTANT stance. NOBODY deserves it? I can agree with that. EVERYONE deserves it? I can agree with that as well. I would be happy with either. If the people of New Orleans are "stupid and ignorant" for living where they lived...then so are the people next to the Mississippi and so are the people in tornado alley.

You still don't get it.

The people in NO were not stupid because they lived there.

They were stupid for not leaving when a Cat 5 Hurricane was headed their way.

7960 · 05-11-2007, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And THIS is what I am looking for. A CONSISTANT stance. NOBODY deserves it? I can agree with that. EVERYONE deserves it? I can agree with that as well. I would be happy with either. If the people of New Orleans are "stupid and ignorant" for living where they lived...then so are the people next to the Mississippi and so are the people in tornado alley.

THEY ARE NOT STUPID FOR LIVING THERE! They are stupid for living there and expecting me to pay when something bad happened.

I don't think we should pay for hurricane victims in kansas either. Have insurance.....don't have insurance............ but don't bitch to me when you get fucked by mother nature.

Donkey® · 05-11-2007, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by lew

You still don't get it.

The people in NO were not stupid because they lived there.

They were stupid for not leaving when a Cat 5 Hurricane was headed their way.

Again with the blanket statements...ok. Whatever you say.

lew · 05-11-2007, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Again with the blanket statements...ok. Whatever you say.

You're the one claiming that we think people that live in Orleans were stupid while those that live in Kansas aren't....but NO ONE is claiming that.

DosEquis · 05-11-2007, 03:57 PM

Perhaps I should add commentary to the article. What if other insurance companies follow the lead of allstate and pull coverage in those areas? Or those that are still willing to insure people charge a rate so high that people simply can't afford it?

Donkey® · 05-11-2007, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Perhaps I should add commentary to the article. What if other insurance companies follow the lead of allstate and pull coverage in those areas? Or those that are still willing to insure people charge a rate so high that people simply can't afford it?

Well, the problem is who picks up the tab? Another issue I have with insurance is that you have to be able to afford it. For some people, it's hard.

7960 · 05-11-2007, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Well, the problem is who picks up the tab? Another issue I have with insurance is that you have to be able to afford it. For some people, it's hard.

then they shouldn't live where in a place they can't afford

Donkey® · 05-11-2007, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

then they shouldn't live where in a place they can't afford

What does that have to do with anything? They could live somewhere else and still not be able to afford the insurance.

Publius · 05-11-2007, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®