SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lane3 who wrote (139441)9/19/2005 11:18:34 AM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (1) of 794261
 
The logic is uncharacteristically absent in your various posts.

By your lights, any city which faces a calamity which can reasonably be expected to recur should not be rebuilt.

If SF suffers a huge earthquake, as it inevitably will, it is illogical to rebuild on any of the faults because another is a certainty. Forget the history, the charm, the beauty of the place.

If NYC is again hit by terrorists, which is probable, the damage caused should not be fixed because we would simply provide them with a new target.

Virtually everything that happens in NYC or SF because they are "national assets" can take place in Omaha or Cleveland. Prudence therefore suggests that those cities make plans to move there in order to avoid man made or natural disasters. The sooner the better.

Good grief.

If you wish to abandon a major American city that got hit by an one in a 125 year event, be ready to do the same for all cities which suffer terrorism or natural disasters. And vote for cold hearted pols who will advocate such a crazy position, not that I am the least bit fearful that they would be elected.

And perhaps most importantly, hope and pray it doesn't ever happen to you so that you would not be forced to listen to such garbage from me and others in my position.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext