(Lake Martin Specific)
111,143 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 7:30:23 PM
Lakes Online Forum
83,605 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Lake Martin Specific)
4,169 messages
Updated 4/16/2024 3:16:57 AM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
(Lake Martin Specific)
169 messages
Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
Maverick
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
GA Seeks Disaster Declaration
|
|
Date:
|
10/20/2007 12:40:16 PM
|
Riley is trumpted by Perdue once again.
Riley better quickly counter Perdue as only the northern third of GA shows an expcetional drought and looking at the drought map (URL below) most of Alabama shows as being in an exceptional drought.
http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html
URL: Georgia Seeks Water Disaster Declaration
|
| Name: |
BayPineYankee
-
|
|
| Subject: |
GA Seeks Disaster Declaration
|
|
Date:
|
10/20/2007 4:28:14 PM
|
Purdue says GA has not developed a contingency plan if the reservoirs run dry - he hasn't even developed a water management plan for when they are full, or dwindling. Downstream is not a great place to be right now.
|
| Name: |
SandyCreekman
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Perdue vs. Riley
|
|
Date:
|
10/21/2007 9:01:24 PM
|
I don't think Perdue has gotten best of Riley. It was Riley would was able to chance the amounts being taken from Alatoona.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
GA Seeks Disaster Declaration
|
|
Date:
|
10/21/2007 10:23:27 PM
|
Thewhole thing is amazing to me, especially the part about no contingency. Perdue (who I voted for) hired Carol Couch 2-3 years ago as head of Georgia EPD specifically because of her "water" expertise. The water disputes in the SE have been all over the papers for years and you would think they would have given this some thought.
I would say that the drought monitor indicates that drought conditions in Alabama may be easing but will continue in Georgia so there may be a bit more of a challenge for Georgia. I also think that releasing water from Georgia to float a dredge in Alabama is probably not going to garner a lot of public support in Georgia right now and Perdue, like Reilly, need to appeal to their constituency.
Here's a bold prediction, when the drought finally eases neither state will have the political will to develop a long-term mutually beneficial strategy that takes into consideration the economic needs of both states. They'll be off to their next real or manufactured crisis. Another argument for limited government.
|
| Name: |
Spot Remover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Georgia-real concern?
|
|
Date:
|
10/22/2007 7:13:39 AM
|
It is absolutely amazing that the city of Atlanta has suddenly found out the importance of our natural resources (Chattahoochee River). This comes after years of releasing raw, untreated sewerage into the river because it was cheaper for them to pay fines instead of fixing the problems.
They don't deserve anything but the sewerage they can process in their less than adequate utilities..
I personally have no little sympathy even though I hope they can correct their own problems, but not at the expense of others.
|
| Name: |
Spot Remover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Georgia-real concern?
|
|
Date:
|
10/22/2007 7:18:10 AM
|
(little sympathy, not no sympathy) Error corrected.
|
| Name: |
glen7297
-
|
|
| Subject: |
GA Seeks Disaster Declaration
|
|
Date:
|
10/22/2007 1:25:16 PM
|
I strongly agree with your last paragraph and especially the last sentence. All conservatives had better stand up and be heard and become the vocal majority...otherwise, we will have a President in '08 AND a congressional majority who think that government is the solution to everything and we will be on a very slippery slope that leads to socialism.
I don't know who I would vote for (of the Republicans running) just yet but I am firmly in the camp of ABH. (FYI, that is Anyone But Hillary) !!
|
| Name: |
UncleSam
-
|
|
| Subject: |
GA Seeks Disaster Declaration
|
|
Date:
|
10/22/2007 3:14:36 PM
|
You said "otherwise, we will have a President in '08 AND a congressional majority who think that government is the solution to everything and we will be on a very slippery slope that leads to socialism." If only it was that easy, but like most things, Republicans and Democrats aren't that easy to pigeonhole.
I thought his was a good read: "To oversimplify: Democrats are for Big Government; Republicans are against it.
To oversimplify somewhat less, Democrats aren't always for Big Government, and Republicans aren't always against it. Democrats treasure civil liberties, whereas Republicans are more tolerant of government censorship to protect children from pornography, or of wiretapping to catch a criminal, or of torture in the war against terrorism. War in general and Iraq in particular--certainly Big Government exercises--are projects Republicans tend to be more enthusiastic about. Likewise the criminal process: Republicans tend to want to make more things illegal and to send more people to jail for longer. Republicans also consider themselves more concerned about the moral tone of the country, and they are more disposed toward using the government in trying to improve it. In particular, Republicans think religion needs more help from society, through the government, while Democrats are touchier about the separation of church and state.
Many people feel that neither party offers a coherent set of principles that they can agree with. For them, the choice is whether you believe in Big Government or you don't. And if you don't, you call yourself a libertarian. Libertarians are against government in all its manifestations. Domestically, they are against social-welfare programs. They favor self-reliance (as they see it) over Big Government spending. Internationally, they are isolationists. Like George Washington, they loathe "foreign entanglements," and they think the rest of the world can go to hell without America's help. They don't care--or at least they don't think the government should care--about what people are reading, thinking, drinking, smoking or doing in bed. And what is the opposite of libertarianism? Libertarians would say fascism. But in the American political context, it is something infinitely milder that calls itself communitarianism. The term is not as familiar, and communitarians are far less organized as a movement than libertarians, ironically enough. But in general communitarians emphasize society rather than the individual and believe that group responsibilities (to family, community, nation, the globe) should trump individual rights.
The relationship of these two ways of thinking to the two established parties is peculiar. Republicans are far more likely to identify themselves as libertarians and to vilify the government in the abstract. And yet Republicans have a clearer vision of what constitutes a good society and a well-run planet and are quicker to try to impose this vision on the rest of us. Now that the Republican Party is in trouble, critics are advising it to free itself of the religious right on issues like abortion and gay rights. That is, the party should become less communitarian and more libertarian. With Democrats, it's the other way around.
Very few Democrats self-identify as libertarians, but they are in fact much more likely to have a live-and-let-live attitude toward the lesbian couple next door or the Islamofascist dictator halfway around the world. And every time the Democrats lose an election, critics scold that they must put less emphasis on the sterile rights of individuals and more emphasis on responsibilities to society. That is, they should become less libertarian and more communitarian. Usually this boils down to advocating mandatory so-called voluntary national service by people younger than whoever is doing the advocating.
Libertarians and communitarians (to continue this unjustified generalizing) are different character types. Communitarians tend to be bossy, boring and self-important, if they're not being oversweetened and touchy-feely. Libertarians, by contrast, are not the selfish monsters you might expect. They are earnest and impractical--eager to corner you with their plan for using old refrigerators to reverse global warming or solving the traffic mess by privatizing stoplights. And if you disagree, they're fine with that. It's a free country.
The chance of the two political parties realigning so conveniently is slim. But the party that does well in the future will be the one that makes the better guess about where to place its bets. My money's on the libertarians. People were shocked a couple of weeks ago when Ron Paul--one of those mysterious Republicans who seem to be running for President because everyone needs a hobby--raised $5 million from July through September, mostly on the Internet. Paul is a libertarian. In fact, he was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1988. The computer revolution has bred a generation of smart loners, many of them rich and some of them complacently Darwinian, convinced that they don't need society--nor should anyone else. They are going to be an increasingly powerful force in politics."
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Generalizations
|
|
Date:
|
10/22/2007 3:57:18 PM
|
You know the old saying, all generalizations are false, including this one. :-)
I get your point about not pigeonholing based on party affiliation. The real differentiation is between liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc. Some Democrats are fiscally conservative and some Republicans are not. Likewise, some Democrats are socially conservative and some Reblicans are not. It is always dangerous to ascribe a body of beliefs to someone based only on their party affiliation.
I would argue though that if you look at the current leadership in Congress it is composed almost entirely of liberals. I also believe that all the top-tier Democratic presidential candidates are likewise liberal. They believe in big government (which I define as the belief that government should redistribute wealth at the point of gun to solve almost any economic or social ill), they have all advocated raising taxes and they all ascribe to the "realist" view of international relations (which I define as seeking stability over promoting democracy).
Likewise, ascribing "big government" to Republicans because of the cost of wars ignores the fact that Wilson (WW1), Roosevelt (WW2), Truman (Korean conflict) and Kennedy (Vietnam) were all Democrats and all brought us into very expensive wars. I am not criticizing their decisions, just pointing out that if you want to add up all the costs of wars in today's dollars Republicans will look cheap by comparison.
Its all interesting points to discuss over a martini on my deck looking out at beautiful Lake Martin but unfortunately I can't even see water from my house right now. :-(
|
| Name: |
glen7297
-
|
|
| Subject: |
GA Seeks Disaster Declaration
|
|
Date:
|
10/22/2007 7:27:26 PM
|
I said "conservatives", not "Republicans". Not trying to pigeon hole anybody or any party...just stating the fairly obvious. That is, that it is the liberals who are mostly heard loud and clear since most of the media is of that ilk...and conservatives had better start making themselves heard and holding their elected officials accountable.
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
GA Seeks Disaster Declaration
|
|
Date:
|
10/22/2007 7:54:31 PM
|
IMHO, the problem is not the two parties, but the two party system. There is not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties any longer. proponents say the two party system works. I agree, it works GREAT for the two parties, but NOT for the citizens they are sent to 'represent'. We MUST develop a viable third, even fourth and fifth party if that is what it takes to take back our country.
The constitution never speaks of political parties, they are an invention of the elected. I would like to see a party developed that would target Senate seats. It would take several election cycles, most likely, but once you have a large enough voting block of Senators, you control the legislative process. A third party president would become ineffective if he tried to make radical changes because the two parties would ban together to override vetoes, the only legislative tool the executive branch has.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
GA Seeks Disaster Declaration
|
|
Date:
|
10/22/2007 8:19:25 PM
|
I was actually responding to Uncle Sam and not your post. You were clear as to who you were responding to and I agree with you.
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Lake Martin Topics Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Lake Martin
Login
|
Home
