• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama continues his vacation in Hawaii while Missouri drowns in flood waters

when the federal government's response to midwestern floods is found to be woefully lacking, as it was prior to and during katrina's aftermath, criticizing Obama for continuing to play around in HI would be legitimate
maybe i have missed it. it what ways has the federal response to this disaster been deemed inadequate
 
ksu_aviator said:
I was in New Orleans shortly after Katrina. The recovery effort was massive, the need was just bigger than our resources. Sometimes, disasters are bigger than the government. This was one of those times.
Click to expand...

The failure in Katrina was not in the response but the timing of it. You missed the days when there was no response from FEMA at all.
 
ksu_aviator said:
I was in New Orleans shortly after Katrina. The recovery effort was massive, the need was just bigger than our resources. Sometimes, disasters are bigger than the government. This was one of those times.
Click to expand...
,
I live in one of the affected states and due to my employment, dealt with the aftermath of Katrina for months, not to mention damage to my own residence. I was sickened by the left turning the storm into little more then a political issue.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Of course you'd miss the subject matter of the thread in your desperate need to defend Obama at all costs. Just to remind you, the thread asks where's the media in the matter and why aren't they requiring as much of Obama as they demanded of Bush during the initial stages of Katrina. And you just show your bias when you ignore the blatant fact that Bush was crucified in the media and liberal circles for doing a "flyover" of New Orleans and wasn't down on the ground in the middle of the mess.

Your response to this thread doesn't surprise me one bit.
Click to expand...

The subject you presented was basically criticizing him for not being in Missouri when there's no damn reason he should be. I don't even like Obama, dude. It's not hard to find me saying so and giving an avalanche of reasons why right here on DP. I've also on several occasions talked about the much-overlooked good ideas Bush had -- as much as I absolutely hated him as a president and still do. But none of that is relevant to the fact that what you're whining about is partisan nonsense.

The media doesn't have anything to report on, regarding how Obama is handling this. The federal response is happening. Where Obama is physically located is irrelevant.

The criticism of Bush was that the response wasn't happening, was inadequate when it did, and that all the reasons for that were preventable and a result of negligence or incompetence by Bush pretty much directly.

As of right now, none of those things are true of the response in Missouri under Obama. If or when that changes, then feel free. But right now you're being absurd and this is hackish nonsense.
 
jonny5 said:
How do we know if the media doesnt hold democrat presidents as accountable as republicans? THATS the point here.
Click to expand...

Pretty easy.

Is there a meaningful federal response at this point in the crisis?

Yes, there is. We don't know how it'll go yet, but there is.

That alone means that, so far, Obama has done better than Bush did, and avoided the things for which Bush was criticised.

We will see how it goes in the coming days and weeks, and the legitimacy of criticism may change in that time. But right now, the media has nothing to report on; objectively, there is a response, which is one better than Bush did by this point.
 
CanadaJohn said:
That's funny, since liberals didn't hold the Democrat Governor of Louisiana nor the Democrat Mayor of New Orleans responsible for what was happening in New Orleans after Katrina - they and their media pimps went straight for the jugular with President Bush and defined his Presidency on that issue.

Your hypocrisy and deflection is duly noted and dismissed.
Click to expand...

First off there is a huge difference between a massive storm that hit several states and major population centers, and a middle of no where flood (relatively speaking) that happens all the time. There is only 6 million people in Missouri and far far from all of those live in the areas effected.

Secondly, these floods are hardly new... they happen every year to some degree or another, and people continue to choose to live there. Yes it is more than normal, but come on.. blame Obama for anything related to this, when the governor of the state has not even asked for federal assistance yet.. is just a tad too partisan for my taste. If the feds get involved, then I fully expect the Obama administration to do their jobs way better than Bush.. and if not then burn them at the stake including Obama.

Finally, what happened after Katrina is well documented and Bush deserved all the hatred and backlash for his response and that of his administration. Now he was not alone.. Nagen could have done much better in New Orleans, and so could have the various governors, but ultimately when they asked for federal help, it came late, was disorganized, expensive and full of Bush cronyism. I remember reading that FEMA was giving out tarp for roofs that cost them hundreds of dollars, but you could go down to the local hardware store and get the same tarp for 1/10 of the price...
 
justabubba said:
when the federal government's response to midwestern floods is found to be woefully lacking, as it was prior to and during katrina's aftermath, criticizing Obama for continuing to play around in HI would be legitimate
maybe i have missed it. it what ways has the federal response to this disaster been deemed inadequate
Click to expand...

The levees in New Orleans broke on August 29, 2005, shortly after Katrina passed through. On August 31, 2005, President Bush was photographed from Air Force One flying over the area. What part of the federal response to the disaster at that point was deemed inadequate except for the fact that President Bush wasn't on the ground with the people who were suffering?

One can make arguments against the federal response of President Bush's administration well after this point and one can argue that the difficulties between the Governor of Louisiana, the Mayor of New Orleans and the President of the United States all contributed to additional suffering there, but one cannot argue that the media crucified President Bush, two days after the event, simply because he flew over in Air Force One and didn't land somewhere close and take a look around.

If you don't see the different treatment of the two men by the media, nothing I can say will change your view.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
The subject you presented was basically criticizing him for not being in Missouri when there's no damn reason he should be. I don't even like Obama, dude. It's not hard to find me saying so and giving an avalanche of reasons why right here on DP. I've also on several occasions talked about the much-overlooked good ideas Bush had -- as much as I absolutely hated him as a president and still do. But none of that is relevant to the fact that what you're whining about is partisan nonsense.

The media doesn't have anything to report on, regarding how Obama is handling this. The federal response is happening. Where Obama is physically located is irrelevant.

The criticism of Bush was that the response wasn't happening, was inadequate when it did, and that all the reasons for that were preventable and a result of negligence or incompetence by Bush pretty much directly.

As of right now, none of those things are true of the response in Missouri under Obama. If or when that changes, then feel free. But right now you're being absurd and this is hackish nonsense.
Click to expand...

Again - you miss the point of the thread. I DIDN'T CRITICIZE OBAMA, I CRITICIZED THE MEDIA - GOT IT NOW!!
 
iguanaman said:
The failure in Katrina was not in the response but the timing of it. You missed the days when there was no response from FEMA at all.
Click to expand...

If you had paid attention during the crisis, you would know that the response was delayed due to democrat Governor Ann Blanco refusal to allow the federalization of the response to Katrina in a timely manner. Due to Posse Comitatus laws, the feds were limited in what they could do right away. Blanco also refused to allow Bush to take over the Louisiana National Guard, which would have sped up relief efforts. Bush eventually bypassed that and sent active duty troops in, however they were limited in what they could legally do compared to the national guard.
 
CanadaJohn said:
The levees in New Orleans broke on August 29, 2005, shortly after Katrina passed through. On August 31, 2005, President Bush was photographed from Air Force One flying over the area. What part of the federal response to the disaster at that point was deemed inadequate except for the fact that President Bush wasn't on the ground with the people who were suffering?

One can make arguments against the federal response of President Bush's administration well after this point and one can argue that the difficulties between the Governor of Louisiana, the Mayor of New Orleans and the President of the United States all contributed to additional suffering there, but one cannot argue that the media crucified President Bush, two days after the event, simply because he flew over in Air Force One and didn't land somewhere close and take a look around.

If you don't see the different treatment of the two men by the media, nothing I can say will change your view.
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by bubba]
i acknowledge the difference in treatment of the two presidents by the media
what you seem unwilling to acknowledge is the total difference in circumstances between the two situations and what should or should not merit personal intervention from our president
 
PeteEU said:
First off there is a huge difference between a massive storm that hit several states and major population centers, and a middle of no where flood (relatively speaking) that happens all the time. There is only 6 million people in Missouri and far far from all of those live in the areas effected.

Secondly, these floods are hardly new... they happen every year to some degree or another, and people continue to choose to live there. Yes it is more than normal, but come on.. blame Obama for anything related to this, when the governor of the state has not even asked for federal assistance yet.. is just a tad too partisan for my taste. If the feds get involved, then I fully expect the Obama administration to do their jobs way better than Bush.. and if not then burn them at the stake including Obama.

Finally, what happened after Katrina is well documented and Bush deserved all the hatred and backlash for his response and that of his administration. Now he was not alone.. Nagen could have done much better in New Orleans, and so could have the various governors, but ultimately when they asked for federal help, it came late, was disorganized, expensive and full of Bush cronyism. I remember reading that FEMA was giving out tarp for roofs that cost them hundreds of dollars, but you could go down to the local hardware store and get the same tarp for 1/10 of the price...
Click to expand...

You do not have the foggiest clue about disaster response....and who is responsible for what. To you it is little more then a "Bush bash" opportunity.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm curious. Where's the media outcry and criticism of President Obama continuing his vacation in Hawaii while dozens of people have died in storms this past week and thousands of people have been evacuated and dozens have lost their lives in floodwaters in Missouri?

Missouri news:

Deadly, rare winter flood slams Missouri - CBS News

Obama news:

President Obama's Hawaiian vacation continues with luau on Oahu' - Hawaii News Now - KGMB and KHNL

President Bush gets slaughtered for his "flyover" of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and blamed for deaths and destruction there and President Obama enjoys playing golf and is feted with Hawaiian cuisine while Missourians suffer.
Click to expand...

Typical lame right wing whining. Sounds like you are so anxious to find a story that you could use to try to shame the president for being on vacation.

Such anger, such envy, such a huge waste of time.
 
PeteEU said:
First off there is a huge difference between a massive storm that hit several states and major population centers, and a middle of no where flood (relatively speaking) that happens all the time. There is only 6 million people in Missouri and far far from all of those live in the areas effected.

Secondly, these floods are hardly new... they happen every year to some degree or another, and people continue to choose to live there. Yes it is more than normal, but come on.. blame Obama for anything related to this, when the governor of the state has not even asked for federal assistance yet.. is just a tad too partisan for my taste. If the feds get involved, then I fully expect the Obama administration to do their jobs way better than Bush.. and if not then burn them at the stake including Obama.

Finally, what happened after Katrina is well documented and Bush deserved all the hatred and backlash for his response and that of his administration. Now he was not alone.. Nagen could have done much better in New Orleans, and so could have the various governors, but ultimately when they asked for federal help, it came late, was disorganized, expensive and full of Bush cronyism. I remember reading that FEMA was giving out tarp for roofs that cost them hundreds of dollars, but you could go down to the local hardware store and get the same tarp for 1/10 of the price...
Click to expand...

Almost too much partisan ignorance in this post to handle, but Katrina was not Bushs fault. The media played it that way to protect the incompetent democratic leaders of Louisiana. Tell me, is it Bushs fault that the people were not evacuated from New Orleans? No. Was it Bushs fault that the sports arenas where people were told to gather lacked enough supplies or security to handle them? No. Katrina was first and foremost a failure of LOCAL planning and response. Liberals and their media allies blamed Bush to cover for their ideological allies. Mississippi was actually hardest hit, yet you don't hear of any real problems there. Now why is that? Note: honest answer required so you might want to pass.
 
beefheart said:
Typical lame right wing whining. Sounds like you are so anxious to find a story that you could use to try to shame the president for being on vacation.

Such anger, such envy, such a huge waste of time.
Click to expand...

Such a liberal apologist ^^^^^^^
 
beefheart said:
Typical lame right wing whining. Sounds like you are so anxious to find a story that you could use to try to shame the president for being on vacation.

Such anger, such envy, such a huge waste of time.
Click to expand...

No, he was making an analogy that shot straight over your head.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Such a liberal apologist ^^^^^^^
Click to expand...

No, you started the damned thread. You are just itching for something to happen so you can blame the president. How pathetic is that?

He is not running in the next election, and he can stop renting space in your head and you can fixate on someone else. ODS
 
Fletch said:
No, he was making an analogy that shot straight over your head.
Click to expand...

No, it was just the typical whiny emotional angst because he is butthurt that the media doesn't hate the president as much as he does, and there's a flood..and waaaaa....Benghazi!
 
CanadaJohn said:
And another who has the content of the thread fly over his head.

The thread isn't about how much vacation time Obama does or doesn't take. The thread is about the appearance of Obama golfing and yukking it up while large swaths of Missouri become submerged and the media doesn't say boo.
Click to expand...
So what? Emergency Disasters can strike at any time at any place especially in a state with as many diverse environments as the U.S. I'm sure this is something you don't understand as a Canadian since the closest thing you have to a national disaster is a rude Quebecois or a rampaging sasquatch terrorizing a hamlet but here in the U.S. we have these things happen all the time. Not only should the media not say boo, they shouldn't say boo hoo either. This isn't even worthy of feigned concern.
 
reinoe said:
So what? Emergency Disasters can strike at any time at any place especially in a state with as many diverse environments as the U.S. I'm sure this is something you don't understand as a Canadian since the closest thing you have to a national disaster is a rude Quebecois or a rampaging sasquatch terrorizing a hamlet but here in the U.S. we have these things happen all the time. Not only should the media not say boo, they shouldn't say boo hoo either. This isn't even worthy of feigned concern.
Click to expand...

Canada, the Queen's footstool.
 
iguanaman said:
Actually it was FEMA head "Brownies" fault and GW appointed AND praised him for his failure. It sure made Bush seem out of touch.

Click to expand...


You know what is funny... I live in a state that is prone to hurricanes, and yet I don't recall any truly bad screw ups from FEMA. Do you know why? Because my state understands that we will be hit by hurricanes. We are prepared every single year. So when it comes to relying on FEMA to wipe out ass in a hurricane? Not really something we need.

You realize how big a screw up the city of New Orleans had when they failed to properly prepare and enact their plans? Never mind it was built under water, but the fact that they didn't evacuate in time either? Come on man.

To blame Bush for the failure to prepare of local governments along a coast that WILL be hit by hurricanes is hilarious.
 
stonewall50 said:
You know what is funny... I live in a state that is prone to hurricanes, and yet I don't recall any truly bad screw ups from FEMA. Do you know why? Because my state understands that we will be hit by hurricanes. We are prepared every single year. So when it comes to relying on FEMA to wipe out ass in a hurricane? Not really something we need.

You realize how big a screw up the city of New Orleans had when they failed to properly prepare and enact their plans? Never mind it was built under water, but the fact that they didn't evacuate in time either? Come on man.

To blame Bush for the failure to prepare of local governments along a coast that WILL be hit by hurricanes is hilarious.
Click to expand...

one question
evacuate to where, exactly?
 
justabubba said:
one question
evacuate to where, exactly?
Click to expand...

UP. OUT. Anywhere that isn't BELOW WATER LEVEL! How about simply ABOVE sea level?

How many busses does the city of New Orleans have? How many cruisers and cabs? Furthermore...don't you think they could have ordered it sooner? Don't give me the "you can't evacuate anywhere." They got 80% or so out. And the worst problem was from flooding. I live in Florida man. I have no pity for lack of hurricane preparedness. I have a plan every time I need one, and I expect nothing less from the government of a city.
 
Here's the funny thing: If the president cut his vacation short and traveled to Missouri, the same whiners would complain that he is doing it only to get publicity, and that he really didn't care.

So nice to be able to adjust the ODS into any situation or outcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom