I would have found it faster if I had searched under your username for "your full of it" instead of searching for "you're full of it" - I should have known better
So - once again - care to try to address the point you were trying to make in the first place?
It all comes down to poor planning and execution on all levels, local, regional, state and federal. Letting criminals go because the water level was rising shows that the police had not planned for this. Lack of a control center for all people to go thru to process, identify, help with food and medical is a FEMA problem. The region should of had plans where they could put up large numbers of people for extended time (an evacution site above sea level). The Army Corp of Engineers for not strengthening the levees when they knew a huge storm was coming. And of course the individuals that stayed even after they were warned. Yes I know that some could not leave but over 100,000. I love NO and have many fond memories of it. The next question will be " Will they learn from the short-sightedness".
It all comes down to poor planning and execution on all levels, local, regional, state and federal. Letting criminals go because the water level was rising shows that the police had not planned for this. Lack of a control center for all people to go thru to process, identify, help with food and medical is a FEMA problem. The region should of had plans where they could put up large numbers of people for extended time (an evacution site above sea level). The Army Corp of Engineers for not strengthening the levees when they knew a huge storm was coming. And of course the individuals that stayed even after they were warned. Yes I know that some could not leave but over 100,000. I love NO and have many fond memories of it. The next question will be " Will they learn from the short-sightedness".
maybe you missed my edit above, Naples. Are you giving up on the point you were working so hard to make?
You were arguing against my post disagreeing with the following:
Quote:
Originally posted by PBook12
[B]What I heard was that the governor failed to call up the national guard before the storm. Failed to pull the "disaster area" trigger soon enough after the storm. That trigger starts the federal reaction.
Again, if you can find a post of mine and quote me (see above for a fine example of how something like that works) where I EVER said "it's all Bush's fault" then, once again, I'll request a one-week ban.
NO ONE here said it's "all Bush's fault" despite your attempts to rephrase our criticism of his actions that way. The consensus here (and in the country and the vast majority of the media right now) is that Bush made mistakes that made the situation worse, and it would be nice if he would own up to it and apologize for it.
Again, if you can find a post of mine and quote me (see above for a fine example of how something like that works) where I EVER said "it's all Bush's fault" then, once again, I'll request a one-week ban.
NO ONE here said it's "all Bush's fault" despite your attempts to rephrase our criticism of his actions that way. The consensus here (and in the country and the vast majority of the media right now) is that Bush made mistakes that made the situation worse, and it would be nice if he would own up to it and apologize for it.
Man what a cop out.
I have heard here in these very forums:
Bush's stance on the environment caused the hurricane to be more powerful.
Bush doesn't care about black people.
Bush doesn't care about the poor.
Bush appointed a boob to head FEMA (which might be true) and thus all decisions he makes are Bush's fault.
on and on and on....
Then you want to claim that hey no-one really said "it's ALL Bush's fault:..."
Anyway, Maybe I just misunderstood the overall theme of this multi-thread discussion.
Are you talking about the MS angle, about how you think both governors made the same mistakes?
I actually ignored that as I thought it was a diversion, since it is based on anecdotal evidence.
Let's discuss it tomorrow, if it's that important.
No.
Not talking about MS.
I have quoted someone else's statement that I disagreed with (THREE times now), and you started this whole tangent about states of emergency and disaster in an attempt to prove me wrong.
I've quoted dates for both Declarations that completely refute the original poster's claim, and you've posted . . . well, a lot of semi-coherent quotes and stuff that doesn't seem relevant.
YOU were the one who thought the argument was important enough to start in the first place, and then the one who wussed out when asked to clarify the point you were trying to make.
I've gone out of my way to retrace the discussion for you, since it's apparently sooooo difficult for you to remember your original point, and you've still avoided the question.
It's your argument, it's up to you to decide if you want to try to continue to support it.
I think you've just backed yourself into a corner, and are going to take your ball and go home now and pretend none of this ever happened.
The lack of an adequate federal response is bush's fault. It's so simple even you should be able to understand that, naples. The law you keep talking about is a diversion that has nothing to do with FEMA.
Clearly what was not anticipated by local officials was that FEMA would fail, that 1/3 of the police force would desert, that all agencies would abandon the city out of fear and that no one would take the lead.
I have quoted someone else's statement that I disagreed with (THREE times now), and you started this whole tangent about states of emergency and disaster in an attempt to prove me wrong.
I've quoted dates for both Declarations that completely refute the original poster's claim, and you've posted . . . well, a lot of semi-coherent quotes and stuff that doesn't seem relevant.
YOU were the one who thought the argument was important enough to start in the first place, and then the one who wussed out when asked to clarify the point you were trying to make.
I've gone out of my way to retrace the discussion for you, since it's apparently sooooo difficult for you to remember your original point, and you've still avoided the question.
It's your argument, it's up to you to decide if you want to try to continue to support it.
I think you've just backed yourself into a corner, and are going to take your ball and go home now and pretend none of this ever happened.
But hey, what do I know?
Point.
There are specific procedures to follow in these curcumstances as my posts prove. I posted the quote by a military person stating that state assets can respond faster than federal ones in an emergancy. I posted information showing that a declaration of emergency is different than a declaration of disaster. Both of which need to be requested by the governor or a representative through FEMA abd finally granted by the president.
I also gave you a report of what Colonel Hunt , a military advisor found out about the situation, which agrees with exactly what PBook posted.
I think that sums up why I think that you are wrong about PBook being wrong.
I also gave you a report of what Colonel Hunt , a military advisor found out about the situation, which agrees with exactly what PBook posted. [/B]
Apparently I missed that somehow... could you please re-quote what he said?
and include some of your reasoning of how that relates to the LA governor taking too much time to have a state of disaster declared (especially in light of my quote proving that the state of disaster was declared no later than Tuesday morning)?
edit - here's a fourth reminder of exactly what I was disagreeing with:
Quote:
Originally posted by PBook12
What I heard was that the governor failed to call up the national guard before the storm. Failed to pull the "disaster area" trigger soon enough after the storm. That trigger starts the federal reaction.
[B]Apparently I missed that somehow... could you please re-quote what he said?" It was on fox news Oreilly Factor. He laid it out very plainly what happened.
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
and include some of your reasoning of how that relates to the LA governor taking too much time to have a state of disaster declared (especially in light of my quote proving that the state of disaster was declared no later than Tuesday morning)?
He specifically stated that she took too long to basically call for help. She should have started the process before the Hurricane. It involved specific steps in the process.
Your quote about the disaster declaration is a misprint by the source you quoted or Hunt is totally wrong. I guess you'll have to pick. I think they meant emergency and not disaster. I saw it happen on just about every news station. Because reporters don't always know the difference.
And I gave Naples more credit than he was due, seeing as though he only got his information from a fox interview.
What he's referring to is the Posse Comitatus Act which prevents federal troops including federalized national guard troops to act as law enforcement in a state. See that reference to "Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5206 (Stafford Act)" in Blanco's request? That's a reference to the governor's request for exemption, putting the ball in Bush's court ... on the 27th.
Apparently Naples and all of the other people trying to use this law to deflect blame from bush missed that.
He specifically stated that she took to long to basically call for help. She should have started the process before the Hurricane. It involved specific steps in the provess.
You quote about the disaster declatation is a misprint by the source you quoted or Hunt is totally wrong. I guess you'll have yo pick. I think they meant emergency and not disaster. I saw it happen an just about every news station. Because reports don't always know the difference.
The very first thing I posted was the EMERGENCY declaration, which as my post plainly shows (with bold type, even!!!) was on Saturday, BEFORE the hurricane actually hit. In other words, she DID start the process before the Hurricane.
You tried to shoot that down by saying you meant Disaster and not Emergency, so I made a second post with the date of THAT declaration.
Which is why both you and pbook are completely wrong.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...our+full+of+it
Originally posted by NaplesX
Originally posted by FormerLurker
That's neither worth the effort nor necessary.
So, your full of it then?
Very well. [/B]
I would have found it faster if I had searched under your username for "your full of it" instead of searching for "you're full of it" - I should have known better
So - once again - care to try to address the point you were trying to make in the first place?
reg
Originally posted by reg
It all comes down to poor planning and execution on all levels, local, regional, state and federal. Letting criminals go because the water level was rising shows that the police had not planned for this. Lack of a control center for all people to go thru to process, identify, help with food and medical is a FEMA problem. The region should of had plans where they could put up large numbers of people for extended time (an evacution site above sea level). The Army Corp of Engineers for not strengthening the levees when they knew a huge storm was coming. And of course the individuals that stayed even after they were warned. Yes I know that some could not leave but over 100,000. I love NO and have many fond memories of it. The next question will be " Will they learn from the short-sightedness".
reg
Notice the fair assessment.
Well done.
You were arguing against my post disagreeing with the following:
Originally posted by PBook12
[B]What I heard was that the governor failed to call up the national guard before the storm. Failed to pull the "disaster area" trigger soon enough after the storm. That trigger starts the federal reaction.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
maybe you missed my edit above, Naples. Are you giving up on the point you were working so hard to make?
You were arguing against my post disagreeing with the following:
Look, you think it's all Bush's fault, i don't.
We dissagree. What else is left?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Look, you think it's all Bush's fault, i don't.
Again, if you can find a post of mine and quote me (see above for a fine example of how something like that works) where I EVER said "it's all Bush's fault" then, once again, I'll request a one-week ban.
NO ONE here said it's "all Bush's fault" despite your attempts to rephrase our criticism of his actions that way. The consensus here (and in the country and the vast majority of the media right now) is that Bush made mistakes that made the situation worse, and it would be nice if he would own up to it and apologize for it.
Originally posted by NaplesX
We dissagree. What else is left?
Half a page ago you were determined to "prove me wrong" and you failed, and now you're running away.
Someone's full of something, that's for sure.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Half a page ago you were determined to "prove me wrong" and you failed, and now you're running away.
Someone's full of something, that's for sure.
Are you talking about the MS angle, about how you think both governors made the same mistakes?
I actually ignored that as I thought it was a diversion, since it is based on anecdotal evidence.
Let's discuss it tomorrow, if it's that important.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Again, if you can find a post of mine and quote me (see above for a fine example of how something like that works) where I EVER said "it's all Bush's fault" then, once again, I'll request a one-week ban.
NO ONE here said it's "all Bush's fault" despite your attempts to rephrase our criticism of his actions that way. The consensus here (and in the country and the vast majority of the media right now) is that Bush made mistakes that made the situation worse, and it would be nice if he would own up to it and apologize for it.
Man what a cop out.
I have heard here in these very forums:
Bush's stance on the environment caused the hurricane to be more powerful.
Bush doesn't care about black people.
Bush doesn't care about the poor.
Bush appointed a boob to head FEMA (which might be true) and thus all decisions he makes are Bush's fault.
on and on and on....
Then you want to claim that hey no-one really said "it's ALL Bush's fault:..."
Anyway, Maybe I just misunderstood the overall theme of this multi-thread discussion.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Are you talking about the MS angle, about how you think both governors made the same mistakes?
I actually ignored that as I thought it was a diversion, since it is based on anecdotal evidence.
Let's discuss it tomorrow, if it's that important.
No.
Not talking about MS.
I have quoted someone else's statement that I disagreed with (THREE times now), and you started this whole tangent about states of emergency and disaster in an attempt to prove me wrong.
I've quoted dates for both Declarations that completely refute the original poster's claim, and you've posted . . . well, a lot of semi-coherent quotes and stuff that doesn't seem relevant.
YOU were the one who thought the argument was important enough to start in the first place, and then the one who wussed out when asked to clarify the point you were trying to make.
I've gone out of my way to retrace the discussion for you, since it's apparently sooooo difficult for you to remember your original point, and you've still avoided the question.
It's your argument, it's up to you to decide if you want to try to continue to support it.
I think you've just backed yourself into a corner, and are going to take your ball and go home now and pretend none of this ever happened.
But hey, what do I know?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Man what a cop out.
Yes, that's exactly what your post is.
Useless blathering about what you claim others are saying, without a single quoted post to back it up.
You seem to be subscribing to the theory of "throw enough shit against the wall, and something will stick."
But, it's not the wall it's sticking to!
Originally posted by FormerLurker
No.
Not talking about MS.
I have quoted someone else's statement that I disagreed with (THREE times now), and you started this whole tangent about states of emergency and disaster in an attempt to prove me wrong.
I've quoted dates for both Declarations that completely refute the original poster's claim, and you've posted . . . well, a lot of semi-coherent quotes and stuff that doesn't seem relevant.
YOU were the one who thought the argument was important enough to start in the first place, and then the one who wussed out when asked to clarify the point you were trying to make.
I've gone out of my way to retrace the discussion for you, since it's apparently sooooo difficult for you to remember your original point, and you've still avoided the question.
It's your argument, it's up to you to decide if you want to try to continue to support it.
I think you've just backed yourself into a corner, and are going to take your ball and go home now and pretend none of this ever happened.
But hey, what do I know?
Point.
There are specific procedures to follow in these curcumstances as my posts prove. I posted the quote by a military person stating that state assets can respond faster than federal ones in an emergancy. I posted information showing that a declaration of emergency is different than a declaration of disaster. Both of which need to be requested by the governor or a representative through FEMA abd finally granted by the president.
I also gave you a report of what Colonel Hunt , a military advisor found out about the situation, which agrees with exactly what PBook posted.
I think that sums up why I think that you are wrong about PBook being wrong.
Happy.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I also gave you a report of what Colonel Hunt , a military advisor found out about the situation, which agrees with exactly what PBook posted. [/B]
Apparently I missed that somehow... could you please re-quote what he said?
and include some of your reasoning of how that relates to the LA governor taking too much time to have a state of disaster declared (especially in light of my quote proving that the state of disaster was declared no later than Tuesday morning)?
edit - here's a fourth reminder of exactly what I was disagreeing with:
Originally posted by PBook12
What I heard was that the governor failed to call up the national guard before the storm. Failed to pull the "disaster area" trigger soon enough after the storm. That trigger starts the federal reaction.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Point.
There are specific procedures to follow in these curcumstances as my posts prove.
I never took issue that there were specific procedures to follow (as you might note one of my quotes consisted of said prodedures being followed).
I took issue with the statement that the LA governor caused the late response.
Do you have any evidence of that, or just that there are in fact specific procedures?
[B]Apparently I missed that somehow... could you please re-quote what he said?" It was on fox news Oreilly Factor. He laid it out very plainly what happened.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
and include some of your reasoning of how that relates to the LA governor taking too much time to have a state of disaster declared (especially in light of my quote proving that the state of disaster was declared no later than Tuesday morning)?
He specifically stated that she took too long to basically call for help. She should have started the process before the Hurricane. It involved specific steps in the process.
Your quote about the disaster declaration is a misprint by the source you quoted or Hunt is totally wrong. I guess you'll have to pick. I think they meant emergency and not disaster. I saw it happen on just about every news station. Because reporters don't always know the difference.
What he's referring to is the Posse Comitatus Act which prevents federal troops including federalized national guard troops to act as law enforcement in a state. See that reference to "Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5206 (Stafford Act)" in Blanco's request? That's a reference to the governor's request for exemption, putting the ball in Bush's court ... on the 27th.
Apparently Naples and all of the other people trying to use this law to deflect blame from bush missed that.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
I never took issue that there were specific procedures to follow (as you might note one of my quotes consisted of said prodedures being followed).
I took issue with the statement that the LA governor caused the late response.
Do you have any evidence of that, or just that there are in fact specific procedures?
Yes there was a report by Colonel Hunt on the Orielly factor. Last night.
Originally posted by NaplesX
He specifically stated that she took to long to basically call for help. She should have started the process before the Hurricane. It involved specific steps in the provess.
You quote about the disaster declatation is a misprint by the source you quoted or Hunt is totally wrong. I guess you'll have yo pick. I think they meant emergency and not disaster. I saw it happen an just about every news station. Because reports don't always know the difference.
The very first thing I posted was the EMERGENCY declaration, which as my post plainly shows (with bold type, even!!!) was on Saturday, BEFORE the hurricane actually hit. In other words, she DID start the process before the Hurricane.
You tried to shoot that down by saying you meant Disaster and not Emergency, so I made a second post with the date of THAT declaration.
Which is why both you and pbook are completely wrong.
See? That wasn't so hard.