Did you hear Obama promise to protect New Orleans from a category five Hurricane?

Question

And now that hes decided its the Govts job to protect people from the weather that is typical to thier regions how long til he extends that protection to Florida. And while hes at it could he come here to Tornado Alley and promise to protect us from an F5 tornado. And then I would be really impressed if he could go to California and promise to protect them from a 9.9 Earthquake. And if he could do something about the ice storms in the midwest while hes not busy Id love that. Those crops are almost as important as New Orleans casinos and strip clubs. Is he making these promises to divert attention from the one thing he will never work to protect us from? Yes Im talking about terrorism. More people died on 911 than all US natural disasters. But thats no reason to work to make us safer from that real threat. I mean we all know its way more popular to stand around a bunch of flooded houses making false promises to those desparate people. Its called Band Wagoning Obama, and its insulting.

Answer 1

yes I heard it....another priceless soundbite from the liberal star!!!!!

And for those of you who read....in 1977 the enviromental wacko's filed suit to stop the construction of flood gates in the New Orleans area because of potental damage to the wetlands.  The Army Corp of Engineers warned of flooding and the loss of life but alas, the wackos won in court.....

Answer 2

I am sure that Senator Obama is saying that he will ensure that the levies in New Orleans will hold.  But how will he ensure that state and local governments do their job?  Will he withhold federal funds if they don't or will he just increase the funding, whether it works or not?

Infastructure should be properly funded, but just throwing money at people doesn't mean much if they don't do the job.

Answer 3

He's probalby trying to get the black vote. Some blacks believe that the levees were deliberately sabotaged to flood New Orleans and thus get rid of them.  Some blacks always think someone is out to get them. He is probably playing on that angle.  I would never vote for anyone with the name "Hussein".  Many others have told me that.  That is too touchy with 9-11.  Also, I am white, but if there were a black conservative candidate along the lines of a Ronald Regan type, you bet your boots I would vote for him or her.  It is not the color as some blacks would have everyone believe. It is the content of their character.

Answer 4

You can improve the infrastructure so that the people are protected from a levy breaching and drowning people again.  If the government which has our money doesn't do this, who will?  Don't be ridiculous!

Edit:

Yeah, rebuilding things with our money is only acceptable in foreign countries like Iraq, right?  Since this is your twisted logic, do you mind taking the tab so we sane tax payers can use the money here at home?

Answer 5

I expect you will hear all of the presidential candidates make varying satements explaining that rebuilding New Orleans is not optional. The reason is because it ISN'T optional.

Your snide comment about "casinos and strip clubs" aside, the historical and cultural aspects of New Orleans are usually mentioned whenever the topic of rebuilding is brought up. Those are legitimate factors, but they are NOT the reason people are back or why New Orleans is important to the rest of the USA.

New Orleans is an essential link in our national transportation system. The Port of New Orleans is an obvious element of that and the port is either the largest or 2nd largest port each year in the USA (tons of cargo).

Rail and highway transportation are also focused on New Orleans and NOLA is one of the top two or three junctions for traffic between east and west in the USA.

More than a third of America's energy is either produced in southeast Louisiana or is imported through SE LA. The infrastructure that supports the energy industry is centered in New Orleans. What may turn out to be the largest oil field in North America was discovered offshore of LA in 2006.

More than 25% of America's refining capacity is in the New Orleans area.

A large percentage of America's non-petroleum chemical industry is in the area.

There are 6 full universities, 2 medical schools, 2 law schools, a dental school, a pharmacy school, 2 seminaries, and a variety of junior colleges & technical schools in New Orleans.

NASA manufactures the fuel tanks for the space shuttle in New Orleans, and will manufacture parts of the next generation of spacecraft.

A significant percentage of America's shipbuilding & ship repair industry is in the New Orleans area.

A variety of other manufacturers have factories in New Orleans, such as Bell-Textron.

It is possible to move much of the industry, transportation facilities, and other infrastructure, though only at HUGE expense. It is not possible to move the Mississippi River or the oil fields. It would cost trillions of dollars to even TRY to replace New Orleans.

For literally a few billion dollars (that should have been spent before Katrina) we can build sufficient hurricane protection around New Orleans so the catastrophe of Katrina never happens again.

In contrast, can we protect Los Angeles and San Francisco from earthquakes? Can Seattle be protected from volcanoes and tsunamis? Should the mid-west be evacuated because there are tornadoes? New York and Miami are at even more risk than NOLA from hurricanes - do you propose to abandon New York and Miami?

The federal government spent $14 Billion to build a tunnel under Boston's harbor - for commuters and not even for protection.

Your question suggests Louisiana-Americans are so much less valuable than Massachusetts-Americans that half the cost of a tunnel shouldn't be spent on hurricane protection for New Orleans.

Note that only about half of New Orleans is below sea level and most of the lower part is only a little below sea level.

Also note that New Orleans is NOT "hurricane-prone". The last hurricane to strike New Orleans before Katrina was Betsy in 1965. Before that was the "storm of 1947" which was a minimal hurricane and was before the storms were named.

Answer 6

homedawg500 has a great point

Answer 7

For all you ridiculous people who forgot who's really responsible for terrorism(9-11), there is a 6 foot 8 raghead hiding in the mountains watching CNN and laughing at how many troops of ours are dying. If you don't know his name then maybe you should shut up.

The war in Iraq is Bush trying to do what his father did in 1991. I think we are done. Saddam is dead! Time to go to Afghanistan and get the real enemy. Saddam attacked his own people not us. Genocide goes on in alot of other countries and we don't do **** about them. Oh, by the way,everyone seems to forget that Iraq is one of the biggest oil producers in the world. Not that has anything to do with why we're over there.

Answer 8

I think he plans to strap himself to the levee.

Answer 9

Who needs a State, County, and Local government when you have Democrats in charge at the Federal level?

Answer 10

yeah...hes gonna stand on the levee and blow the hurricane back with lots of his spare hot air

Answer 11

I respectfully submit that you do not seem to understand Senator Obama's position, which is fundamentally recognizing that each of us is valuable, not protecting us from natural disasters.

Answer 12

know i understand why i have never seen him before, HE IS GOD!!!

Answer 13

He could be a bigger pandering phony than John Kerry. Amazing.

Answer 14

You all make me sick. You judge who is worth protecting and saving, that's why you don't care about the people who died in New Orleans. Just because someone is a stripper doesn't mean their life doesn't matter.

MTBiker: You wouldn't spend money to repair a floodgate to protect YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS. What the h**l do you think the troops are doing? Fighting for their health? They are puttin their *** on the line to protect people like those in New Orleans and you!

Btw, justifying the war by saying we haven't been attacked on our own soil in the past 3 years is plain dumb. That's like saying efforts to up school safety must be working because there hasn't been a shooting in 2 years. It proves nothing! It is not an everyday thing that someone attacks their schoolmates. We don't have a history of being bombed 4 times a year. If that were the case, saying triumphantly that we haven't been bombed in 5 years might be worth some merit.

If you actually gave a d**n about peoples lives you would hope that a president could balance the war and take all necessary action to protect their people.

Answer 15

Yea, the U.S  could spend all of our money building levees in flood prone areas to protect filthy cities- instead of moving people  somewhere else and using the funds to fight the real threat... terrorism.

  Many are saying, why use the money to rebuild Iraq, and not the U.S infrastructure.  True, the U.S should spend some more time on the homefront, but lets start by defeating the biggest threat, terrorism.  Whats priority here,  thousands dead by terrorists attacks or unstoppable natural disasters.

  The U.S is helping to rebuild Iraq, because it is incapable,  it has no stable government after its run with corrupt leaders.  Positive progress is being made over there.  The Iraqis now have hospitals and schools.  The media doesn't tell us the good though,  because good doesn't sell in this corrupt world.