Wtf cubs -.-

I was just about to post the ytmd page that pointed that out. Yeah, "found" my ass.
 
mikeman06 said:
story.jpg


haha, thought that was funny. they call the black man a looter while the white people "found" their food.

To me it also looks like the white people really did "Find" 2 items floating in the water and took unlike the brotha who has a trash bag full of shit.

Please don't play dumb Farys, I think it's fairly obvious what I am trying to say. Anytime black people are caught with their hands in the cookie jar it's always the highly liberal, gay white population or the minoritys that say the white facist republican media is twisting the story to make black people look bad and it couldn't possibly be anything else...

BTW V2 I also do not see what's wrong with what Wolf Blitzer said, they are black, they are looting. Fuck em, he is telling the truth, Shoot on Sight those motherfuckers. Looting and vandalism are 2 crimes no matter what should be punishable by death.

Recently where I am from a few kids were driving around in their car Paintballing other cars in traffic. Just blasting other's cars for no reason with paint.

Turns out they got the wrong motherfucker, he tracked them down and put a hot slug in one of their asses, killed one of the little vandalist fucks instantly. That's honestly what they should do to these people taking Vick jerseys, 40 ounces, and Timbalands from the shops. The country would be a better place.
 
Darkdante said:
Elemmire said:
you do know.. Bush is not the first president to go to war with a nation without the house's approval right? It's nothing new.. been happening for over 50 years. I forget what the first president called it to make it not a "war" but something else... when it really was a war...

Ok I'll bite, I'd like a name.

you really don't know that the last official war congress approved of was World War 2? Vietnam, Korea, etc.. all those were not sent through congress approval. Unless my text books, internet, and teacher has been lying to me O.o to my knowledge.. they were not approved by the house and the presidents during those respective times sent troops in as a "Military Action" or something like that and not as an "official war" but if you think those weren't wars :roll:
 
Krono, you are really a stupid mother fucker you know that?

First its "Yea the Twin Towers did deserve to get hit" Now its New Orleans did deserve to get hit with Katrina? hahaha

Stupid ass Canadian, just shut the fuck up ok?
 
Davio said:
Krono, you are really a stupid mother fucker you know that?

First its "Yea the Twin Towers did deserve to get hit" Now its New Orleans did deserve to get hit with Katrina? hahaha

Stupid ass Canadian, just shut the fuck up ok?

Isn't Krono from Texas, which is no where near the Canadian border? >_>
 
:shock:

i go to sleep and you guys throw 3 pages on an all but dead topic >.>

whatever .. all that can be said is that those that looted for personal gain are just about the worst type of people. Those that looted to get food because NO ONE came to help for 4 days (more in some areas) are beyond reproach. Anyone who thinks that anyone has to sit on their ass and wait before going in to help an urban area is just as jaded as the people who were elected.

Btw, just cos the thought had occured to me and this did go political for a second ..... i'm real glad we spent all that money on homeland security, first responders, and that america had a plan for a post 9/11 disaster Oo

Proof's in the pudding, the scope of the disaster is roughly the same as a massive terror attack via dirty bomb/nuclear weapon, Aren't you glad to know you'dve been sitting around for a week waiting on paperwork to get filed before you recieved any help? Bush made it to new york in 2 days, took 'im 5 to hit LA, wtf?

I'm not saying the man's racist, I'm not pointing the finger at bush alone. I am saying it's kinda odd that things went down as they did and numerous people have some explaining to do. If it'd been me i'd be beyond pissed and looking for another country to move to, not just another state. -.-
 
Strid said:
Valandil said:
I agree with you Shaunessy. This goes a lot further back then Bush or Clinton or Bush v1.0. It's all about politics and money. Louisianna (like Oklahoma) is a relatively poor state with a relatively small population. Both state have really only 2 urban areas and only 1 major city each. That makes both LA and OK politically insignificant. Especially since neither directly controls any economically or strategically vital asset. The people who hold the purse-strings in D.C. that could've, would've, should've financed the rebuilding of the levies (to prepare for a worst-case scenario hurricane), don't see the people of Louisianna or New Orleans in particular as a must-have voter base. They are politically expendable. Think about it like this, do you think those levies would have been built to sustain a Cat-5 storm if it had been say....Houston, New York, Atlanta, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, et al? Of course it would have. Not only do those cities have more people than New Orleans (which means more votes) but the states those cities are located in mean more electoral votes, more votes on Capitol Hill, more national economic impact. This isn't the failure of a president or a Congress or even a single party. It's the failure of the entire system, on every level and it goes back many decades.

Umm...you never set foot in either state have you ?


Obviously you can't read the thing right below my name that reads Location: Oklahoma City, OK. Lived here for 25 years. Oklahoma City and Tulsa are the only two significant urban area in Oklahoma, with OKC being the only major city. Tulsa has roughly 850,000 while Oklahoma City has about 1.4 million. And yes I have been to Louisianna as well considering it's only about 6 hours to Shreveport from here and about 9.5 hours to New Orleans. Once again I would say that Baton Rouge and New Orleans are the two significant urban areas with New Orleans being the major city.
 
opinions hardly matter when considering populations. I'd suggest checking out this page: http://www.census.gov/ as opposed to having a dick measuring contest about who knows more about what state, there's bigger issues to measure penor over -.-
 
woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo just 1 question

...

WHY THE FUCK IS THIS TOPIC STILL GOING???
 
Elemmire said:
you really don't know that the last official war congress approved of was World War 2? Vietnam, Korea, etc.. all those were not sent through congress approval. Unless my text books, internet, and teacher has been lying to me O.o to my knowledge.. they were not approved by the house and the presidents during those respective times sent troops in as a "Military Action" or something like that and not as an "official war" but if you think those weren't wars :roll:

For your information Ele.

Congress enacted the War Powers Act in 1973. They did it BECAUSE of he VIETNAM war.

Can I have that name?
 
And as far as the looting goes. When your city gets destroyed, no water, no sewer, no food, everybodys dead, do you really think they care who's food it is if they need it? And if they go in the store.... why not take the other stuff?

Yes it wrong, yes its bad, but shit happens folks. The standards you live by don't hold up to people living in a war zone living on the line of life and death.

You simply need to put yourself in thier shoes, I don't think anyone here could even imagine it.
 
Oh.. I dunno.. how about Truman? O.o maybe? sent in troops on McArthur and was the first president to do so. Said he had an apparent ingereted presidential power to send troops to "war" without approval by congress and basicly everyone else followed after that. And since then presidents have been sending troops into many places without congress's approval. One such President as JFK. He sent in troops to Vietnam without Congress's Approval and this was all before 1973.

and you wanna play with the War Powers Act of 1973?

War Powers Act of 1973 said:
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Now, because these terrorists did attack american soil, he had the right to send troops to hunt out these terrorists and anyone that harbored them. Such as Afghanistan and there was belief of terrorist being harbored in Iraq. True or not.. the american people believed it and congress represents the american people and I'm sure they had thoughts of Iraq harboring troops. And though he prolly never got a formal approval in public from Congress there's no proof he never got another kind of approval. And surely he consults with Congress when it comes to sending troops to hostile areas because Congress is the one that pays the military budget, not the President. The President can deploy them but not pay them.

Now.. I will agree that he has done some dumb things like leaving Louisiana's National Gaurd in Iraq instead of calling them back for support with Katrina.

He's not a terrible president, in my opinion, but he's not our best.
 
Nigga, you aint no crunk till u r Neche crunk.
 
this thread needed some crunkage. go to your thread now lol.
 
Back
Top