- Joined
- Jan 8, 2005
- Messages
- 2,272
- Location
- In a van, down by the river
- Main Job

- Secondary Job

- Third Job

- Server
- Quetzalcoatl
- Linkshell
- Pimps 4 life!
I was just about to post the ytmd page that pointed that out. Yeah, "found" my ass.
mikeman06 said:![]()
haha, thought that was funny. they call the black man a looter while the white people "found" their food.
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.
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?
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 ?
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 meto 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:
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.
vang said:Fucking rap music telling the kids they need to bling bling nowadays. Probably why most of them drive 200 dollar cars with 5,000 dollar rims.