Wtf cubs -.-

Hillary Duff should be shot in the face. That is all.



















No not really, i dont wish death on anyone but damn...
 
the Duff is dumb... end of story
 
Just to recap, Darkdante.. this is you asking for a name of someone before Bush that went to war with a country without congress's approval...

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.

and here's me answering you in terms of which wars there were and then you asking for a name again

Darkdante said:
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?

Here's me giving you two names and the wars which they did so and then you responding making no god damn sense cause I answered your question and now saying that because they did it so long ago it doesn't count?

Darkdante said:
Ele said:
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.

WTF Ele? Your arguement here is like if somebody says its a crime to play FFXI from this day forth, then some one tries to go back and charge all of us with crimes since we did it before even though it wasn't a crime when we did it.

Dosen't really make sense to keep arguing the way you are is it?

Doesn't really make sense to be forgetting completely that they did do it and your hate for Bush and reasons are so very stupid because he isn't the first person to do things as such.. and if you hate him for the reason of sending troops into an area without congress's approval you should hate about 4 or so other presidents. GG!!
 
duff's friend on the disney show was mad hot. anyone got her number? I know a few people who would get in line for that.
 
By commenting on my comment you show some degree of caring. I really dislike when people say they don't care but post otherwise. Its like saying you don't like someone but you still talk to him/her. Please keep making a fool of yourself. I love radical idiots. Thank you for your time.
 
Die thread, Die!!! :evil:
 
ForteTeppo said:
http://newgrounds.com/portal/view/262703

This little guy makes a lot more sense then this thread..

I think everyone should listen closely to this, and then shut your mouths.

This squirrel has more common sense and intelligence in his words than all the combined posts on this thread.
 
well, after 13 pages of seeing Mokk go to extremes to make his point, and then seeing it fly right over everyones head, I suppose I'll chime in.


Can any of you put yourself in their place? Louisiana Mississippi and Arkansas are the 3 poorest states in the union. After living their whole lives being totally ignored by government because they only control a measly 21 Electoral votes. These people have learned that beurocracy dosen't give a Damn about them.

This isn't the only place. In any ghetto around the world you will find people that have a "me first" attitude that comes from being forgotten.

What does everyone do? Ridicule them for it from there villa on the hill.

If you can't recognize the lack of preparedness and the complete void of concern from government, then like most people around the country, you just don't care.

It's a sad situation all these people are in. What's worse is it could have been prevented by some better planning.

Rones. Your selective learning is getting to me. You need to realize that a republican government fucks up too. the few instances you mentioned are not even a drop in the bucket of what needed to be done.

What's more, if you are having a discussion with someone and they trump you, you just stop responding.

I still have much respect for you, but you need to open your eyes.

Cubswoo. I don't think I could express my disdain for you non-slavicly enuff for you to understand.

Vang. You just enjoy being an asshole, don't you?

Mokk. Give up. It's a lost cause. Concentrate on the good you can do thru things like donating money. Stop ramming your head into the brickwall known as the Flameboard.

That's all I have.

Time for Firestreak and others to quote me and then use Ad Hominem attack, Rones to quote me and link to things he considers to be facts that proves what I have said wrong, Cubs woo to be a smartass, and Vang to be an asshole.
 
hehe.. it's a sad world.. but those states aren't also in trouble, Trippy. This whole country could use a little help. And I wish Darkdante was around :D he's fun to argue with. Oh well.. his political views and mine just are different. I think one thing a lot of people will agree with is that we should prolly stop focusing on the rest of the world's problems and focus on our own a bit more. I know that I think that way.. I like helping other people and all but our own country could use some serious attention. Prices inflating way too high (damn gas -_-) with wages remaining roughly the same. Our import is greater then our export causing more debt. Sick, homeless, jobless people. Too many criminal acts... Things need some serious attention here.
 
Elemmire said:
I think one thing a lot of people will agree with is that we should prolly stop focusing on the rest of the world's problems and focus on our own a bit more. I know that I think that way.. I like helping other people and all but our own country could use some serious attention. Prices inflating way too high (damn gas -_-) with wages remaining roughly the same. Our import is greater then our export causing more debt. Sick, homeless, jobless people. Too many criminal acts... Things need some serious attention here.

Exactly.
 
I grew up around lawyers so you'll have to excuse me that I think like them sometimes. But one of the basics I know is, when found that the facts you were basing your argument are seem to be false, you either give up your entire case or you give up that point, because you've forever closed that door of an argument. When I read Mokk, continually throwing whatever garbage information he can find towards his argument it makes me feel a twinge of antagonism because to me that's very shameless.

Any actual point to make, was fairly well ended at around page 2, when Cubswoo explained exactly why his original signature did not show a man desperate for food but a guy who felt like a Snickers Bar. Mokk unfortunately chose to ignore it and continue his rant, which, ironically, on page 2 he states he was too busy feeding his starving kids to continue. It wasn't til many pages and many incorrect facts being stated, seemingly for no reason except to try to justify Mokk's hurt ego at being crushed by Cubswoo that I felt the need to step in. In fact, it wasn't until Mokk felt the need to respond to Rones fairly solid facts and reasoning with utter lies that I stepped in.

It's not a question of points going over my head. It's a question of incorrect facts being stated. What more do I really need to say? It's not extremes... it's LIES. Please feel free to point out my argument... because if you look closely at this thread, I never even made one. I never said who I feel is responsible, nor have I mentioned my personal feelings on this whole matter. All I've pointed out is that if you actually read what the fuck Mokk is saying, and you read the facts he's posting for his cause. THEY ARE LIES.

So be as much of a pompous asshole as you want about it Trippyhippy, like you usually are. But all you're winding up defending is this...

Some quotes by Mokk...

Yea, i'm sure there was more than enough food around during the first 4 days when the only people on the ground were news crews ..

let's discuss how FEMA and the military told people to head to shelters that had no supplies and left them there for 4+days without food or water

let's talk about how the senate has repeatedly ignored warnings about hurricanes and the levies not being able to tolerate the stresses that a hurricane of the 3+ magnitude would provide for them

I'm not gonna outright say the above one is a lie, but I'd like to see one source to back up that this was ever an issue in the Senate pre-Katrina.

I would also note that while a hurricane is a disaster a levy people had been warned about for years busting and flooding a metropolitan area that goes on to not recieve help for 4 days or better is a tragedy in every sense of the word as just like a bombing if the right people had done the right thing at the right time it could have been completely avoided.

...

I'd love to continue pointing out fallacies and then quote his own sources and point out that he's not true... but I'm 3/13 pages in and it's taking 5-10 minutes per page to load thanks to QCDN and now I've got class to go to. The conclusion will be later tonight!
 
Can any of you put yourself in their place? Louisiana Mississippi and Arkansas are the 3 poorest states in the union.
Reality check. I am from Arkansas and still living in Arkansas. Lousiana is also not the poorest states going off per capita personal income as you can see here. West Virigina has an almost identical per capita income as Arkansas and lower than Lousiana. Lousiaina has a higher rate than many states. So unless you have data to show otherwise, stop pulling crap out of the air to support your argument.
If you can't recognize the lack of preparedness and the complete void of concern from government, then like most people around the country, you just don't care.
Wow, considering I live in your so called ghetto state, and have two cousins with family and kids living in Lousiana and Mississippi I really must not care. By your logic, even people who went through the worst of it aren't justified to voice an opinion that the government's reaction was good. My cousins home in New Orleans got flooded and my other cousin in the military is going to have to move now the base was destroyed and is likely to be closed. However, they agree with me that the government's response was proper.

You need to keep in mind New Orleans and the surronding area always have a storm coming. Every other day the people hear "a big one is comming, evacuate" yet it commonly changes power or direction before it hits. It has done this for 40 years since the last time it happened in 1965. You can not cry wolf and throw the entire nations resources into preparing for every possible natural disaster before it happens.
Rones. Your selective learning is getting to me. You need to realize that a republican government fucks up too. the few instances you mentioned are not even a drop in the bucket of what needed to be done.

What's more, if you are having a discussion with someone and they trump you, you just stop responding.
Your selective reading is getting to me. I made a large post addressing Mokk's point and making some of my own. Mokk's only response to it completly ignored all of it. Thus, unless I wanted to beat a dead horse the discussion was over. However, had you been trying to get an accurate picture you would have seen the other thread me and Mokk continued to discuss the issue in and actually reached something of an agreement on.

This thread is a dead horse, let it go.
 
Both Rones and Firestreak are nitpicking -- very well, and very rigorously.

The fact is, Firestreak seems to be arguing that the people did not have "No help, but rather Some help. That doesn't take away from the argument that not enough was done. Fine, you can disagree with the language, but that's hardly a reason to tell someone to chuck their whole argument. Maybe that works in court, but I don't think you would take it upon yourself to go tell a crowd of now-homeless people from New Orleans that they shouldn't say they weren't helped because Some help was there. You seem like a smart guy, but I wonder why you're attacking Mokk here? Anger at a partisan person seems the likeliest cause to me, but I find that in bad taste against the backdrop of the tragedy.

Similarly, Rones makes the point that you can examine a numbers chart and actually knock Louisiana out of the top 3. Well and good. The article Mishaela posted still speaks to a large number of people who WERE destitute and the problems they had leading up to this disaster.

Anyway, like I said, both of you guys seem smart enough, but I really think that whether you agree with Mokk or not, bashing someone who is trying to call attention to the disaster is not a good use of your intellect.

I am a philosophy major who takes moral issues very seriously; I understand that perhaps you think Mokk is lying, but this just doesn't seem like a good time to tell people that the situation in New Orleans isn't really that bad.

Val
 
this just doesn't seem like a good time to tell people that the situation in New Orleans isn't really that bad.
Because it's not. People are screaming for foreign aid and all this money. Many are comparing it to the tsunami in Asia. However that is rediculous. The loss of life and damage doesn't even compare. You can call this a natural disaster if you want, but it is not a national disaster. Like Mokk and I agreed on in the other thread the media is making this out to be bigger than it really is because the media has been starving for months for news (missing girl in aruba story milked for over 90 days :roll:). Media is having a field day trying to point fingers and stir up garbage to improve their poor ratings lately. It's a disaster yes, but the media is amplifying it way beyond the real scope.

Floods have happened before, homes have been destroyed, hurricanes have knocked down buildings and pushed ships up on shore. This is a more extreme case, but it really isn't that bad. If you really want to find out why this happened, just look at Lousiana's past actions:
Wikipedia said:
Louisiana's sinking coast
When the Army Corps of Engineers started systematically leveeing the river in the 19th century, it cut off the region's main source of silt, the raw material of delta-building. The weight of large buildings and infrastructure and the leaching of water, oil and gas from beneath the surface across the region have also contributed to the problem. Following the great floods of 1927, the Mississippi River was surrounded by a series of levees meant to protect the city from such floods. In 1965, New Orleans was hit by Hurricane Betsy. This storm caused tremendous amount of flooding in the New Orleans area. The federal government began a levee-building program to protect New Orleans from a Category 3 hurricane (which was the same strength as Betsy.) These series of levees were only completed recently.

However, an unintended consequence of the levees was that natural silt deposits from the Mississippi River were unable to replenish the delta, causing the costal wetlands of Louisiana to wash away and the city of New Orleans to sink even deeper. The Mississippi River delta is subsiding faster than any other place in the nation. And while the land is sinking, sea level has been rising. In the past 100 years, land subsidence and sea-level rise have added several feet to all storm surges. That extra height puts affected areas under deeper water; it also means flooding from weaker storms and from the outer edges of powerful storms spreads over wider areas. The marshes that ring New Orleans have sunk the quickest.

The problem with the wetlands was further worsened by salt water intrusion caused by the canals dug by the oil companies and private individuals in this marshland. This erosion of the wetlands not only caused Louisiana to lose 24 square miles per year of land annually and 1,900 square miles of land since the 1930s, but it also destroyed Louisiana’s first line of defense against hurricanes.

Hurricanes draw their strength from the sea, so they quickly weaken and begin to dissipate when they make landfall. Hurricanes moving over fragmenting marshes toward the New Orleans area can retain more strength, and their winds and large waves pack more speed and destructive power. Scientists working for the state Department of Natural Resources measured some of these effects during Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Andrew's surge height dropped from 9.3 feet at Cocodrie to 3.3 feet at the Houma Navigation Canal 23 miles to the north. For every mile of the marsh-and-water landscape it traversed, it lost 3.1 inches of height, sparing some homes farther north from more flooding. Currently Louisiana has 30% of the total coastal marsh and accounts for 90% of the coastal marsh loss in the lower 48 states. The engineering of the river has basically brought the Gulf of Mexico right to the doorstep of New Orleans, making it more vulnerable to hurricanes.

The combination of sinking land and rising seas has put the Mississippi River delta as much as 3 feet lower relative to sea level than it was a century ago, and the process continues. That means hurricane floods driven inland from the Gulf have risen by corresponding amounts. Storms that once would not have had much impact can now be devastating events, and flooding penetrates to places where it rarely occurred before. The problem also is slowly eroding levee protection, cutting off evacuation routes sooner and putting dozens of communities and valuable infrastructure at risk of being wiped off the map.
Specifically check the last paragraph if you are only skimming.
 
I read the whole thing Rones, but I'm not sure what the thrust of your argument is. If you're trying to tell me that these people were somehow asking for it, I just don't buy into that.

The midwest has tornados, the west coast has earthquakes, the east coast and the gulf coast have hurricanes. There's a "risk" to living anywhere, and even if you can prove that such a risk is greater in New Orleans than elsewhere, I don't think that what happened should be ignored because each individual in the city didn't sit down and do an appropriate risk assessment before determining where to live.

People have lost their homes, their jobs, and their lives. I don't know what the numbers are. But if it was one family and you were trying to fight someone over it or a city's population, I just don't think it's in good taste to bicker about the details.

You seem like a nice guy; you're obviously well-read and not pulling stuff out of nowhere. But at the end of the day, I can't help but think -- would you be as adamant in trying to explain that the media has made this a bigger issue than it is to a family with grade-school aged children who has lost their home and means of income?

It's sad that the issue has been dehumanized to the point where people out of touch with the issue are debating how we ought NOT to care so much because it isn't as bad as some other things.
 
The midwest has tornados, the west coast has earthquakes, the east coast and the gulf coast have hurricanes.
Those are natural disasters. My point is New Orleans is a man made disaster that is triggered by natural disasters. As I explained earlier in this thread, the use of levis is self defeating and will only cause this to repeat, only much worse everytime until it reaches the point that you can not rebuild. Beyond the levis, New Orleans own construction has removed many of their protections against hurricanes and its weight has caused the city to sink lower, meaning hurricane waves that come in are just that much taller.
I can't help but think -- would you be as adamant in trying to explain that the media has made this a bigger issue than it is to a family with grade-school aged children who has lost their home and means of income?
Like I already pointed out, I have family from the region directly affected by it with young children. The damage is bad, but the media is amplifying it well beyond the actual scope. This is much like what happened with 9/11, the event was terrible but the media worked it so hard that it felt like New York had just been nuked off the map to viewers after so much repetition of seeing the towers fall.
 
Ok, I still don't see the thrust of your argument? Where are you going with this? I'm listening, but I don't see the end target.

Are you suggesting that we not feel sympathy because it's "not as bad" as some people think, or that it's the fault of the city or what? I don't see what the distinction "man-made disaster v natural disaster" does to the human element.

At the end of the day, this thing really hurt a lot of people. What is the problem with that statement?
 
I think his point kinda was that it isn't a natural disaster, it is a human disaster, and maybe that its our own fault? idk...Maybe don't believe everything you read in the media? News reporters should stop making up bs?

I think he biggest point was kinda just., stop shouting that its a natural disaster and that nature is evil and there was nothing we could have done to stop it, and we should have prepared more.

His point was that if they prepared for every storm then it would happen on a very regular basis, and his point was that it is not a natural disaster if we caused the majority of the damage.

Of course alot of people deserve our sympathy, but only those who are not:

A) Criminals who are using the disaster as an excuse.

B) The leechers that expect the government to do everything for them.

You can only help people who will help themselves if it is to be productive.
 
After re-reading Rones' post -- the one I initially responded to on page 13 -- I have come around a bit.

I do see the point about crying wolf. I do think that if a wolf actually destroys a child (there are certain similarities in the "immaturity" of the preparation of the city, perhaps), it is not a good lesson for the child.

I don't have a strong opinion about the response of the government, but I do feel that it is appropriate for them to do something, regardless of how the disaster was created.

I only disagreed with the post I originally took issue with inasmuch as it seemed to be advocating NOT taking what had happened seriously. Rones, I understand that you are speaking from experience with regard to your family that has been affected, but I think they must have been lucky compared to many; the stories I have heard through friends and family -- I'm afraid I don't have media sources I follow -- have been substantially worse, and I suspect that there are many out there who still need more help.

The part of the post I disagreed with was what I took to be an implicit suggestion that we NOT help as much as we can. That seemed a shocking stance to take when people's lives have been literally washed away.
 
I meant to convey this in the above post as well --

I don't mean to imply that Rones WAS suggesting that we not help as much as we can or that he intentionally put such an implication in his thread -- only that this was the issue I was responding to when I posted.
 
Back
Top