The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
In light of the recent devastation down in New Orleans, and Bush's slowness in responding with anything other than flying over in a helicopter and hugging a couple of folks in Mississippi, NBC broadcast a benefit/donation show with loads of stars asking for help to be donated.
All goes well, donations come in.
Until Mike Myers & Kanye West do their bit in the studio.
Myers explaining what has happened, the destruction and lives lost.
Kanye West's turn comes up and he deviates from the autocue and delivers an unscripted outburst criticising Bush and the government for not doing anything in a system that "is set up to help the poor and the blacks as slowly as posisble" and pointing out that a third of the National Gaurd are in Iraq anyway, and that "they've given them permission to go down and shoot us"
Myers looking off-camera with a "Help" expression before attempting to steer it back on course, before West delivers his final statement. Cameras cut away to Chris Rock looking unprepared.
This segment was cut from the repeated broadcast by NBC who felt that "one persons comments shouldn't overshadow this tragedy"
Bear in mind that Kanye West was the biggest selling rap/RnB artist of last year and has a new album out to promote.
And he's risked that to deliver a genuinely angry, outraged statement that an awful lot of people are thinking but nobody is saying on the television.
Watch, enjoy and pass along as the largest selling recording Artist of 2004 alienates the Christian right-wing element of America by simply refusing to play along and speaking from his heart.
Outstanding and I'm buying his album purely to support somebody willing to risk **EDITED FOR THE BONUS OF BLANK** minor financial loss in the short term but possible gain when balanced against the projected earnings from previously unaware members of the public who wish to support somebody speaking out on National Television*** because they cant sit back and say nothing
[URL]http://gorillamask.net/kanyebush.shtml[/URL]
All goes well, donations come in.
Until Mike Myers & Kanye West do their bit in the studio.
Myers explaining what has happened, the destruction and lives lost.
Kanye West's turn comes up and he deviates from the autocue and delivers an unscripted outburst criticising Bush and the government for not doing anything in a system that "is set up to help the poor and the blacks as slowly as posisble" and pointing out that a third of the National Gaurd are in Iraq anyway, and that "they've given them permission to go down and shoot us"
Myers looking off-camera with a "Help" expression before attempting to steer it back on course, before West delivers his final statement. Cameras cut away to Chris Rock looking unprepared.
This segment was cut from the repeated broadcast by NBC who felt that "one persons comments shouldn't overshadow this tragedy"
Bear in mind that Kanye West was the biggest selling rap/RnB artist of last year and has a new album out to promote.
And he's risked that to deliver a genuinely angry, outraged statement that an awful lot of people are thinking but nobody is saying on the television.
Watch, enjoy and pass along as the largest selling recording Artist of 2004 alienates the Christian right-wing element of America by simply refusing to play along and speaking from his heart.
Outstanding and I'm buying his album purely to support somebody willing to risk **EDITED FOR THE BONUS OF BLANK** minor financial loss in the short term but possible gain when balanced against the projected earnings from previously unaware members of the public who wish to support somebody speaking out on National Television*** because they cant sit back and say nothing
[URL]http://gorillamask.net/kanyebush.shtml[/URL]
Page:
An interesting viewpoint from someone who clearly thinks it's best to just keep quiet about something, even if it is obviously an issue that a lot of people have been thinking about.
It would bear some validity, were it not for the fact that "Everyone pulling together" seems to involve spending more time and effort extracting a black substance from the middle east, as opposed to extracting impoverished people of every hue from a city in his own country.
If you're trying to say that there is absolutely no anger about the possibility that racism affected the slow response to the Hurricane, then you're being incredibly blinkered to the possibility of a viewpoint outside of your own.
It would bear some validity, were it not for the fact that "Everyone pulling together" seems to involve spending more time and effort extracting a black substance from the middle east, as opposed to extracting impoverished people of every hue from a city in his own country.
If you're trying to say that there is absolutely no anger about the possibility that racism affected the slow response to the Hurricane, then you're being incredibly blinkered to the possibility of a viewpoint outside of your own.
Trouble with the racism view is that it supposes Bush is actually smart enough to be able to organise a relief operation but chose not to, and Bush having any sort of intelligence to do anything other than try and impress Daddy by blowing up chunks of the middle east is a little too hard for me to believe :-D
Blank wrote:
> I thought he mentioned Iraq. Doesn't make a great deal of difference
> to the point here anyway.
I would disagree; no-one else in the public had criticised the government as being racist. He was the first to do so.
>
> Erm.....no! It's nothing to do with the colour of his skin, I've said
> nothing of the sort anywhere in this thread. It's a given because of
> the scale of what he's done; the people he's accusing of racism, the
> most powerful people in the world, and, as you say, that no one else
> has said what he did.
Ahh, I see. My apologies. However, doesn't that make what he did even more praiseworthy?
. Needless to say, I don't agree with you.
>
> Like I said, I took it as a given. It was the point of the entire
> original post after all, neither you or I could possibly have missed
> it. All I meant by my post was "Yes, I agree, but let's not get
> carried away here."
Okay, fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to clarify your point, though I have to say that I still don't agree with you; I think it is worth getting carried away over. All the more so since the network tried to neuter it by cutting it out of later broadcasts.
> I thought he mentioned Iraq. Doesn't make a great deal of difference
> to the point here anyway.
I would disagree; no-one else in the public had criticised the government as being racist. He was the first to do so.
>
> Erm.....no! It's nothing to do with the colour of his skin, I've said
> nothing of the sort anywhere in this thread. It's a given because of
> the scale of what he's done; the people he's accusing of racism, the
> most powerful people in the world, and, as you say, that no one else
> has said what he did.
Ahh, I see. My apologies. However, doesn't that make what he did even more praiseworthy?
. Needless to say, I don't agree with you.
>
> Like I said, I took it as a given. It was the point of the entire
> original post after all, neither you or I could possibly have missed
> it. All I meant by my post was "Yes, I agree, but let's not get
> carried away here."
Okay, fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to clarify your point, though I have to say that I still don't agree with you; I think it is worth getting carried away over. All the more so since the network tried to neuter it by cutting it out of later broadcasts.
Kawada wrote:
> Trouble with the racism view is that it supposes Bush is actually
> smart enough to be able to organise a relief operation but chose not
> to, and Bush having any sort of intelligence to do anything other
> than try and impress Daddy by blowing up chunks of the middle east is
> a little too hard for me to believe :-D
Well, put it this way;
Was there a profit in invading Iraq? Yes.
Was there a profit in a fast and efficient rescue effort in New Orleans? No
In most situations, follow the money and you'll find your answer. For the record, I don't believe it was specifically to do with racism; I don't believe the top 5% of the US government give a damn what colour the poor are. Fact is, they're poor and there's no money in 'em. So screw 'em.
> Trouble with the racism view is that it supposes Bush is actually
> smart enough to be able to organise a relief operation but chose not
> to, and Bush having any sort of intelligence to do anything other
> than try and impress Daddy by blowing up chunks of the middle east is
> a little too hard for me to believe :-D
Well, put it this way;
Was there a profit in invading Iraq? Yes.
Was there a profit in a fast and efficient rescue effort in New Orleans? No
In most situations, follow the money and you'll find your answer. For the record, I don't believe it was specifically to do with racism; I don't believe the top 5% of the US government give a damn what colour the poor are. Fact is, they're poor and there's no money in 'em. So screw 'em.
That's also my view of it as well, it's to do with how much green they've got in their pockets (or lack of) rather than how much black they've got on their skin. Plus Bush being an incompetent idiot also might have a slight bit of bearing on the slow reaction.
Light wrote:
> Okay, fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to clarify your point,
> though I have to say that I still don't agree with you; I think it
> is worth getting carried away over. All the more so since the
> network tried to neuter it by cutting it out of later broadcasts.
To be honest, I wouldn't expect anything even close to humanity or common decency from a television station, a US based station least of all. Anything that doesn't fit perfectly into their plans is ditched in pursuit of ratings. The way they go about getting those ratings is often despicable.
Also, for further clarification, when I say "let's not get carried away" I really meant as to what he stands to lose as a result of his actions, not as to the impact and implications of the actions themselves.
> Okay, fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to clarify your point,
> though I have to say that I still don't agree with you; I think it
> is worth getting carried away over. All the more so since the
> network tried to neuter it by cutting it out of later broadcasts.
To be honest, I wouldn't expect anything even close to humanity or common decency from a television station, a US based station least of all. Anything that doesn't fit perfectly into their plans is ditched in pursuit of ratings. The way they go about getting those ratings is often despicable.
Also, for further clarification, when I say "let's not get carried away" I really meant as to what he stands to lose as a result of his actions, not as to the impact and implications of the actions themselves.
Kore wrote:
> Kanye West's outburst has definitely opened old wounds in a society
> where the majority wants peace. His little speech is unfortunate for
> the US in a time where we need to all work together in an effort for
> recovery, because it incited more issues in an already devastated
> circumstance.
>
> He was not helping anyone.
So you'd rather go on ignoring the issues, as long as people (mainly in the upper class) appear to be happy.
> Kanye West's outburst has definitely opened old wounds in a society
> where the majority wants peace. His little speech is unfortunate for
> the US in a time where we need to all work together in an effort for
> recovery, because it incited more issues in an already devastated
> circumstance.
>
> He was not helping anyone.
So you'd rather go on ignoring the issues, as long as people (mainly in the upper class) appear to be happy.
Dammit, that Diamonds Are Forever was Kanye West wasn't it?
I'm torn between conflicting emotions.
*Sobs*
:^D
I'm torn between conflicting emotions.
*Sobs*
:^D
My whole feeling about this whole disaster is very odd indeed.
Tsunami in poverty-stricken Thailand, horrible disaster, felt very bad, like I had to give money to charity immediately, and did so.
Similar natural disaster in the USA (although not nearly on the same scale), but have I felt like I absolutely must contribute? No, not really. It's odd, almost like I feel like America should be able to take care of themselves.
I probably will end up giving a bit of money, but it's just odd what my initial reaction was, namely that because it's America, an economically stable country, I wasn't as initally affected by it.
Am I racist and going to hell?
Tsunami in poverty-stricken Thailand, horrible disaster, felt very bad, like I had to give money to charity immediately, and did so.
Similar natural disaster in the USA (although not nearly on the same scale), but have I felt like I absolutely must contribute? No, not really. It's odd, almost like I feel like America should be able to take care of themselves.
I probably will end up giving a bit of money, but it's just odd what my initial reaction was, namely that because it's America, an economically stable country, I wasn't as initally affected by it.
Am I racist and going to hell?
Tiltawhirl wrote:
> Kore wrote:
> So you'd rather go on ignoring the issues, as long as people (mainly
> in the upper class) appear to be happy.
Would they have it any other way? :)
> Kore wrote:
> So you'd rather go on ignoring the issues, as long as people (mainly
> in the upper class) appear to be happy.
Would they have it any other way? :)
Page: