The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Friday, September 2nd, 2005
Dear Mr. Bush:
Any idea where all our helicopters are? It's Day 5 of Hurricane Katrina and thousands remain stranded in New Orleans and need to be airlifted. Where on earth could you have misplaced all our military choppers? Do you need help finding them? I once lost my car in a Sears parking lot. Man, was that a drag.
Also, any idea where all our national guard soldiers are? We could really use them right now for the type of thing they signed up to do like helping with national disasters. How come they weren't there to begin with?
Last Thursday I was in south Florida and sat outside while the eye of Hurricane Katrina passed over my head. It was only a Category 1 then but it was pretty nasty. Eleven people died and, as of today, there were still homes without power. That night the weatherman said this storm was on its way to New Orleans. That was Thursday! Did anybody tell you? I know you didn't want to interrupt your vacation and I know how you don't like to get bad news. Plus, you had fundraisers to go to and mothers of dead soldiers to ignore and smear. You sure showed her!
I especially like how, the day after the hurricane, instead of flying to Louisiana, you flew to San Diego to party with your business peeps. Don't let people criticize you for this -- after all, the hurricane was over and what the heck could you do, put your finger in the dam? [Edit: this originally said "d!ke". Stupid swear filter...]
And don't listen to those who, in the coming days, will reveal how you specifically reduced the Army Corps of Engineers' budget for New Orleans this summer for the third year in a row. You just tell them that even if you hadn't cut the money to fix those levees, there weren't going to be any Army engineers to fix them anyway because you had a much more important construction job for them -- BUILDING DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ!
On Day 3, when you finally left your vacation home, I have to say I was moved by how you had your Air Force One pilot descend from the clouds as you flew over New Orleans so you could catch a quick look of the disaster. Hey, I know you couldn't stop and grab a bullhorn and stand on some rubble and act like a commander in chief. Been there done that.
There will be those who will try to politicize this tragedy and try to use it against you. Just have your people keep pointing that out. Respond to nothing. Even those pesky scientists who predicted this would happen because the water in the Gulf of Mexico is getting hotter and hotter making a storm like this inevitable. Ignore them and all their global warming Chicken Littles. There is nothing unusual about a hurricane that was so wide it would be like having one F-4 tornado that stretched from New York to Cleveland.
No, Mr. Bush, you just stay the course. It's not your fault that 30 percent of New Orleans lives in poverty or that tens of thousands had no transportation to get out of town. C'mon, they're black! I mean, it's not like this happened to Kennebunkport. Can you imagine leaving white people on their roofs for five days? Don't make me laugh! Race has nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with this!
You hang in there, Mr. Bush. Just try to find a few of our Army helicopters and send them there. Pretend the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast are near Tikrit.
Yours,
Michael Moore
Dear Mr. Bush:
Any idea where all our helicopters are? It's Day 5 of Hurricane Katrina and thousands remain stranded in New Orleans and need to be airlifted. Where on earth could you have misplaced all our military choppers? Do you need help finding them? I once lost my car in a Sears parking lot. Man, was that a drag.
Also, any idea where all our national guard soldiers are? We could really use them right now for the type of thing they signed up to do like helping with national disasters. How come they weren't there to begin with?
Last Thursday I was in south Florida and sat outside while the eye of Hurricane Katrina passed over my head. It was only a Category 1 then but it was pretty nasty. Eleven people died and, as of today, there were still homes without power. That night the weatherman said this storm was on its way to New Orleans. That was Thursday! Did anybody tell you? I know you didn't want to interrupt your vacation and I know how you don't like to get bad news. Plus, you had fundraisers to go to and mothers of dead soldiers to ignore and smear. You sure showed her!
I especially like how, the day after the hurricane, instead of flying to Louisiana, you flew to San Diego to party with your business peeps. Don't let people criticize you for this -- after all, the hurricane was over and what the heck could you do, put your finger in the dam? [Edit: this originally said "d!ke". Stupid swear filter...]
And don't listen to those who, in the coming days, will reveal how you specifically reduced the Army Corps of Engineers' budget for New Orleans this summer for the third year in a row. You just tell them that even if you hadn't cut the money to fix those levees, there weren't going to be any Army engineers to fix them anyway because you had a much more important construction job for them -- BUILDING DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ!
On Day 3, when you finally left your vacation home, I have to say I was moved by how you had your Air Force One pilot descend from the clouds as you flew over New Orleans so you could catch a quick look of the disaster. Hey, I know you couldn't stop and grab a bullhorn and stand on some rubble and act like a commander in chief. Been there done that.
There will be those who will try to politicize this tragedy and try to use it against you. Just have your people keep pointing that out. Respond to nothing. Even those pesky scientists who predicted this would happen because the water in the Gulf of Mexico is getting hotter and hotter making a storm like this inevitable. Ignore them and all their global warming Chicken Littles. There is nothing unusual about a hurricane that was so wide it would be like having one F-4 tornado that stretched from New York to Cleveland.
No, Mr. Bush, you just stay the course. It's not your fault that 30 percent of New Orleans lives in poverty or that tens of thousands had no transportation to get out of town. C'mon, they're black! I mean, it's not like this happened to Kennebunkport. Can you imagine leaving white people on their roofs for five days? Don't make me laugh! Race has nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with this!
You hang in there, Mr. Bush. Just try to find a few of our Army helicopters and send them there. Pretend the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast are near Tikrit.
Yours,
Michael Moore
Page:
ssxpro wrote:
> Light wrote:
> He's talking about Federal funding. That comes from the Federal
> Government. The head of which is the President.
>
> True, but if the President wanted to buy a whole load of ice cream
> tubs, he wouldn't be able to get away with it.
Really? Damn.
*Pulls out of 2008 race*
> Light wrote:
> He's talking about Federal funding. That comes from the Federal
> Government. The head of which is the President.
>
> True, but if the President wanted to buy a whole load of ice cream
> tubs, he wouldn't be able to get away with it.
Really? Damn.
*Pulls out of 2008 race*
Light wrote:
>I would
> assume you think it's ok to make the accusation because you're a
> good, god-fearing white girl, whereas he's a nasty black man who
> quite possibly eats babies?
White girl?
That's amazing coming from someone who was, not so long ago, shouting at me to kill myself in front of my child. Yeeeaahh..real admirable Light..
I'll get back to this farce later..
>I would
> assume you think it's ok to make the accusation because you're a
> good, god-fearing white girl, whereas he's a nasty black man who
> quite possibly eats babies?
White girl?
That's amazing coming from someone who was, not so long ago, shouting at me to kill myself in front of my child. Yeeeaahh..real admirable Light..
I'll get back to this farce later..
ssxpro wrote:
>
> Because his argument is unconvincing. It doesn't suggest to me he
> knows all the relevant sides of the argument. It could be that I come
> from too mathematical a background, but when an article doesn't
> explain itself, it is almost always best not to take it as fact.
It was a letter. An open letter. Containing arguments, and not footnotes. Your background is mathematical? Then do your research. You're dismissing his argument for not being researched properly, yet you've dismissed it yourself without doing any research of your own. Aren't you doing exactly what you accuse Moore of doing?
> Nothing of any substance. Should I believe what he is saying more if
> it turns out he is propelled by anger?
No, but it means you might stop dismissing it for no reason other than the tone. As you say; you're a mathematician. Surely that means you'd want all of the relevant information so as to come to an informed conclusion?
> True I suppose, but Michael Moore didn't mention that the National
> Guard being sent into a hurricane might be a bad idea and as far as I
> can see, you didn't respond to that part of my post. I stand by the
> suggestion that if the National Guard had gone in and had suffered
> losses for being sent into the hurricane at the beginning, then
> Michael Moore would have happily put forward his criticism again,
> probably followed by a post from you on these forums.
As answered elsewhere; the Guard are there for disaster relief. In other words, they should have been deployed immediately after the disaster. They were not.
Your criticism is therefore doubly suspect; it is based on something that never happened on the one hand, and on something that, even if it had, would not have happened in the way you describe.
> Bush - Republican, Clinton - Democrat. What do they expect? Maybe
> this will revive the Democratic chances in the South.
As the loss of life is mainly among poor black people who tend to vote Democrat, doesn't that rather back up the suggestion that Dubya cares less than he should about their fate?
> Until it is proved it cannot be certain that the link is what people
> expect. I'm not going to go through all that again, but if you're so
> bored that you can tell me Mr Moore isn't overly dramatic and not
> fully informed, then you could easily look up chaos theory.
Oh he's HUGELY dramatic about it. That's the whole point; there is a reason people prefer entertaining writers over a weighty scientific journal.
However, being as how no scientific theory EVER claims to be 100% uncontrovertable truth, aren't you setting your burden of proof rather high?
Or to put it another way, are you denying that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community support the idea that global warming is causing climate change?
>
>
> True, but if the President wanted to buy a whole load of ice cream
> tubs, he wouldn't be able to get away with it.
I literally have no idea what you're trying to get at here. However, as the President got away with a war, the basis for which has now been established as fiction, I rather think you're being a little blase about it.
>
> He's also head of the Republican Party. Which controls both Senate
> and Congress. And so has the ultimate say in what legislature goes
> through.
>
> As if all Republicans are going to agree about everything...
Would you like to discuss the amount of legislation that was blocked because of Republicans crossing the house to support the Democrats over the last 4 years? I'll give you a clue; it's not very much.
Going back to what you said about research, you're clearly not researching parts of your argument. You even start to use some of the sarcasm you criticise Moore for. Yet you expect them, and your tone, to sway the reader. Aren't you therefore doing precisely what you criticise him for?
>
> Admittedly no Americans, but Brits yes. Stabs at the leaders of the
> counties they are fighting for can cause a great deal of pain.
Could it be that the pain it causes is, in part, due to the unpleasant acknowledgement that the war they are fighting is being fought to enrich the leaders of one of those countries?
> That's another thing that needs more sides to it, but I don't deny
> that the search for oil has cost lives. Again though, its not like
> he's going to pour his bath full of oil at the end of the day and
> lounge around in it whilst watching people dying on tv.
No, he's not. But when you say "Needs more sides to it", why aren't you giving me a rebuttal of any of what has been said regards the War in Iraq and the resultant increase in profits for the likes of Dubya's supporters? It has indeed cost lives. And it's costing lives now in New Orleans. Yet you don't seem to see any connection. Instead, you conjure up a bizarre image and try to duck the question.
>
> You assume he doesn't like what he finds? Based on what? You're
> saying he both hasn't looked into it,
>
> ... looked into it *enough*
>
> then that he has and didn't like the result.
>
> yep.
>
> Which is it?
>
> Both Mr Light.
And you know that....how? If you haven't looked into it yourself (and no offence, but you clearly haven't), how do you know he hasn't? If it's your opinion that he hasn't, fine. But what do you have to back up and support that opinion?
>
> Because his argument is unconvincing. It doesn't suggest to me he
> knows all the relevant sides of the argument. It could be that I come
> from too mathematical a background, but when an article doesn't
> explain itself, it is almost always best not to take it as fact.
It was a letter. An open letter. Containing arguments, and not footnotes. Your background is mathematical? Then do your research. You're dismissing his argument for not being researched properly, yet you've dismissed it yourself without doing any research of your own. Aren't you doing exactly what you accuse Moore of doing?
> Nothing of any substance. Should I believe what he is saying more if
> it turns out he is propelled by anger?
No, but it means you might stop dismissing it for no reason other than the tone. As you say; you're a mathematician. Surely that means you'd want all of the relevant information so as to come to an informed conclusion?
> True I suppose, but Michael Moore didn't mention that the National
> Guard being sent into a hurricane might be a bad idea and as far as I
> can see, you didn't respond to that part of my post. I stand by the
> suggestion that if the National Guard had gone in and had suffered
> losses for being sent into the hurricane at the beginning, then
> Michael Moore would have happily put forward his criticism again,
> probably followed by a post from you on these forums.
As answered elsewhere; the Guard are there for disaster relief. In other words, they should have been deployed immediately after the disaster. They were not.
Your criticism is therefore doubly suspect; it is based on something that never happened on the one hand, and on something that, even if it had, would not have happened in the way you describe.
> Bush - Republican, Clinton - Democrat. What do they expect? Maybe
> this will revive the Democratic chances in the South.
As the loss of life is mainly among poor black people who tend to vote Democrat, doesn't that rather back up the suggestion that Dubya cares less than he should about their fate?
> Until it is proved it cannot be certain that the link is what people
> expect. I'm not going to go through all that again, but if you're so
> bored that you can tell me Mr Moore isn't overly dramatic and not
> fully informed, then you could easily look up chaos theory.
Oh he's HUGELY dramatic about it. That's the whole point; there is a reason people prefer entertaining writers over a weighty scientific journal.
However, being as how no scientific theory EVER claims to be 100% uncontrovertable truth, aren't you setting your burden of proof rather high?
Or to put it another way, are you denying that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community support the idea that global warming is causing climate change?
>
>
> True, but if the President wanted to buy a whole load of ice cream
> tubs, he wouldn't be able to get away with it.
I literally have no idea what you're trying to get at here. However, as the President got away with a war, the basis for which has now been established as fiction, I rather think you're being a little blase about it.
>
> He's also head of the Republican Party. Which controls both Senate
> and Congress. And so has the ultimate say in what legislature goes
> through.
>
> As if all Republicans are going to agree about everything...
Would you like to discuss the amount of legislation that was blocked because of Republicans crossing the house to support the Democrats over the last 4 years? I'll give you a clue; it's not very much.
Going back to what you said about research, you're clearly not researching parts of your argument. You even start to use some of the sarcasm you criticise Moore for. Yet you expect them, and your tone, to sway the reader. Aren't you therefore doing precisely what you criticise him for?
>
> Admittedly no Americans, but Brits yes. Stabs at the leaders of the
> counties they are fighting for can cause a great deal of pain.
Could it be that the pain it causes is, in part, due to the unpleasant acknowledgement that the war they are fighting is being fought to enrich the leaders of one of those countries?
> That's another thing that needs more sides to it, but I don't deny
> that the search for oil has cost lives. Again though, its not like
> he's going to pour his bath full of oil at the end of the day and
> lounge around in it whilst watching people dying on tv.
No, he's not. But when you say "Needs more sides to it", why aren't you giving me a rebuttal of any of what has been said regards the War in Iraq and the resultant increase in profits for the likes of Dubya's supporters? It has indeed cost lives. And it's costing lives now in New Orleans. Yet you don't seem to see any connection. Instead, you conjure up a bizarre image and try to duck the question.
>
> You assume he doesn't like what he finds? Based on what? You're
> saying he both hasn't looked into it,
>
> ... looked into it *enough*
>
> then that he has and didn't like the result.
>
> yep.
>
> Which is it?
>
> Both Mr Light.
And you know that....how? If you haven't looked into it yourself (and no offence, but you clearly haven't), how do you know he hasn't? If it's your opinion that he hasn't, fine. But what do you have to back up and support that opinion?
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> The guards would never be sent into the actual hurricane while it was
> still going on, and no-one would expect them to - but it was several
> days after the storm had completely passed, and they still hadn't
> turned up ...
Very true and I don't understand why they were so late, it seems quite wrong, but that wasn't where Mr Moore put his criticism. He said "to begin with", as in, from day 1. True, national guard would be useful as soon as they could possibly be there, but as you say, not whilst the hurricane is raging and that is where I disagree with Mr Moore.
> The guards would never be sent into the actual hurricane while it was
> still going on, and no-one would expect them to - but it was several
> days after the storm had completely passed, and they still hadn't
> turned up ...
Very true and I don't understand why they were so late, it seems quite wrong, but that wasn't where Mr Moore put his criticism. He said "to begin with", as in, from day 1. True, national guard would be useful as soon as they could possibly be there, but as you say, not whilst the hurricane is raging and that is where I disagree with Mr Moore.
>
> You are not doing anyone any good sitting there in the UK and
> pointing your fingers, you hysterical ass.
And yet, having already donated to the disaster relief fund, I'm doing more than you are.
Of course, one could say that, by commenting on the failures of your government, then perhaps change could be enacted. Unfortunately, as with the Catholic Church Child Abuse scandals, your ilk prefer everyone to stay quiet and not rock the boat. Who cares if people suffer; long as it's not you, eh?
> I never said the
> government did everything right..but, there you go again twisting my
> words to make yourself look so special.
Well then my dear; why don't you clarify what you mean? After all, when someone defends the government to hilt whilst stating they're not at fault for the worst humanitarian crisis on US soil since the depression of the 30's, one tends to assume "Well, if they won't criticise then, when WILL they?"
> All I see here is everyone
> being a bobblehead so as not to get into a serious debate with you.
Mm, that must be why ssxpro and gerrid have just made the effort to get into a serious debate...
Oh, I do apologise; I was forgetting that your usual method of covering your sagging ass as you turn tail and run away crying is to wail "They're all just doing things cos of YOU Light". Whilst I'm touched that you feel I'm such an important figure that people fall over themselves to agree with me, I'm afraid that reality must come crashing into your feverish little fantasy to point out that you are, once more, talking sunblushed snatchrot.
>
>
> I don't -need- to delve into finding evidence to back my opinions
> against you because you're nothing but full of crap and really not
> worth the effort.
Mwahahahahahaaaa! Are you sure you're not Belldandy?
Anyway, so you're saying you don't need to provide evidence? Well then, presumably you won't mind if people ignore you then? After all, why bother paying attention to someone who screeches their opinion, cries about not getting the attention they crave, then squeals like a freshly raped goat about what nasty men everyone here are because they don't love you unconditionally.
Christ...trust a fundamentalist to expect everyone else to accept things without evidence. I'm afraid we're not all so gullible as you are; don't go getting upset at the rest of us for refusing to live our lives according to the instructions contained in a book of fairy tales.
> The only idiot I'm finding in these forums is you
> talking about the American government like some racist pig sitting
> there in front of your posh pc, spewing how the American's had been
> done wrong. Who the hell are YOU?!?! I don't see your ass down here
> in the muck rescuing or helping anyone in the Katrina recovery!
And I don't see your ass either; presumably because the people of New Orleans don't want a human hippo stalking their streets, but additionally because you're a wailing hypocrite who freely accuses others of pure evil for doing (or not doing) exactly what you do. As I say; I've donated. What have you done, my increasingly shrill little fool?
My posh pc? So...I suppose that mean's you're writing this on a good, working class pc with no pretensions of rising above it's social station?
I'm also intrigued to see how you're going to justify your comment about racism. Especially as you critised Kanye West for making the same accusations about your beloved, Christian government. I would assume you think it's ok to make the accusation because you're a good, god-fearing white girl, whereas he's a nasty black man who quite possibly eats babies?
>
> Anyways..I actually have a life and this here is nothing but a farce.
And yet you continue to come back here. If this is a farce my dear, that makes you the butt of the joke.
> Go ahead Light, continue on your tirade to shred me. I know it makes
> you feel more of a man.
Heh. Ah, I was wondering when you'd get onto the point of trying to belittle me as a man. Always amusing; you seem to think that being a woman entitles you to say what you please, but when you're left looking a fool then the man who did so is CLEARLY some sort of misogynist.
As I've answered those, frankly lazy, accusations many times in the past, I'll refrain from repeating myself; that's your forte.
> You are not doing anyone any good sitting there in the UK and
> pointing your fingers, you hysterical ass.
And yet, having already donated to the disaster relief fund, I'm doing more than you are.
Of course, one could say that, by commenting on the failures of your government, then perhaps change could be enacted. Unfortunately, as with the Catholic Church Child Abuse scandals, your ilk prefer everyone to stay quiet and not rock the boat. Who cares if people suffer; long as it's not you, eh?
> I never said the
> government did everything right..but, there you go again twisting my
> words to make yourself look so special.
Well then my dear; why don't you clarify what you mean? After all, when someone defends the government to hilt whilst stating they're not at fault for the worst humanitarian crisis on US soil since the depression of the 30's, one tends to assume "Well, if they won't criticise then, when WILL they?"
> All I see here is everyone
> being a bobblehead so as not to get into a serious debate with you.
Mm, that must be why ssxpro and gerrid have just made the effort to get into a serious debate...
Oh, I do apologise; I was forgetting that your usual method of covering your sagging ass as you turn tail and run away crying is to wail "They're all just doing things cos of YOU Light". Whilst I'm touched that you feel I'm such an important figure that people fall over themselves to agree with me, I'm afraid that reality must come crashing into your feverish little fantasy to point out that you are, once more, talking sunblushed snatchrot.
>
>
> I don't -need- to delve into finding evidence to back my opinions
> against you because you're nothing but full of crap and really not
> worth the effort.
Mwahahahahahaaaa! Are you sure you're not Belldandy?
Anyway, so you're saying you don't need to provide evidence? Well then, presumably you won't mind if people ignore you then? After all, why bother paying attention to someone who screeches their opinion, cries about not getting the attention they crave, then squeals like a freshly raped goat about what nasty men everyone here are because they don't love you unconditionally.
Christ...trust a fundamentalist to expect everyone else to accept things without evidence. I'm afraid we're not all so gullible as you are; don't go getting upset at the rest of us for refusing to live our lives according to the instructions contained in a book of fairy tales.
> The only idiot I'm finding in these forums is you
> talking about the American government like some racist pig sitting
> there in front of your posh pc, spewing how the American's had been
> done wrong. Who the hell are YOU?!?! I don't see your ass down here
> in the muck rescuing or helping anyone in the Katrina recovery!
And I don't see your ass either; presumably because the people of New Orleans don't want a human hippo stalking their streets, but additionally because you're a wailing hypocrite who freely accuses others of pure evil for doing (or not doing) exactly what you do. As I say; I've donated. What have you done, my increasingly shrill little fool?
My posh pc? So...I suppose that mean's you're writing this on a good, working class pc with no pretensions of rising above it's social station?
I'm also intrigued to see how you're going to justify your comment about racism. Especially as you critised Kanye West for making the same accusations about your beloved, Christian government. I would assume you think it's ok to make the accusation because you're a good, god-fearing white girl, whereas he's a nasty black man who quite possibly eats babies?
>
> Anyways..I actually have a life and this here is nothing but a farce.
And yet you continue to come back here. If this is a farce my dear, that makes you the butt of the joke.
> Go ahead Light, continue on your tirade to shred me. I know it makes
> you feel more of a man.
Heh. Ah, I was wondering when you'd get onto the point of trying to belittle me as a man. Always amusing; you seem to think that being a woman entitles you to say what you please, but when you're left looking a fool then the man who did so is CLEARLY some sort of misogynist.
As I've answered those, frankly lazy, accusations many times in the past, I'll refrain from repeating myself; that's your forte.
ssxpro wrote:
> True I suppose, but Michael Moore didn't mention that the National
> Guard being sent into a hurricane might be a bad idea and as far as I
> can see, you didn't respond to that part of my post. I stand by the
> suggestion that if the National Guard had gone in and had suffered
> losses for being sent into the hurricane at the beginning, then
> Michael Moore would have happily put forward his criticism again,
> probably followed by a post from you on these forums.
The guards would never be sent into the actual hurricane while it was still going on, and no-one would expect them to - but it was several days after the storm had completely passed, and they still hadn't turned up ...
> True I suppose, but Michael Moore didn't mention that the National
> Guard being sent into a hurricane might be a bad idea and as far as I
> can see, you didn't respond to that part of my post. I stand by the
> suggestion that if the National Guard had gone in and had suffered
> losses for being sent into the hurricane at the beginning, then
> Michael Moore would have happily put forward his criticism again,
> probably followed by a post from you on these forums.
The guards would never be sent into the actual hurricane while it was still going on, and no-one would expect them to - but it was several days after the storm had completely passed, and they still hadn't turned up ...
Kore wrote:
> I don't -need- to delve into finding evidence to back my opinions
> against you because you're nothing but full of crap and really not
> worth the effort.
And with that single sentence, Kore's argument collapses into irrelevance and pathetic excuse.
> The only idiot I'm finding in these forums is you
> talking about the American government like some racist pig sitting
> there in front of your posh pc, spewing how the American's had been
> done wrong.
I'd like to see you back up that racism claim.
> Who the hell are YOU?!?!
Maybe he's someone with an opinion that happens to difer from your (sadly typical) self-righteousness.
Kore, stop being so insulting to people (labelling them racists and such) and try and concentrate on the debate, even if it could mean you'd be shown up for the fool you appear to be.
(Cue predictable "You're just one of Light's sheep!!! etc" reply)
> I don't -need- to delve into finding evidence to back my opinions
> against you because you're nothing but full of crap and really not
> worth the effort.
And with that single sentence, Kore's argument collapses into irrelevance and pathetic excuse.
> The only idiot I'm finding in these forums is you
> talking about the American government like some racist pig sitting
> there in front of your posh pc, spewing how the American's had been
> done wrong.
I'd like to see you back up that racism claim.
> Who the hell are YOU?!?!
Maybe he's someone with an opinion that happens to difer from your (sadly typical) self-righteousness.
Kore, stop being so insulting to people (labelling them racists and such) and try and concentrate on the debate, even if it could mean you'd be shown up for the fool you appear to be.
(Cue predictable "You're just one of Light's sheep!!! etc" reply)
Ok, Grix is coming across like a child.
Light wrote:
> But if you don't understand it yourself, how can you possibly say as
> a statement of fact "He doesn't understand"?
Because his argument is unconvincing. It doesn't suggest to me he knows all the relevant sides of the argument. It could be that I come from too mathematical a background, but when an article doesn't explain itself, it is almost always best not to take it as fact.
> Well, everyone is of course entitled to their opinion. I would ask
> though; have you read anything of his before? Are you aware of the
> circumstances that generate the anger that punctuates anything he
> writes or says about Dubya?
Nothing of any substance. Should I believe what he is saying more if it turns out he is propelled by anger?
> I've no problem with someone being slated for what they did say, but
> when you're creating things he might have said if
> circumstances were different...I think that's perhaps a little much.
True I suppose, but Michael Moore didn't mention that the National Guard being sent into a hurricane might be a bad idea and as far as I can see, you didn't respond to that part of my post. I stand by the suggestion that if the National Guard had gone in and had suffered losses for being sent into the hurricane at the beginning, then Michael Moore would have happily put forward his criticism again, probably followed by a post from you on these forums.
> However, I will tell you this; cuts to that budget were made. And tax
> cuts that benefitted the wealthiest 5% of the US were also made. Under
> Clinton, the US ran at a profit. Under Dubya, they have an enormous
> deficit. You do the math.
Bush - Republican, Clinton - Democrat. What do they expect? Maybe this will revive the Democratic chances in the South.
> The stuff about global warming and then smoking (all valid stuff, just clipped to save space)
Until it is proved it cannot be certain that the link is what people expect. I'm not going to go through all that again, but if you're so bored that you can tell me Mr Moore isn't overly dramatic and not fully informed, then you could easily look up chaos theory.
> He's talking about Federal funding. That comes from the Federal
> Government. The head of which is the President.
True, but if the President wanted to buy a whole load of ice cream tubs, he wouldn't be able to get away with it.
> He's also head of the Republican Party. Which controls both Senate
> and Congress. And so has the ultimate say in what legislature goes
> through.
As if all Republicans are going to agree about everything...
> Really? Do you know them personally?
Admittedly no Americans, but Brits yes. Stabs at the leaders of the counties they are fighting for can cause a great deal of pain.
> The accusation is that Dubya cares more about oil than
> people. You may not like that opinion, but I haven't heard you refute
> it yet.
That's another thing that needs more sides to it, but I don't deny that the search for oil has cost lives. Again though, its not like he's going to pour his bath full of oil at the end of the day and lounge around in it whilst watching people dying on tv.
> You assume he doesn't like what he finds? Based on what? You're
> saying he both hasn't looked into it,
... looked into it *enough*
> then that he has and didn't like the result.
yep.
> Which is it?
Both Mr Light.
> But if you don't understand it yourself, how can you possibly say as
> a statement of fact "He doesn't understand"?
Because his argument is unconvincing. It doesn't suggest to me he knows all the relevant sides of the argument. It could be that I come from too mathematical a background, but when an article doesn't explain itself, it is almost always best not to take it as fact.
> Well, everyone is of course entitled to their opinion. I would ask
> though; have you read anything of his before? Are you aware of the
> circumstances that generate the anger that punctuates anything he
> writes or says about Dubya?
Nothing of any substance. Should I believe what he is saying more if it turns out he is propelled by anger?
> I've no problem with someone being slated for what they did say, but
> when you're creating things he might have said if
> circumstances were different...I think that's perhaps a little much.
True I suppose, but Michael Moore didn't mention that the National Guard being sent into a hurricane might be a bad idea and as far as I can see, you didn't respond to that part of my post. I stand by the suggestion that if the National Guard had gone in and had suffered losses for being sent into the hurricane at the beginning, then Michael Moore would have happily put forward his criticism again, probably followed by a post from you on these forums.
> However, I will tell you this; cuts to that budget were made. And tax
> cuts that benefitted the wealthiest 5% of the US were also made. Under
> Clinton, the US ran at a profit. Under Dubya, they have an enormous
> deficit. You do the math.
Bush - Republican, Clinton - Democrat. What do they expect? Maybe this will revive the Democratic chances in the South.
> The stuff about global warming and then smoking (all valid stuff, just clipped to save space)
Until it is proved it cannot be certain that the link is what people expect. I'm not going to go through all that again, but if you're so bored that you can tell me Mr Moore isn't overly dramatic and not fully informed, then you could easily look up chaos theory.
> He's talking about Federal funding. That comes from the Federal
> Government. The head of which is the President.
True, but if the President wanted to buy a whole load of ice cream tubs, he wouldn't be able to get away with it.
> He's also head of the Republican Party. Which controls both Senate
> and Congress. And so has the ultimate say in what legislature goes
> through.
As if all Republicans are going to agree about everything...
> Really? Do you know them personally?
Admittedly no Americans, but Brits yes. Stabs at the leaders of the counties they are fighting for can cause a great deal of pain.
> The accusation is that Dubya cares more about oil than
> people. You may not like that opinion, but I haven't heard you refute
> it yet.
That's another thing that needs more sides to it, but I don't deny that the search for oil has cost lives. Again though, its not like he's going to pour his bath full of oil at the end of the day and lounge around in it whilst watching people dying on tv.
> You assume he doesn't like what he finds? Based on what? You're
> saying he both hasn't looked into it,
... looked into it *enough*
> then that he has and didn't like the result.
yep.
> Which is it?
Both Mr Light.
Light wrote:
> Kore wrote:
> Your Honour wrote:
> Blimey Light are you going soft? I expected a much more angry tone
> in
> your reply, but I just wasn't feeling it.... :-)
>
> Ye, such passion..such conviction for the American government.
> Although Bush does have the power to veto whatever comes from
> Congress, the President is not King. In this circumstance and at
> this time with Katrina, I highly doubt he'll deny anything that
> comes
> through to help those states in their recovery efforts.
>
> America does have the internal capacity to heal in this devastation,
> especially with it's citizen's and corporations rallying together
> and
> sending in substantial aide and donations beyond anything I've seen
> in
> my life. It's quite touching to see this.
>
> Anyways, back to Light bashing the Bush administration and all
> Republicans.. Carry on.
>
>
> Tell you what dearest; offer some facts in rebuttal to all the
> accusations levelled against the government, rather than your
> "well I think the government did everything right!"
> statements, and I'll respond to 'em. I may be bashing 'em, but I'm
> offering reasons and facts. You're offering hysteria and stupidity.
>
> Until then, by all means use your utterly unsupported opinion to
> squeal for attention like the self-regarding, hypocritical piece of
> mouldy cocksnot you are.
You are not doing anyone any good sitting there in the UK and pointing your fingers, you hysterical ass. I never said the government did everything right..but, there you go again twisting my words to make yourself look so special. All I see here is everyone being a bobblehead so as not to get into a serious debate with you.
I don't -need- to delve into finding evidence to back my opinions against you because you're nothing but full of crap and really not worth the effort. The only idiot I'm finding in these forums is you talking about the American government like some racist pig sitting there in front of your posh pc, spewing how the American's had been done wrong. Who the hell are YOU?!?! I don't see your ass down here in the muck rescuing or helping anyone in the Katrina recovery!
Anyways..I actually have a life and this here is nothing but a farce. Go ahead Light, continue on your tirade to shred me. I know it makes you feel more of a man.
> Kore wrote:
> Your Honour wrote:
> Blimey Light are you going soft? I expected a much more angry tone
> in
> your reply, but I just wasn't feeling it.... :-)
>
> Ye, such passion..such conviction for the American government.
> Although Bush does have the power to veto whatever comes from
> Congress, the President is not King. In this circumstance and at
> this time with Katrina, I highly doubt he'll deny anything that
> comes
> through to help those states in their recovery efforts.
>
> America does have the internal capacity to heal in this devastation,
> especially with it's citizen's and corporations rallying together
> and
> sending in substantial aide and donations beyond anything I've seen
> in
> my life. It's quite touching to see this.
>
> Anyways, back to Light bashing the Bush administration and all
> Republicans.. Carry on.
>
>
> Tell you what dearest; offer some facts in rebuttal to all the
> accusations levelled against the government, rather than your
> "well I think the government did everything right!"
> statements, and I'll respond to 'em. I may be bashing 'em, but I'm
> offering reasons and facts. You're offering hysteria and stupidity.
>
> Until then, by all means use your utterly unsupported opinion to
> squeal for attention like the self-regarding, hypocritical piece of
> mouldy cocksnot you are.
You are not doing anyone any good sitting there in the UK and pointing your fingers, you hysterical ass. I never said the government did everything right..but, there you go again twisting my words to make yourself look so special. All I see here is everyone being a bobblehead so as not to get into a serious debate with you.
I don't -need- to delve into finding evidence to back my opinions against you because you're nothing but full of crap and really not worth the effort. The only idiot I'm finding in these forums is you talking about the American government like some racist pig sitting there in front of your posh pc, spewing how the American's had been done wrong. Who the hell are YOU?!?! I don't see your ass down here in the muck rescuing or helping anyone in the Katrina recovery!
Anyways..I actually have a life and this here is nothing but a farce. Go ahead Light, continue on your tirade to shred me. I know it makes you feel more of a man.
Page: