Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
He's at it again. Stupid fucking douchebag.
http://wrathofbush.com/ What a stupid fucking douchebag. Michael Moore is at it again with his shitty movies. His latest copy and paste; hide the truth documentaries is named "Katrina: The Wrath of Bush." In my opinion, Michael Moore has no right to complain about Bush's response to the hurricane, because he himself could've saved hundreds of lives by just simply plugging the break in the levees with his fat ass. Discuss. O:
Re: He's at it again. Stupid fucking douchebag.
Can't we just kill him? There's only so much bullshit someone can spew before their right to life runs out. I think he lost that shortly before Fahrenheit 9/11.
What was Michael Moore doing to help the people of New Orleans during the hurricane? $5 says he was stuffing his fat ass with cheetos while beating off to Dan Rather. I can not think of a person's opinion that matters less than that product of the fast food industry.
j_ball430 wrote on Tue, 01 November 2005 22:56 Can't we just kill him? There's only so much bullshit someone can spew before their right to life runs out. I think he lost that shortly before Fahrenheit 9/11. Sorry, Jake, but this is America, where we have to tolerate people's right to idiocy. Michael Moore has every right to express his completely invalid and utterly wrong opinions; to his dismay, he does not have the right to be taken seriously. I wonder how much of the profit he will make will go to any charitable organizations to assist in the Katrina and Rita reconstruction, besides his French Fries for Fat Facists fund.
Moore's agents will come for you...
Quick! End free speech before it's too late!
Don't worry SFE, he'll die of a heart attack sooner or later. Then the world will be a better place.
Personal insults? I thought you were above that.
No, he only acts like he's superior to everyone else here. That's why he's a hypocrite like every other liberal tool out there.
bullshit Moore, whose 2004 film "Fahrenheit 9/11" stands as the highest-grossing documentary of all time, examines the Bush Administration's failures to prevent and respond to the largest "natural" disaster to strike the United states since Hurricane Andrew hit southern Florida in 1992. So what happened this time? Did Bush call out to his spirits and cause the hurricane thus making it artificial? The word "natural" is put in quotations only to incinuate that Bush (and his administration) somehow was the cause for Katrina. Excuse me, but last I heard, we have no ability to control the weather. Obviously the fat fuck knows something we don't.
Also, I felt that now was a good as time as any to spam my new upcoming website: http://www.wrathofmoore.com
Of course, it's just an empty domain right now. I can't wait to see when its finished.
What's worse is that 50% of my college teachers think that the 911 movie that he made is totally unbaised and true. Now THAT'S scary.
SuperMidget wrote on Fri, 04 November 2005 07:53 What's worse is that 50% of my college teachers think that the 911 movie that he made is totally unbaised and true. Now THAT'S scary. That's like saying Rush Limbaugh is unbiased.
Whatever shred of credibility that F:9/11 had is going down the drain with "Wrath of Bush." I feel like a moron when I say that out loud. Try it, yourself. Hurricane Katrina... Wrath of Bush. Fucking Hell.
gbull Personal insults? I thought you were above that. [Updated on: Thu, 03 November 2005 19:02] As opposed to you not being above suggesting that the death of Americans would be a good event, I think I'm on the morally correct side of the coin here. And don't pretend for a second that I've been the main dispenser of personal insults on these forums. The mere fact that you wish a maker of an opinionated documentary maker be silenced because he doesn't side with you proves yourself such a biased retard that you really, really, really should reconsider your stance on every issue you've ever contrived an opinion to. j_ball So what happened this time? Did Bush call out to his spirits and cause the hurricane thus making it artificial? The word "natural" is put in quotations only to incinuate that Bush (and his administration) somehow was the cause for Katrina. Excuse me, but last I heard, we have no ability to control the weather. You entirely missed the point of that movie description. Really. You did. ALSO You all do realize you're doing exactly what Moore wants you to, don't you? You're advertising his movie. There's a reason he makes such bold movie concepts - because you can't wait to spam about it all over the internet. You probably saved Moore thousands in advertising. I didn't know about this movie until I saw this thread. So maybe now that I know about it I'll spend money to go see it. I'm sure Moore says thanks.
I had no idea two wrongs make a right. Also, I don't care how much Michael Moore makes, all I care about is revealing his character for what he truly is: A lier.
No, I understand the bullshit stance he has on Katrina. It's still just as stupid as what I said.
We all should have just voted for Kerry. I'm sure he would have been able to stop Hurricane Katrina.
Sure...he'd still be sitting in front of the UN asking every other country what THEY think he should do about it. Then he'd defer to Edwards, who, being the damnable tort lawyer he is, would have called for lawsuits against everybody BUT the ones at fault. And maybe, MAYBE, he'd decide that FEMA and the National Guard should get involved...then delay for several months because he started having second thoughts about his position on disaster relief. Did I miss anything? And Michael Moore should go fuck himself and die. There, I said it. Free speech goes both ways. He can spout his bullshit, and everyone who disagrees can tell him to fuck off. Seems fair to me.
Michael Moore on a treadmill? You'd see him at the Republican National Convention giving an "I love Bush!" speech before you'd see him on a treadmill!
gbull wrote on Fri, 04 November 2005 21:49 I had no idea two wrongs make a right. I didn't say they did. I was suggesting you should check yourself before you make bold remarks about the correctness of what others say. gbull ]Also, I don't care how much Michael Moore makes, all I care about is revealing his character for what he truly is: A lier. ...All you've done in this thread is said that you hate him. Might want to "reveal" a little more than your personal opinions. j_balll No, I understand the bullshit stance he has on Katrina. It's still just as stupid as what I said. No You Do Not. But what you said was pretty stupid. hydra We all should have just voted for Kerry. I'm sure he would have been able to stop Hurricane Katrina. No, but he could have organized something called emergency management. nukeit15 Then he'd defer to Edwards, who, being the damnable tort lawyer he is, would have called for lawsuits against everybody BUT the ones at fault. Have you looked at Edwards' trial record, and decided whether or not his lawsuits were warranted or not?
SuperFlyingEngi wrote on Sat, 05 November 2005 12:42 j_balll No, I understand the bullshit stance he has on Katrina. It's still just as stupid as what I said. No You Do Not. But what you said was pretty stupid. No, I understand perfectly well, I just still think he's WAY off base. It's NOT the federal government's job to evacuate areas. It's the local and state government's job. It's not Bush's fault that the governor of Louisiana doesn't know what the fuck she's doing. As for what he offered to the Army Corps of Engineers, it doesn't matter. The levees should have been built to withstand Cat 5 hurricanes in the first place. They didn't think they needed to be built stronger, and up until this year, they didn't. Nobody predicted the hurricane, so blaming Bush on that is just petty. Though, you can't put it past Moore or other liberals.
You know, there's this thing called FEMA...
"SFE" ...All you've done in this thread is said that you hate him. Might want to "reveal" a little more than your personal opinions. All in good time.
Bush appointed Brown to be the head of FEMA even though Brown was dangerously underqualified for the job. The result was a lackluster response from Emergency Management and a natural resentment to the government. Did Bush cause Katrina? No. But he did choose nepotism over responsible appointments, and it is a legitimate reason to be mad at Bush. If you become President of the United States, you owe it to the nation to appoint qualified people to positions of great responsibility, not (as Bush does all the time) offer positions to friends and firends of friends. It was irresponsible, and there were consequences. now you can take out your frustration on Michael Moore, who is an easy target, or you can be mature enough to admit the Bush administration acted without the best interest of the American people in appointing Brown to FEMA, and for once (just once perhaps) admit the Bush administration makes mistakes.
FEMA isn't supposed to be there the moment a hurricane hits, you government dependent moron. They are supposed to come in a few days or even a few weeks after the disaster in order to provide assistance to those who are in need of it. Judging from your response I seriously doubt you've ever lived in the south or have any experience with major storms like hurricanes, so for you to even come in here and complain about hurricane management is like me complaining about you dealing with blizzards and FEMA not helping you in a timely manner. What do I know about blizzards; living in Florida for 20 years? Sure I could make a bullshit opinion, just like you did with hurricane relief, but I'd rather not. I've been through at least 18 named storms and about eight major hurricanes. I know what it's like to feel terror in your heart when you see the faint Moonlight illuminating the clouds enough to silhouette trees outside your window that are about to break in half. Government wasn't set up to be something you depended on whenever something goes wrong. It was set up to be what set the rules of the nation and what helped out in certain circumstances, lest it grow too large and repeat ye old England's failures in governance. What I'm basically telling you, since you probably have no idea of what emergency preparedness means (You should have been a Boy Scout so you'd have some personal morality and ability to depend on yourself instead of others in times of emergency), is that you should have stockpiled enough food, water, and other items to last you long enough for assistance to arrive - whether it be charity or local\state government help. You should always depend on yourself first, because only you are responsible for your own safety and health. EDIT: Instead of telling people to admit that the administration has made mistakes (Which almost all of us here regularly do, if you ever paid any attention at all instead of posting trollish garbage that you think is intellectual), how about you admit that the administration does a lot of things right?
Gizbotvas wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 11:42 now you can take out your frustration on Michael Moore, who is an easy target, or you can be mature enough to admit the Bush administration acted without the best interest of the American people in appointing Brown to FEMA, and for once (just once perhaps) admit the Bush administration makes mistakes. What frustration? I'm just laughing at the fact that this fat fuck can make a documentary on a disaster site to blame Bush for not helping out when he isn't helping out, either. The time and energy making his film could have been to help rescue people trapped. If you want to make Bush out to be a bad guy, you better do the same for Mr. Moore. He's just as capable of helping. Believe me, I don't like everything the Bush administration does, and I've repeatedly said this. I just don't agree with the liberals when they try to blame every little god damn thing on Bush and his administration. I'm sorry, but I don't care to have a huge federal government. In fact, I believe that the government is too big as it is.
well if anyone in the federal government is to blame for any mistake, it would have to be Bush. Why? http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/13/katrina.washington/
Yes, and even though he admitted "fault" (which I still disagree with), the liberals are going to attack him for being aware that he made those mistakes. They're relentless, though, I doubt republicans would be much different if that was a liberal in the spotlight.
You have the media to thank for that admission. The major faults rested with the city and state officials, yet the media focus only on the President and how the current administration "fumbled the ball." J_Ball, current Republicans are so weak-spined that they would quit after the Democrats fire back with their usual tactics of class warfare and ethnic pandering (you know, "Republicans hate poor people and blacks!"). Besides, the media would focus on how "great" the city, state, and federal Democrats would be (man-)handling the situation while totally ignoring any charges made by Republicans.
He doesn't lie, he just covers one side of the story. Something he will be the first to admit and if you ever watched the movie (which I bet half of you haven't) he does admit it. That is why I don't have a problem with him. So long as hes open that he only covers the side of the story he supports then I'm fine with him. It's his movie(s) if he wants it like that then so be it, if you don't like it don't watch it and stfu.
"Moore's Flash" "Natural" Disaster Yeah Right! Enough said.
j_ball430 wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 17:50 Yes, and even though he admitted "fault" (which I still disagree with), the liberals are going to attack him for being aware that he made those mistakes. They're relentless, though, I doubt republicans would be much different if that was a liberal in the spotlight. If someone like a president admit a fault, it's only because he can't be president the next time. So he better leave with a good image for the public. And then the next republican will make it... aaaah politics... Another way of arguing over the net. (omg I trolled this super topic...) (PS: don't make fun of fat people! Seriously think about hydra, bigjoe45 and the ack's girlfriend... They are all fat. So watch your words.)
Renardin6 wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 15:09 j_ball430 wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 17:50 Yes, and even though he admitted "fault" (which I still disagree with), the liberals are going to attack him for being aware that he made those mistakes. They're relentless, though, I doubt republicans would be much different if that was a liberal in the spotlight. If someone like a president admit a fault, it's only because he can't be president the next time. So he better leave with a good image for the public. And then the next republican will make it... aaaah politics... Another way of arguing over the net. (omg I trolled this super topic...) (PS: don't make fun of fat people! Seriously think about hydra, bigjoe45 and the ack's girlfriend... They are all fat. So watch your words.) Get the fuck out of this thread if you're going to flame people. If you're going to shit on threads, shit on the ones at your website. I'm really not in the mood for you to spam random shit. (By the way, your signatures sucks - there is clearly no sign of cookies and it looks like you made it in paint...)
Retarded6 If someone like a president admit a fault, it's only because he can't be president the next time. So he better leave with a good image for the public. And then the next republican will make it... aaaah politics... Another way of arguing over the net. (omg I trolled this super topic...) (PS: don't make fun of fat people! Seriously think about hydra, bigjoe45 and the ack's girlfriend... They are all fat. So watch your words.) Why are you wasting your time here? Don't you have to completely remake Reborn for the hundredth time because it doesn't have the GDI Shit Shooter?
Touché.
Aircraftkiller wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 12:07 FEMA isn't supposed to be there the moment a hurricane hits, you government dependent moron. They are supposed to come in a few days or even a few weeks after the disaster in order to provide assistance to those who are in need of it Actually, you are completely wrong, as usual. From the FEMA website www.fema.gov: "The Federal Emergency Management Agency - a former independent agency that became part of the new Department of Homeland Security in March 2003 - is tasked with responding to, planning for, recovering from and mitigating against disasters." I lived in Fotr Lauderdale, FL for a few years, and I think your assumptions about what I do and do not know are both presumptuous and factually incorrect. Quote: .... Sure I could make a bullshit opinion, just like you did with hurricane relief, but I'd rather not. As far as I can tell, ACK, you offer no facts, no information rooted in fact, all you seem to offer is bad poetry and bullshit opinions. Ironic you should contribute them too, since you rally so hard against them when other people write. Quote: how about you admit that the administration does a lot of things right? I will admit the administration does a lot right as soon as I believe it to be true. While, instead, I feel the current administration is a quagmire of corruption and incompetence. Of course, that's just my bullshit opinion, but since you don't care about facts, I thought I would offer it instead.
Gizbotvas wrote on Fri, 11 November 2005 22:36 Aircraftkiller wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 12:07 FEMA isn't supposed to be there the moment a hurricane hits, you government dependent moron. They are supposed to come in a few days or even a few weeks after the disaster in order to provide assistance to those who are in need of it Actually, you are completely wrong, as usual. From the FEMA website www.fema.gov: "The Federal Emergency Management Agency - a former independent agency that became part of the new Department of Homeland Security in March 2003 - is tasked with responding to, planning for, recovering from and mitigating against disasters." You do know you didn't disprove anything he said. That quote says they are supposed to respond, plan for, and alleviate some of the damages a hurricane causes. No where does that statement say when.
"Planning for" simply means that they know it's going to happen, and they're setting aside resources for the disaster relief.
Quote: mit·i·gate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mtgt) v. mit·i·gat·ed, mit·i·gat·ing, mit·i·gates v. tr. To moderate (a quality or condition) in force or intensity; alleviate. None of the words FEMA chose to use have anything to do with immediate response. Nice try Gizbotvas but you're not really getting the idea here, are you? Quote: I will admit the administration does a lot right as soon as I believe it to be true. While, instead, I feel the current administration is a quagmire of corruption and incompetence. So because you believe you're right; without any sort of actual evidence to prove what you believe (nothing unusual there)... People like me are supposed to admit that the administration does mostly wrong so you'll stop your fucking whining like a Jack Russell terrier when it's been left outside? You should know that doesn't work.
gbull wrote on Fri, 11 November 2005 23:52 You do know you didn't disprove anything he said. That quote says they are supposed to respond, plan for, and alleviate some of the damages a hurricane causes. No where does that statement say when. Really? Because ACK says FEMA doesn't help until days or weeks after a disaster hits, and I qupte their mandate to help plan-for and mitigate against disaster. Which by definition must take place before or during disasters. Regardless, that this gets far far off topic. Michael Moore is not "lying" about the Bush administration's incompetence handling FEMA, at worst it is an opinion, at best it is an accurate portrayal of an administation placing Dangerously underqualified people like Brown in positions of important governmental responsibility.
Yes, really. I have yet to see you show me where they establish the amount of time planning takes. This also didn't help: "Washington Post" Behind the scenes, a power struggle emerged, as federal officials tried to wrest authority from Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans, a source within the state's emergency operations center said Saturday. The administration sought unified control over all local police and state National Guard units reporting to the governor. Louisiana officials rejected the request after talks throughout the night, concerned that such a move would be comparable to a federal declaration of martial law. Some officials in the state suspected a political motive behind the request. "Quite frankly, if they'd been able to pull off taking it away from the locals, they then could have blamed everything on the locals," said the source, who does not have the authority to speak publicly. It's tough to help people who don't want it.
She rejected the takeover because once the Bush administration controls all Lousiana military, then they control all the cameras, and they would proceed to frame the governor. Whether or not the federal government controls those troops really has nothing to do with how quickly they can respond to an emergency.
So wait a minute...you're mad at the federal government for NOT going in and taking charge, but if they had, you would be pissed because they abused their authority in doing so. That makes no fucking sense.
No, for not going in at all to help. That and commandeering the state's national guard are two entirely different things.
They tried to help by commandeering the state national guard. Face it SFE, you just hate Bush. It doesn't matter if and how he does something, because in your narrow eyes it's always WRONG. You base your beliefs on a political party rather than any ideal. That makes you a tool. If Ted Kennedy told you to piss, you would soil yourself.
I thought this picture was so witty that I think I'll use it over and over again when people say things so witless that my previous post explains why they are wrong.
Quote: That and commandeering the state's national guard are two entirely different things. You don't know a damned thing about how the National Guard works, do you? The federal government may assume command of the National Guard ANY TIME IT NEEDS TO. This is called FEDERALIZATION, not commandeering. The government is well within its rights to do this. This is also the reason why the US Constitution has an amendment in it that allows citizens to form MILITIAS- because the federal government has superceding authority over ALL of this nation's official armed forces, INCLUDING those which are trained and armed by the states' governments. Please know what you're talking about before you post it.
SuperFlyingEngi wrote on Tue, 15 November 2005 20:55 I thought this picture was so witty that I think I'll use it over and over again when people say things so witless that my previous post explains why they are wrong. The truths sucks. Keep posting your calvin and hobbes if it makes you feel better about yourself tool. I don't mind a bit.
NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 15 November 2005 21:45 Quote: That and commandeering the state's national guard are two entirely different things. You don't know a damned thing about how the National Guard works, do you? The federal government may assume command of the National Guard ANY TIME IT NEEDS TO. This is called FEDERALIZATION, not commandeering. The government is well within its rights to do this. This is also the reason why the US Constitution has an amendment in it that allows citizens to form MILITIAS- because the federal government has superceding authority over ALL of this nation's official armed forces, INCLUDING those which are trained and armed by the states' governments. Please know what you're talking about before you post it. Whether or not they are allowed to commandeer the national guard is entirely beside the point. The governor of Lousiana denying the Federal government the right to their National Guard does not limit the federal government's ability to respond to disasters. Blaming the government's lackluster response on not having the Lousiana National Guard under their direct control is focusing on one of the more miniscule details of disaster relief.
Earth to SFE: The Louisiana government wasn't USING any of its assets. They let a whole FLEET of busses, there for the purpose of evacuating people if need be, just sit in a parking lot until they were rendered useless by flooding. They didn't mobilize the Guard to help coordinate the evacuation effort- which could have been done well in advance. They didn't even ASK for federal assistance when they knew they would need it- they waited until AFTER the fact, when it was already too late for the federal government to make a speedy response. Basically, if the NG had been under federal control, shit would have gotten moving a hell of a lot faster, because the feds acted before the locals did- which is fucking pathetic, seeing as how the local government is supposed to bear the immediate responsibility for their state, city, and citizens. No matter how you slice this shitcake, the local government screwed the pooch, THEN went crying to big brother for help. Quote: Whether or not they are allowed to commandeer the national guard is entirely beside the point. Federalize. The term is FEDERALIZE. Commandeer is what the police do to your car when they need it to pursue a suspect. Federalize is what the federal government does when it assumes control of the National Guard. If you insist on using the wrong term for the wrong action as a political jab, you are going to lose any credibility you might have potentially had. Wait, hold that thought...you didn't have any to begin with. Nevermind. Carry on.
I have a question, NukeIt, when did the Bush adminstration request control of the National Guard in relation to the Hurricane hitting New Orleans? Surely it would be before the hurricane, since that would be thinking ahead, right? Fine, federalize. They both mean assume control of. I wasn't saying commandeer to put a negative spin on it, if that's what you thought, by the way.
Quote: Fine, federalize. They both mean assume control of. Not quite. Commandeering is specifically the taking control of something that isn't yours by force (as in you can't commandeer something that's yours to use if you want to). The Government assuming control of the National Guard isn't by force, and it's there for the Government to control if it needs to.
I think michael moore is funny. I enjoyed watching the little comics like south park in 'bowling for columbine'. It was really fun. About his ideas: Who will ever know the truth? I think nobody is completely innocent in the political domain.
Bowling for columbine was an assanine movie. He takes a picture to Charlton Heston of a girl that got shot by a gun. Where were the parents? Why was she in that situation to begin with. No matter how you put it together, it's not the guns that kill people. It's the ones with their hands on the trigger, or put the guns within reach of a child. Proper gun safety: LOCK UP GUNS. keep guns unloaded when stored. keep ammo locked up in a different location than the firearms. If people weren't stupid, these things wouldn't happen.
Anybody who honestly thinks that ICBMs look the way they do because the government is insecure about its masculinity (watch the damn movie, it's in there) needs a good slapping.
gbull wrote on Thu, 17 November 2005 21:42 If people weren't stupid, these things wouldn't happen. The point is that people are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to have deadly weapons because of that.
SuperFlyingEngi wrote on Thu, 17 November 2005 22:14 gbull wrote on Thu, 17 November 2005 21:42 If people weren't stupid, these things wouldn't happen. The point is that people are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to have deadly weapons because of that. Some* Don't punish the people who follow the rules. Not having deadly weapons would leave you defensless against those with weapons. All my guns are in a locked case, seperate from my ammunition, and unloaded. The chance someone will get hurt - virtually zero. Not only that, but guns are to be on their safety setting until use. I agree though, not all people should be allowed to have guns. I would ensure people take a safety course beforehand with a valid gun safety license(seperate from hunter's safety). I also agree with the waiting period. I am not against gun control, but I am against banning firearms.
NukeIt15 wrote on Thu, 17 November 2005 22:21 Anybody who honestly thinks that ICBMs look the way they do because the government is insecure about its masculinity (watch the damn movie, it's in there) needs a good slapping. Lol, sounds like Moore was absent when his teachers talked about aerodynamics. There is no other shape, cylindrical tubes are the only rocket/missile shapes, it's just inefficient and stupid to make them in any other shape.