White people were looting, too, you know. Or you're calling them looking for food and water in this case?danyet wrote:
Are you going to base your opinion on Americans over what a few thousand Black people did?
HURRICANE KATRINA - Destroys New Orleans
Moderator: EC
- Danyet
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 779
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 2:29 am
- Status: Teacher of English
- Location: USA
No they weren't, unless you think that the handful of Whites left in town are worth metioning compared to overwhelming majority of Blacks that were acting out of control. Why don;t you find out what the few white people are saying, that were stuck in the astrodome. Ask them who they were afraid of. It was not other White people. They will tell you who was roving around looking for rape victims. It was not white gangs who had come into town with boats and weapons and looted all the jewelery stores. They had more weapons than the police.
The police dept. had only one boat. Facts are facts and you should not be afraid to tell the truth. Maybe you don't hear ALL the facts on your local news. Try reading the Australian papers and the accounts given by Aussies who were there.
There appears to be something seriously wrong with Black culture in America and it needs to be addressed. And don't try to tell me it is because they are poor. The Blacks were much poorer 60 years ago but their neighborhoods were safer with less crime back then than they are now.
AS far as looting goes I don't think that anyone is calling those who took food for survival looters. The police that i have heard have said that they were only interested in people who where stealing valuables. Most of the real looting has not really been covered in the media. There was organized looting by gangs and many shootouts with police.
The police dept. had only one boat. Facts are facts and you should not be afraid to tell the truth. Maybe you don't hear ALL the facts on your local news. Try reading the Australian papers and the accounts given by Aussies who were there.
There appears to be something seriously wrong with Black culture in America and it needs to be addressed. And don't try to tell me it is because they are poor. The Blacks were much poorer 60 years ago but their neighborhoods were safer with less crime back then than they are now.
AS far as looting goes I don't think that anyone is calling those who took food for survival looters. The police that i have heard have said that they were only interested in people who where stealing valuables. Most of the real looting has not really been covered in the media. There was organized looting by gangs and many shootouts with police.
- Shazzam
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:40 am
- Location: Australia
The difference here Lenny is that other countries were asked to help and invited in immediately. Take it from me my country would have been in New Orleans in 1 day if they were allowed to. The Government in the US would not allow outside countries in to help! It is unreasonable in my opinion. Most countries would have loved to help the USA in this situation as they have done in the past for some countries in trouble. Why shut everyone out. I think they were negligent in the decision making process! :(LennyeTran wrote:I don't know about the other part, but looting... Would you loot if you were left to be on your own for days without much food and water? When Tsunami happened, the world was right there with those people. It was on the news like in a second and those people got helped right away, don't forget that.Unknownsu wrote: The looting and raping that occurred in New Orleans showed just how civilized the United States really are. I can't recall something of that caliber happening throughout Southeast Asia when the tsunamis struck.
- MissLT
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:05 pm
- Status: Other
Exactly! That's why the blame should be on Bush Administration.shazzam1452 wrote: The difference here Lenny is that other countries were asked to help and invited in immediately. Take it from me my country would have been in New Orleans in 1 day if they were allowed to. The Government in the US would not allow outside countries in to help! It is unreasonable in my opinion. Most countries would have loved to help the USA in this situation as they have done in the past for some countries in trouble. Why shut everyone out. I think they were negligent in the decision making process! :(
And Danyet, I'll get to you on the weekend. I don't have time right now to post long message.
- Unknownsu
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 3:10 am
- Status: Other
- Location: Canada
Danyet, you are right, I should not judge an entire country based on a few (or should I say a few hundred) individuals. People should be judged on an individual basis. However, it seems you are being a hypocrite because you are doing the same.danyet wrote:There appears to be something seriously wrong with Black culture in America and it needs to be addressed. And don't try to tell me it is because they are poor. The Blacks were much poorer 60 years ago but their neighborhoods were safer with less crime back then than they are now.
- Unknownsu
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 3:10 am
- Status: Other
- Location: Canada
Looting for daily essentials is not actually considered. I was talking about the people who broke into houses for personal wealth. Rape, gang violence and shootouts were also prevalent.LennyeTran wrote: I don't know about the other part, but looting... Would you loot if you were left to be on your own for days without much food and water? When Tsunami happened, the world was right there with those people. It was on the news like in a second and those people got helped right away, don't forget that.
Tsunami victims got help right away? Maybe. Some. But the initial help was peanuts compared to the magnitude of the diaster. I agree with you, the Bush administration is partly to blame. If Bush really leads the internal investigations, there's no point for anyone to wait for the results. It's like asking Clinton to investigate the Lewinsky scandal.
The aftermath of Katrina would have been easier to endure if Bush did allow foreign aid. I know Canada responded immediately but had to wait for American approval which was delayed.
- Danyet
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 779
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 2:29 am
- Status: Teacher of English
- Location: USA
I am not saying anything different that some Black spokesmen themselves have already said such as the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson.Unknownsu wrote:Danyet, you are right, I should not judge an entire country based on a few (or should I say a few hundred) individuals. People should be judged on an individual basis. However, it seems you are being a hypocrite because you are doing the same.danyet wrote:There appears to be something seriously wrong with Black culture in America and it needs to be addressed. And don't try to tell me it is because they are poor. The Blacks were much poorer 60 years ago but their neighborhoods were safer with less crime back then than they are now.
Read this:
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46440
- MissLT
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:05 pm
- Status: Other
Funny, this is the same person who spoke about this guy in other topic,danyet wrote: I am not saying anything different that some Black spokesmen themselves have already said such as the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson.
Read this:
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46440
"Rev. Jesse Jackson is a controversial figure in the USA. He does not speak for all Blacks. Many Americans of African herritage think that he has done a disservice to the Minority cause in America on countless issues. He, for a Reverand, has shown himself to be hypocritical in his personal life especially in the treatment of his own wife. He is not a good role model for the people he professes to stand for. Personally I think that he just like to be a "celebrity"."
Now you're taking his words or posting his words? What really is your intention behind all this, huh? I'm sensing something fishy here.
- Shazzam
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:40 am
- Location: Australia
Lenny this is a different guy. His name is Jesse Lee Petersen (NOT JACKSON). :?LennyeTran wrote:Funny, this is the same person who spoke about this guy in other topic,danyet wrote: I am not saying anything different that some Black spokesmen themselves have already said such as the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson.
Read this:
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46440
"Rev. Jesse Jackson is a controversial figure in the USA. He does not speak for all Blacks. Many Americans of African herritage think that he has done a disservice to the Minority cause in America on countless issues. He, for a Reverand, has shown himself to be hypocritical in his personal life especially in the treatment of his own wife. He is not a good role model for the people he professes to stand for. Personally I think that he just like to be a "celebrity"."
Now you're taking his words or posting his words? What really is your intention behind all this, huh? I'm sensing something fishy here.
- MissLT
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:05 pm
- Status: Other
Oh yeah, just reading the article and checking the names. I saw Jess and i thought they were the same guy. I didn't pay attention to the last names. Okay, I'm taking whatever I said earlier back. Sorry Danyet for my mistake. Sorry. Sorry guys for the confusing. Heheheheh... how embarrassing! Heheheheheh... And thanks Shazzam to point out my mistake, by the way. I owe you one.shazzam1452 wrote: Lenny this is a different guy. His name is Jesse Lee Petersen (NOT JACKSON). :?
- Shazzam
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:40 am
- Location: Australia
I thought it was better I tell you than Danyet.LennyeTran wrote:Oh yeah, just reading the article and checking the names. I saw Jess and i thought they were the same guy. I didn't pay attention to the last names. Okay, I'm taking whatever I said earlier back. Sorry Danyet for my mistake. Sorry. Sorry guys for the confusing. Heheheheh... how embarrassing! Heheheheheh... And thanks Shazzam to point out my mistake, by the way. I owe you one.shazzam1452 wrote: Lenny this is a different guy. His name is Jesse Lee Petersen (NOT JACKSON). :?
- MissLT
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:05 pm
- Status: Other
- Danyet
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 779
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 2:29 am
- Status: Teacher of English
- Location: USA
No I wouldn't. I knew that some would confuse the two. Peterson is not popular amongst Liberal Democrat crowd and therefore media does not cover him as much as Jackson.
Peterson is amongst a growing minority of Black speakers. I like this guy. He is from the "roots". He is not as articulate or slick as Jackson. His message is not well received by those who expect things to "fall into their lap" . He says that Black Americans must build strong families again and that Jackson has set bad examples, by his treatment towards his own wife.
Peterson is amongst a growing minority of Black speakers. I like this guy. He is from the "roots". He is not as articulate or slick as Jackson. His message is not well received by those who expect things to "fall into their lap" . He says that Black Americans must build strong families again and that Jackson has set bad examples, by his treatment towards his own wife.
- Danyet
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 779
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 2:29 am
- Status: Teacher of English
- Location: USA
This is an old tradition of the English language. It goes along with referring to ships in the feminine and such. A few years back some women complained about the tradition of storms being given feminine names that they started to name some storms with mens names. I find storms with mens names to be irritating.LennyeTran wrote:No. Still the same old "donation for victims of Katrina." One thing really annoys me is why they have to name all the frigging storms and hurricanes as girl's names? :x
- Shazzam
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:40 am
- Location: Australia
I would say that the storms themselves are more irritating than there names.danyet wrote:This is an old tradition of the English language. It goes along with referring to ships in the feminine and such. A few years back some women complained about the tradition of storms being given feminine names that they started to name some storms with mens names. I find storms with mens names to be irritating.LennyeTran wrote:No. Still the same old "donation for victims of Katrina." One thing really annoys me is why they have to name all the frigging storms and hurricanes as girl's names? :x
- Shazzam
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:40 am
- Location: Australia
- Shazzam
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:40 am
- Location: Australia
Praying is great; but i'm sorry I don't believe that it is the best thing we can do for them. These people need, food, clothes, medical supplies and money to assist in the clean up and rebuilding of their homes. We need to help with these things.hedwig14 wrote:the best thing to do is pray for them... its the biggest help we could ever give.
- Shazzam
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:40 am
- Location: Australia
- Shazzam
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:40 am
- Location: Australia
I have just finished watching a program called 'Frontline' on television. They had a documentary on the situation with Hurricane Katrina (late response).
What a mess. The Clinton administration set a new director into FEMA after the "OLD BUSH" administration had totally failed (by giving jobs to mates). With the new director in place (who had specialised in emergency/disaster relief) Fema was doing well and was able to handle many large scale emergencies.
It would appear that under "JNR BUSH" Fema has been taken back to 'Daddy's' ideal (jobs for the boys, no qualifications required).
FEMA has now lost all rights and Bush has set up a larger scale department that includes HOMELAND SECURITY, FEMA etc. etc. There were just so many departments that I couldn't grab all of their names.
It was a very interesting program, I really think at the end of the day the BUSH administration has totally stuffed up! AGAIN!
What a mess. The Clinton administration set a new director into FEMA after the "OLD BUSH" administration had totally failed (by giving jobs to mates). With the new director in place (who had specialised in emergency/disaster relief) Fema was doing well and was able to handle many large scale emergencies.
It would appear that under "JNR BUSH" Fema has been taken back to 'Daddy's' ideal (jobs for the boys, no qualifications required).
FEMA has now lost all rights and Bush has set up a larger scale department that includes HOMELAND SECURITY, FEMA etc. etc. There were just so many departments that I couldn't grab all of their names.
It was a very interesting program, I really think at the end of the day the BUSH administration has totally stuffed up! AGAIN!
- Shazzam
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:40 am
- Location: Australia
Yes I do understand that happens everywhere in the world (media sensationalism) however, most past and present members of Fema were interviewed together with the footage from the media coverage during the Katrina crisis. You just can't deny that no one knew what they were doing. :? Locals say that they asked for defined help; FEMA says that they didn't. Why should you have to define the help that you require if this is an organisation set up to deal with disaster relief. :? In addition tabled reports with setup disaster situations were never completed as the White House withdrew funding. The project name was HURRICANE PAM.danyet wrote:But you have to understand that Frontline is a television program produced by Bush and Republican haters in the first place. They do their job well!
The other obvious fact is that FEMA was run so well under the Clinton administration and has collapsed under the Bush administration. The obvious reason is staff placement.
- Danyet
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 779
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 2:29 am
- Status: Teacher of English
- Location: USA
- Shazzam
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:40 am
- Location: Australia
At the end of the day I just don't think political preference should enter into a debate about an organisation setup to help American people with disaster relief. It doesn't matter who is in government; what matters is that the funding is kept up to these organisations to provide the services that they were designed for. America has large populations living in areas that are prone to, earthquake, flood, tornados, etc. You would have to be a foolish person to think that all these natural disasters are just going to go away; so that you no longer have to look at the fiscal issues.danyet wrote:I think that part of the problem is that FEMA is looked at by many as a prelude to "Big Brother" organizion and is feared by the far Right. This may have something to do with Clinton funding the program so well since the Democratic Party is the party of Big Brother.
-
- Member
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:36 pm
- Location: China
Bush is athority or u are athurity?danyet wrote:That is not true. People are taking whatever they need. They are not being shot. However, the situation is made worse by another element that I have no explanation for. The people are being kept against their will in that superdome that is on the news. They want to get out and go to safety outside the city but they have been LOCKED INSIDE by so-called athorities. There is only one road that now leads out of the city BUT a check point or road block has been set up there to prevent anyone from escaping.Arale wrote:More terrible, all people who gather what's left are shot immediately.
_Arale_
A group of tourists who had to leave their hotels tried to walk out of the city but police fired warning shots over their heads to make them turn around. Those police are lucky that I was not there..... because I would have shot back.
This is very disturbing. Why is government taken citizen rights off these people? On whos' athority? Who is in charge? I want his name.
I know u are a kind-hearted person.
- Shazzam
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:40 am
- Location: Australia
- MissLT
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:05 pm
- Status: Other
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060302/ap_ ... rina_videoShazzam wrote:I really don't believe the BUSH is a racist! I don't believe that he sat back and did nothing in the hope that black-americans would die. I just think he has poor organisational skills and makes bad choices. I mean lets face it the guy can hardly string a sentence together without help. :(
He was warned about this, but he refused to acknowledge it.
- Shazzam
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:40 am
- Location: Australia
I don't know if I agree with that. A natural disaster is a very hard thing to assess.LennyeTran wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060302/ap_ ... rina_videoShazzam wrote:I really don't believe the BUSH is a racist! I don't believe that he sat back and did nothing in the hope that black-americans would die. I just think he has poor organisational skills and makes bad choices. I mean lets face it the guy can hardly string a sentence together without help. :(
He was warned about this, but he refused to acknowledge it.
- Danyet
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 779
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 2:29 am
- Status: Teacher of English
- Location: USA
- Dixie
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 3836
- Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:08 pm
- Status: Teacher of English
- Location: Catalunya
- Unknownsu
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 3:10 am
- Status: Other
- Location: Canada
Danyet is lying. It was me! I went out to the Caribbean and started stirring the ocean with my trusty spoon!danyet wrote:Stop! I can't take it anymore! ......It was me . I did it. I was the one resposible for Katrina! I knew there was a big storm comming. I saw all the weather reports but I did nothing. Sorry!
- MissLT
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:05 pm
- Status: Other
He was supposed to respond, but he did not. This is what the whole video is about. And when he actually did, thousands people had died. Even the whole thing was a natural disaster, the U.S was one of the nations that can detect this kinda thing coming. If the government had responded with proper care, the loss of deaths could have been less.Shazzam wrote:I don't know if I agree with that. A natural disaster is a very hard thing to assess.LennyeTran wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060302/ap_ ... rina_videoShazzam wrote:I really don't believe the BUSH is a racist! I don't believe that he sat back and did nothing in the hope that black-americans would die. I just think he has poor organisational skills and makes bad choices. I mean lets face it the guy can hardly string a sentence together without help. :(
He was warned about this, but he refused to acknowledge it.
- MissLT
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:05 pm
- Status: Other
Baby, are you still trying to defend for Bush? Because if you are, we're gonna have a big fight about that idiot.danyet wrote:Stop! I can't take it anymore! ......It was me . I did it. I was the one resposible for Katrina! I knew there was a big storm comming. I saw all the weather reports but I did nothing. Sorry!
- Danyet
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 779
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 2:29 am
- Status: Teacher of English
- Location: USA
- MissLT
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:05 pm
- Status: Other
How can you assure that Kerry wouldn't be a better man than Bush for the position? To me, if a president tried to disable the best diplomacy system, it would be the end of his presidency. Bush had done it in his last term. I thought it was the moment Americans should wake up and stop putting their heads in their pants. Obviously, I was wrong; he won the second term. The whole night I had my TV on and was praying for his loss. Too bad too many idiotic people in the mid-western states.danyet wrote:Bush's biggest problem is himself and the way he is unable to keep that silly grin off his face when delivering a perfectly good idea. He is not a leader, I'll admit but neither was John Kerry.
- Danyet
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 779
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 2:29 am
- Status: Teacher of English
- Location: USA
It's a "guy thing". A real man, such as say....me, can tell these things.LennyeTran wrote:How can you assure that Kerry wouldn't be a better man than Bush for the position?danyet wrote:Bush's biggest problem is himself and the way he is unable to keep that silly grin off his face when delivering a perfectly good idea. He is not a leader, I'll admit but neither was John Kerry.
-
- Member
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:06 pm
- Location: CHINA
bush...so badly....actually he didn't any power to become a president...he's the worse president in the americans ....sometime I hard to know why american' s people would choose him ....I don't know if right or wrong for americans...Shazzam wrote:I really don't believe the BUSH is a racist! I don't believe that he sat back and did nothing in the hope that black-americans would die. I just think he has poor organisational skills and makes bad choices. I mean lets face it the guy can hardly string a sentence together without help. :(
- MissLT
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:05 pm
- Status: Other
- MissLT
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:05 pm
- Status: Other
Why Jessica Simpson? It's because she loves Bush, but she's officially turned down his invitation to the White House???danyet wrote:I think should have Jessica Simson for president .......and Britany Spears for vice P. ..........They're both a couple of airheads!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/ ... 9127.shtml
Why Britney? It's because she always shows her stomach even when she's pregnant or not? And right now she's pregnant again...