What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
90 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+87George Bush hates Black people.
- Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -9/+75 I remember when all this happened. Immediately Canada Launched it's D.A.R.T team which is capable of keeping a small country up and running during disastors. They were left waiting and not allowed to go in and help because of ... TA DA - National security!!! I mean for God Dam's sake, we are Canada, your allies and we could have saved numerous people from dying and helped countless others but the BUsh admin had other plans.....
Why there isn't blood on American streets baffles me. - mikemil828, on 10/12/2007, -2/+44//You REALLY think Bush would turn down $400 million in oil without a good reason?//
And he did, the skyrocketing gas prices during that time made many of Bush's oil pals very wealthy indeed. - Kmack928, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23i dont think anyone is blaming the actual hurricane on the governement...
The failure to respond adequatly is what these issues are based upon, and rightly so. - theblackgecko, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25Don't call it my administration. Like less than 25% of Americans, I voted for someone other than Bush, twice.
The 25% of Americans who voted for Bush in either administration, (especially those who reelected him) and the 50% of Americans who didn't vote have no grounds for complaint. - apetrie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21True, I'd really like to see the justification some people will try to make for denying that help from Canada. A long time ally of the U.S., economically and socially heavily tied to eachother, and little to no chance of the aid being used against the U.S. in the future. Where's the logic? Canada has excellent systems in place to deal with these kinds of disasters, yet if something terrible were to happen on Canadian soil there is no way we would be turning away help from our neighbours and friends just because it would hurt our pride not to take care of everything ourselves.
- Xageroth, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25A good reason from the perspective of Bush is not necessarily a good reason to me.
- Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21"we would never hear the end of pompous comments such as "we Canadians saved your asses America" here on Digg."
I know how you feel, we always hear the Americans bitch about how they protect us, when in fact they are the ones attracting conflicts with their military adventurism. We even have to follow your stupid war of terror and limit civil liberties because of you. - BassMastr, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23On a slightly different topic...
Why in the world would we want to rebuild New Orleans??? Isn't this inevitable that this is going to happen again? It's like building on a fault line....o wait...
Was I the only one who wasn't surprised? - Caffeinate, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16I endured Katrina. For a month we had no running water or electricity, phones were destroyed for months, and we worked our asses off to rebuild the coast. FEMA, Bush and the NSA were neither available nor helpful. Our local government pulled us through - I live in Mississippi, ground zero.
The hurricane itself was bad, but the aftermath was worse.
We can give aid to every country, and protect everyone else but our own people. I had to get shots to even clean up. - galador, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@apetrie
You assume there's logic in the Bush administration? That's a good one. - Grumps, on 10/12/2007, -12/+23We're just playing "Its alright, im too rich to accept aid. Accepting aid are only for third-world country."
Speaking at an estimation of 10 trillion dollars of national debt. - apetrie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Problem is, help was even turned away from countries where there is plenty "owed" already on both sides, and even from strong allies.
When 9/11 happened, no one was saying "don't land all the stranded planes in Canada, don't let those Canadians come help save people.. we'll never hear the end of it!" because "owing" Canada was not really an issue and there were more important things to consider. Why wasn't that the case with Katrina? Were the people just less valuable, less worth having to have your FRIENDS come and help you out? I guess some people in your government think so. - apetrie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Or from nations who are your allies and certainly wouldn't use it as a weapon later either apparently..
- apetrie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I'm sorry, letting your people suffer when there is aid available to you from previously established and long time allies is not a smart decision. I think its insane that you would consider it to be one. You are using pride and foolishness as a justification for the suffering of your own. All to maintain an image of being do-it-yourselfers, meanwhile the entire world could see the absolute mess that the region was in and how terribly it was being handled which does more to make you look bad then help from your friends would, how stupid!
- Verchiel77, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17"Appreciate the offers, guys, but we can lose an entire city on our own, thank you very much"
Heck of a job, Bushies. - Arcadian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Sweden's looking better and better every passing day.
- Arcadian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I do, actually. Rather my money go to public services than some debt to a private bank.
- sergionegro, on 10/12/2007, -14/+23Your administration at work.
- Verchiel77, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10How do you get "hurricane is government's fault" from "government sat on offers of (desperately needed) aid?"
Way to dispute a point that no one made... - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13we're not just some country, we're the world superpower. 10 trillion dollars of debt is NOT OK.
- Verchiel77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"You do not accept aid from nations who will use it as a weapon against you later." -- mirunit
"Overall, the United States declined 54 of 77 recorded aid offers from three of its staunchest allies: Canada, Britain and Israel, according to a 40-page State Department table of the offers that had been received as of January 2006."
Better to leave people stranded than deal with any of *those* wild cards... - nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11It wasn't just $ we turned down, for example cuba offered to send up medical teams and we said no to them
- s-m-a-c-k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+71013... what are my tax dolars paying for?
- haooken, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15Had we accepted aid, we would have "owed" those countries something. Now we don't "owe" them anything. Its all politics.
- Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Refusing aid from foreign governments is one thing, but refusing aid from private American companies and volunteers? Now that's something to be outraged about.
Wal-Mart brought trucks of water and ice and FEMA turned them down, that's where the government screwed up the most. - apetrie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7burtonbe: I'm pretty sure you are wrong, you don't hear all that much about things Canada has done for the U.S. though such things do exist to gloat about if someone wanted to. That being said there are jackasses in every country.
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7bush doesn't seem to have a problem "owing" the countries who sent troops to iraq.
- YossarianDent, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Is it just me, or is this not exactly current news? I seem to remember hearing about this right after the storm; it's not like it's been classified for the past 2 years.
- s-m-a-c-k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6mirunit you do realize that 90% of the population of New Orleans was evacuated... thats pretty commendable...
- chicoer2001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6 Scandals in Washington are like bombs in Iraq.Every day there's one.
- YellowStar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Impeach those corrupt incompetents in the White House NOW!
- onionizer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9americans accepting aid? since when? they've probably thought that 1. "We already got the money, we're just slow in logistic terms, no thanks" and 2."Yea, If I accept something from you now, you'll want something in exchange in the future.. or if you'll ever need something i don't want to hear somebody saying - remember that time with katrina, we helped them, traitors-.. I can understand their choice..
- psych0fish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5As a fellow resident of New Orleans, this article is very upsetting.
- blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Sure there are strings attached. But when you're stuck on a roof, you surely don't mind if the guy who comes to help you shares your views on international policy. This reminds me of the last big earthquake in Iran where they accepted help from pretty much everyone except Israel. It might be "just politics" but if one, only one, person couldn't be saved because one person was missing in the rescue team, then the guy who made this decision is directly responsible for it.
- hlgriggs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5First, let me say that I lived in New Orleans during Katrina. I evacuated with my girlfriend and young son early (as we always do when a hurricane enters the Gulf)... to be honest though, this time we were lucky. I had just been paid the day we left. Thanks to a ***** economy we were (and still are) living paycheck to paycheck. Had I not been paid the day we left we might have stayed. As for the "Bush hates black/brown people" - that isn't entirely true. George Bush and his cronies don't hate you because of the color of your skin - they just don't care about you if you don't have money to buy their overpriced products. This is how they are killing us folks - divide and conquer. They pit blacks against whites, men against women, young against old and laugh their asses off all the way to the bank. The tragedy of Katrina was not one of race but one of poverty and indifference to a group of people of many races who was not in the Republican/Bush core demographic. The people left to die in the heat and toxic flood water of New Orleans would never vote for Bush and they didn't have the cash to buy a car (let alone gasoline or oil) so... from the Bush administration POV "who cares". It is pretty simple really. Buy or die - literally.
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4it was both. they wanted to use tax-payer dollars to give bloated no-bid contracts to blackhawk and other contractors instead of actually doing anything to help.
- apetrie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5mirunit: More "brown" people being able to afford homes is somehow proof that they are not seen as less valuable by the government? Please explain. History is full of people making good lives for themselves despite harsh social environments. I'm not saying the American government DOES hate brown people, but I fail to see how your statement is evidence that they don't.
- Davebo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4 akhomerun displays the new vision of conservatism.
Turn down free aide from foreign countries and instead, pay out of federal coffers and raise either taxes or the debt to cover the cost.
Freaking brilliant wouldn't you say? I thank god Milton Friedman didn't live to see what's happened to his party. - 1013, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I'm sure he had a good reason for turning it down, but the good reason had nothing to do with the needs of the people in New Orleans. Lesson: Don't depend or expect the government to help or save you.
- Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah these people _print_ money, and they can always take more from you by force.
The problem was government thought they could take care of the problem when they clearly could not and they prevented people who could help (not even foreign governments, American volunteers) from doing so.
The flooding was their fault in the first place. Remember it wasn't the storm that flooded the city, it was the crappy government levees that broke. - Sublime059, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Our Government hates brown people.. we saw it during Katrina.. and we see it now. Its pretty ***** obvious. Katrina, The War on Drugs, Iraq... the list goes on. No point in denying it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You do realize that most of the black residents of the 9th ward of New Orleans has not been allowed to return to their homes? They did not own them, and they government has removed them permanently and the area is being convereted for rich (white) people? Also it was a way for them to test FEMA's disaster response methods of disarming the citizenry should there ever be "blood on american streets" as one digger pointed out that there rightfully should be.
I have a picture on my computer of the New Orleans phone book, pre and post Katrina. The latter is almost half the size. And it's no coincidence. - diggerydood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2F**king morons! It seems like the repugs actually persecute members of the party.
- TDR25, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nothing about this surprises me. A lot of these people are poor(not to mention minorities) so they're not getting ***** from the government.
- Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If they could make smart decisions they would've maintained the levees in the first place.
- skyfire1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I love brownies.
- tallguy240, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This makes me sick.
- TheOtherJohn, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Just a personal observation . . . as I watched the news coverage of the massive flooding in the Midwest with over 100 blocks of the city of Cedar Rapids, Iowa under water, levees breaking, and the attention now turned downstream for when this massive amount of water hits the Mississippi, what amazed me is not what we saw,butwhat we didn't see . . .
1 . We don't see looting .
2 . We don't see street violence .
3 . We don't see people sitting on their rooftops waiting for the government to come and save them .
4 . We don't see people waiting on the government to do anything .
5 . We don't see Hollywood organizing benefits to raise money for people to rebuild .
6 . We don't see people blaming President Bush .
7 . We don't see people ignoring evacuation orders .
8 . We don't see people blaming a government conspiracy to blow up the levees as the reason some have not held .
9 . We don't see the US Senators or the Governor of Iowa crying on TV .
10 . We don't see the Mayors of any of these cities complaining about the lack of state or federal response .
11 . We don't see or hear reports of the police going around confiscating personal firearms so only the criminal will be armed .
12 . We don't see gangs of people going around and randomly shooting at the rescue workers .
13 . You don't see some leaders in this country blaming the bad behavior of the Iowa flood victims on "society" (of course there is no wide spread reports of lawlessness to require excuses) .
Re: Iowa vs . Louisiana :
Where are all of the Hollywood celebrities holding telethons asking for
help in restoring Iowa and helping the folks affected by the floods?
Where is all the media asking the tough questions about why the federal
government hasn't solved the problem? Asking where the FEMA trucks (and
trailers) are?
Why isn't the Federal Government relocating Iowa people to free hotels
in Chicago ?
When will Spike Lee say that the Federal Government blew up the levees
that failed in Des Moines ?
Where are Sean Penn and the Dixie Chicks?
Where are all the looters stealing high-end tennis shoes and big screen
television sets?
When will we hear Governor Chet Culver say that he wants to rebuild a
"vanilla" Iowa , because that's the way God wants it?
Where is the hysterical 24/7 media coverage complete with reports of
cannibalism?
Where are the people declaring that George Bush hates white, rural
people?
How come in 2 weeks, you will never hear about the Iowa flooding ever
again?
- Kmack928, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Turn down free aide from foreign countries and instead, pay out of federal coffers and raise either taxes or the debt to cover the cost.
Freaking brilliant wouldn't you say? I thank god Milton Friedman didn't live to see what's happened to his party."
Excellent point there, and one that has a broad application throughout the "conservative" community. While I am certainly Liberal in most of my views, I believe strongly that I understand the values of conservatism more than most would-be conservatives. It is important to know your idealogical opposites, but I think if conservatives spent more time understanding their own idealogies than searching for liberal agendas/propaganda, they'd be much more effective at arguing their points and beliefs more effectively.
I always liked Friedman, especially his honesty in regards to the shortcomings of BOTH political parties. -
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is