NBVegita

cute

Also what greased is talking about is that if you are living in that area, you are well aware of the consequences and that a huge natural disaster could happen, and could happen to you. You realize that you get your home at a discounted price, largely discounted if you live in a natural disaster zone. So you get to save lots of money on your house, but you sure as !@#$%^&* know that house might dissapear someday. Anybody who moves into an area like that as says they had no clue this could happen is just plain naive. And as it has been said by many many people, noone was prepared for what happened. Yes those senarios may have been played out on paper, but having someone write a report about having a levy break and a catastrophic disaster, and actually experiencing one, are two totally different things. Looking back many things could have been done differently, but things could have been a lot worse too.

If you've researched anything James Witt was also a good friend of President Clinton when he was appointed. All politics = cronyism. Mike Brown lied about his resume, and had all of the official do!@#$%^&*ents to back it up. Even had all of the official published do!@#$%^&*ents to back it up. They discussed matters with his former bosses and they are quoted to say "no better man for the job". After much research into the issue, and conducting many personal interviews it was found that much of his information was altered to decieve. Yes James Witt was a good FEMA director, but he was one of Clintons cabinet members, and friend. It's only natural that he would be removed from his position. Don't just blame bush, almost every political position in history has done, and will do the same. DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ALIKE! It just so happens that Clintons friend worked out better than Bush's. And when did I ever try to blame this on clinton? I haven't brought up him or his administration...so wtf are you even talking about? I have no idea what you mean by that statement. I've already said a large amount were not criminals. Are you trying to state the the government was deliberatly "incompetant" due to the fact that they thought people were criminals? And I'm still waiting on hearing what "real response" took 7 days to show up.

The real response? Just show me dates and facts, not heresy. I've given you dates for FEMA, DHS, and National Guard. What other response are you referring to? As for Mike Brown, He was the FEMA director, and the Undersecretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response, who personally showed up, and then was demoted as a scapegoat, and then he resigned due to "falsifying his resume". I'm sorry that the Director of FEMA was not enough to represent FEMA...maybe you were expecting the pope? As for the criminals, I don't mean that everyone was, I'm just pointing out that they're all not innocent victims either.

halloween

Also if you had researched Katrina at all behind what propaganda you see on the television, you would know that it did NOT take 7 days for the government to respond. Katrina made landfall on August 29, National Guard arrived on August 31st. FEMA and DHS arrived on August 29th. FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency...wait...Federal... Department of Homeland Security...wait thats Federal too... I love how people take advantage of the fact that they can gain sympathy because of the catastrophe that overwhelmed governments and ci!@#$%^&*zen alike, and then try to say that the government should have pulled a david copperfield and had thousands of people dissapear instantly. These good wholesome people sitting in the super dome, were so concerned about this catastrophe that they found the bathrooms and the ground littered with incredible amounts of drug paraphernalia, 5 people were raped within the first day, and 2 murdered. Some good wholesome citizens there..."!@#$%^&* a huge huricane is coming! Forget Grandma! But DON'T YOU DARE FORGET THE NEEDLES!!!" I'm not saying that the government response could not have been better, in every situation, there is always a better choice looking back on it, but 7 days? cmon just who are you tyring to fool? !@#$%^&* by the 5th day (Sept 3rd) the entire superdome was evacuated.

GD SOMEONE FINALLY UNDERSTOOD WHAT I MEANT!!!

Thats why the national guard was brought in? cause they were looking for food inside those big screen tv's...

the only problem with that is that if you play 2 games and win them both, with a decent rec you'd be considered the best ranked rumble player. Other than that I think it could work But you would still have to have the forfeit clause in the game.

I've lost a lot of care and respect for a mojority of the people involved due the the amounts of looting done by the people who stayed behind before katrina hit, and the amount that happened after.

comedy

There has been some concern that this system will reward moreso those who play lots of rumble supposed to those who don't. but if say: player 1, wins 100 games with neg rec, and loses 100 games with neg rec, then he has 0 pts. Player 2 wins 3 games with pos rec, loses none = 6pts. already higher rank that player 1. But also, you shouldn't award some guy for playing 10 rumbles winning all of them with a high rank. Just because you've played 10 rumbles and won them does not mean you are good at rumble. In all accuracy the ranking should start once say a player ac!@#$%^&*ulates 25 games played or something like that. Or to help balance it out, you could run cases that you can only pick up rank if there are 4 or more teams playing. But the problem is we don't really have the steady population we used to have, so there is no way to have the ranking system be 100% accurate, because a clause like needing at least 4 teams would make it so very few people even get ranked in this day and age. I'd just hate to see some guy who plays nothing but 2v2 rumbles with nubs all day be the #1 "ranked" rumble player. But with the current pop not much you can do about it.

They were talking about the cleanup in nyc which would mean 2

nvm thought of something kinda quick actually: Every game you win = 1pt Every game you win with pos. rec. = 2pt Every game you lose = -1pt Every game you lose with pos. rec. = 0pt I think this balances out rewarding you if you play well, but also not punishing you if you play well but your partner did not. And also don't remember if bots were this advanced, its been a while since I coded one, but if you do not finish a game I feel you should lose a point for that too. To stop the peeps with a neg rec who decide to spec at the last second so that their rank isn't effected.

Yes there has to be a mix, because anyone can team with a nub, let him suicide, vulch of his suicide, and end up with an amazing w/l ratio. But rumble is a team event. its not all about w/l. If one team has players at 25-0 and 3-10, and one team has 14-9 and 14-9 team 2 still wins. And player 1 should have sacrificed some of that pretty rec to be sure his partner stayed alive. I'm at work now but let me see if I can't make up something for ya cubs.

I agree that there is not evidence that I have personally seen that they are trying to acquire WMD. But its kinda hard knowing there's no love lost between the two for the U.S. to just sit back. I don't agree with the steps they've taken sofar, but I agree that they should keep an eye on Iran. I'm a moderate republican, and I do agree that they've gone in a bit too hasty on this one. Not saying I'm blaming the U.S. but I personally think they should have waited more time.

You need to account for w/l ratio as in how many games you win or lose. Just because you're good at reccin doesn't mean you're good at rumble.

a big issue is that the government must be so thourough. If you recall, which actually a lot of people don't. Shortly after the disaster FEMA started handing out very large checks. They tossed these out very fast, and then found out something like 30% of the money was sent to people who sent in claims saying they had all of this disaster and their homes didn't even get damaged. Yes the government should have reacted pre-emptively and faster after the aftermath, but because of the inhonesty of the people in the area, FEMA must now have proof of what each person lost before they cut the check. Kinda slows the monitary part down. As for construction, its better for the country's economy to allow private contractors to do the work...and for not helping...who is paying those contractors? Oh wait its not the poor people with no money. I'm not supporting the government in this, they !@#$%^&*ed up, but its not as if they are not doing anything, and its not like there is no rhyme to their reason. I have a lot of problems with the victims too because they're so hypocrytical. When everything happened, say, getting out of the disaster zone. All they did was !@#$%^&* about not getting out fast enough. Now after the fact they !@#$%^&* that the government didn't wait til they could move whole families out together. If you didn't want to get on that !@#$%^&* bus/plane then why did you? They expected the government to move this m!@#$%^&* amount of people and keep all of the families (aunts uncles, grandparents, cousins) together? Specially not being rude, but the majority of lower class family units statistically do not share common last names. Just how in the !@#$%^&* was the government supposed to do that? Sorry for that little rant, really had nothing to do with this but I just had to rant. Also 9/11 was just two planes into two buildings, the hurricane was a catastrophic natural disaster. Big difference. Huge difference.

State and Federal governments are seperate en!@#$%^&*ies. So if the state government is not doing anything, don't blame the president. Blame the govenor. Our deathtoll for the war on terror is one person over the 9/11 attacks, and the major difference is that 9/11 was a majority civilian casualties, whilst the war on terror is military casualties.

3. of a certain unspecified number, amount, degree, etc.: to some extent. Half means half. Some is not specifically used to dictate a large or small amounts. Its up to interpretation, like every thing else on these gd forums. And in that context some for means a small amt. So I will continue to use some as so in the correct context. Vocabulary is not just words, its how you use them. Now "I've been playing golf for some years now" would indicate a large amount. Specific enough?

depends, I hardly use my printer, in 4 years I've replaced the black once, and the color never. I just use either work/college printers if I need to print something cause they're cheeper and free.

Martha Stewart

Amazing

Agreed. And yes I'm agreeing with myself. There is nothing wrong with that.

GD how specific do I have to be? Do I really have to start quoting numbers? I mean cmon Some = small amount!