Tsunamis and George W. Bush

oh well i sure as hell wouldnt have guessed that

 

Many of us DO criticize him for those things too. But surely we can spare 0.1% of what we're spending in Iraq for emergency relief aid? Even if you're only intereted in how it benefits America, surely our reputation in the world would improve for very little cost to ourselves.

Well, they should probably do more too. But I haven't been following the UN donations or the French donations closely enough to even claim to have an informed opinion on the subject.

Why do conservatives expect every criticism of America to be tempered by a criticism of Europe? Similarly, why do liberals expect every criticism of Europe or the Middle East to be qualified by mentioning an equal or greater fault of America's? Political correctness like this just squelches debate of the subject.

 

Why is it everytime an American disagrees with something their country has done we get to hear from some person all the bad things other countries do. Does the rest of the world have to be perfect before America can do any wrong? Why is it hard for some to understand that we may have high standards for our own country? American citizens may not be able to change the entire world, but our own damn country is a good place to start.

 

High standards are great, simplistic thinking- more money=good,
less money=bad- is not. Where do you propose the aid
comes from? If it is taken from the defense fund that
will only compromise our situation more in Iraq. One can
argue, quite sucessfully, that America never should have gone
to Iraq but that is a different issue. The fact is, America is
already spending money it does not have.

As for comparisons with Europe, they can be taken to far. I am
not suggesting that we price match, but how do you,
average citizens I assume, know how much aid is enough aid. Can we base
the number on aid given in the past? Surely not, because there has
never been a disaster of this magnitude.

Here is a final comparison for you. One of the major differences
between America and Europe is philanthropy. Here in the states
the onus is on us to support the poor and needy and we do
a fairly good job. In Europe on the other hand, particularly France,
they pay much higher taxes and rely on the government to care
for the down and out. Their system also works well but would
never function in America because of our fierce individualism and
fear of big government.

If you want to change the world then stop throwing petty criticisms
at George Bush and act: Donate money, hold a fundraiser, or
encourage others to do so. It will be a sad day when the government becomes the crutch of the American people.

 

i think you can throw criticism and you can donate at the same time, no????
i am proud of the way we have reacted in the last 24 hours and the work and supplies that are getting where they need to now....so i have to give it to him, he's stepping up.....and by the way, i donated before he even acknowledged it...as did alot of people...

 

There's excessive spending in almost everything the federal government does. The trick is just identifying it, correcting the problem, and using the money for something more effective...such as emergency relief aid.

Not true. As you requested, I'll put aside my feelings on the invasion/occupation itself as a separate issue. But even still, the military operations in Iraq are horribly, horribly ineffecient and incompetent...even by government standards. If the government is willing to correct those problems, we'd have plenty of money to spend on emergency relief aid...without raising taxes or increasing the deficit.

The problem is most everything ELSE that the government does...not the relief aid. Very seldom is our government able to do so much good per dollar, as it can with emergency relief aid. It should take advantage of these opportunities while cleaning up (or eliminating) some less efficient programs.

I'm a fiscal conservative, and it's very rare for me to be arguing in favor of spending more taxpayer money on something. But I find that this is one of the best opportunities for our government to do good. If you don't want to take any money away from Iraq, our government is also throwing away plenty of money on social security, medicare the war on drugs, Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Agriculture...all of which could be used more efficiently in emergency relief.

...and bottom line for America, won't our reputation in Asia improve substantially for a very small cost? Even if you don't believe in government handouts, surely that would improve our security.

I don't presume to know how much aid is enough. What I do know is that the current amounts pledged by the American (and if your numbers are accurate, the European) government are not NEARLY enough. It's not an issue of increasing aid by a few percent. It needs to be multiplied many times over.

And I respect that view, I truly do. In fact, I agree with it. But given the current size of the federal government, a few hundred million dollars to help aid the tsunami victims isn't going to usher in a new age of socialism.

I think you're about 70 years too late with that argument.

 

yes because giving shitloads and shitloads of money away will only help the deficit

 

Let me focus on this qoute for a second "American citizens may not be able to change the entire world, but our own damn country is a good place to start." that is exactly why we shouldn't be giving the money.
You damn liberals are always contradicting yourselves.
And about the first sentence, how about comparison? You my friend, are very stupid.

 

I have a question for you all.

Do you think that humankind (meaning those in power) have the technical expertise/capability to cause or create an earthquake in a particular part of the world?
It is a question that has been haunting me for days now.

 

No, I don't.

 

If we were able to create earthquakes, I think it would have been done much more often and in a bigger way than we've seen it so far. I suspect that a number of world "leaders" are simply fumbling their way through life much like many of the rest of us.

 

I don't see any contridiction.

"American citizens may not be able to change the entire world, but our own damn country is a good place to start." was said in response to a poster who mentioned we are giving more aid than a lot of countries right now. I was simply trying to point out that it is useless to say "well this country did this" or "this country didn't do that" as an excuse for America's behavior. American citizens may not be able to make other countries give more aid, but if we can certainly affect the amount of aid our country gives.

Basically, I was saying that we shouldn't use other country's actions as a scapegoat for our own. And we can't wait for the rest of the world to be be better than us before we raise our standards.

What that has to do with not spending money or giving aid is beyond me. It seems like you are just trying to antagonize me. Or maybe I didn't dumb down my post enough for you. But your lack of understanding is no excuse to call me stupid.

Here is my entire post, in context, BTW:

 

I agree, no one should be called stupid.

All posts on this forum are opinions, and as such, we have the option to ignore those who would take a position of intellectual superiority and /or those who would resort to derision.

 

Folks, Folks, Folks...

This Ain't about us, the USA, or fucking money. It's about getting food and water to the survivors as quickly as possible. Yeah, yeah, I know what's involved with the planning of such an astronomical relief effort, But...

If you aren't on a helicopter, filled with food and bottles of water, wafting its way to Indonesia or the other countries hit by the tsunami... you got's no right to be bitchin'

As far as the Republican Regime... I'm movin' to New Zealand... Soon!

 

You can't see the contradiction so you call me stupid? WTF?!

You said we should work on our country but support giving money for the Tsunami Relief Fund. And by the way saying "American citizens may not be able to change the entire world, but our own damn country is a good place to start." has nothing to do with context. What you mean is that it in your opinion only fits to certain situations and if it doesn't work for the situation you like a lot of people think, "it's out of context". An opinion should not only be applicable to certain situations, that makes a weak argument. You should word stuff better so you don't accidently contradict yourself. I ams sorry that you don't like me calling you stupid but that is my opinion and I am entitled to it, just like you're entitled to your opinions that make me think less of you.

opinions can be stupid

 

This may sound off thread, BUT Duck, the point here is - must you disparage and humiliate an individual for expressing an opinion? And if you must, why not be civil about it.

 

Ok, I am going to try this again...

This thread was created on the subject of our country not giving as much aid as the original poster would like. Many agreed. Then one member came along and had to point out that we are giving more than other countries. I simply stated that since we cannot necessarily directly impact what other countries are doing, and just because they aren't giving as much as us, that does not mean that we shouldn't push for the change we want in our country. Basically, we shouldn't wait until countried outdo us before improving ourselves.

"American citizens may not be able to change the entire world (or in this case, how much aid is coming from other countries), but our own damn country is a good place to start. (as in we can push for more aid to come from our own country)"

No contradiction.

So why argue some moot point about the wording of one sentance in my post? Because I'm liberal? Because you misunderstood what I was obviously saying and are now trying to redeem yourself from looking foolish and argumentative? Because you don't want to discuss a topic but would rather act like a jackass to others who do not think just like you? Because you got teased and beat up in high school and online is the only place where you can feel tough? Maybe all of the above

 

I'm done trying to argue, you just don't get it.

It shows that you contradict yourself

maybe a little, you guys suck at arguing but misunderstand shit and think you are right (and I realize that you think that's what I am doing)

I was thinking the same thing about you

arguing is discussing

I am in highschool and I have never got bullied, I do not care if I am tough or not; however, I also no that I am tough (not too strong though, unless I'm pissed)

My turn for questions.
What is your background?
Why do you feel the point is 'moot'?
Why are you so bad at analyzing people? Do you try to often?
Why do you feel being argumentive connects to a person's toughness (or lack of)?

 

Look, I already spelled out to you the exact meaning of what I was saying. If you still can't understand it that isn't my problem. I don't post on these forums just for you.

my answers to your question,

my background? I don't know why it matters. Are you are asking if I am rich and white or something like that? OR religious, or American? Not to sure what you mean by the question.

Your point is moot because it was one sentance taken out of context from the entirety of my post. And you are applying a different meaning to what I said. And I have already clarified that meaning

I am not bad at analyzing people, I was throwing an insult your way, not any sort of psychology. It was in response to your need to call people stupid based on the fact that you disagree with them. Not to mention that you don't have to be good at anaylazing people to realize that they are only set out to be a dick.

Are you familiar with John Gabriel’s Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory? Maybe you should be

 

I was drinking in a bar the other day when a Greek friend told me that Greece was the first country to raise money for this disaster. My immediate response was: "How does anyone know that?" Was someone sitting behind a till at the World Trade Bank with a stopwatch? The people of Greece have so far raised approximately 19mil Euros. Anyway, that's more than they've raised before, but what gets me is that Greece and every other nation's media has gone on some kind of crusade of who's going to give the most, the fastest. I mean over 150,000 people have had their lives destroyed and we in the privileged world are turning it into an Olympic event. Beyond national borders, race, creed and color, this is our world. It belongs to all of us and we're all responsible for it. You are all right in giving criticism to promote more aid to these unfortunate people, even if statistics will try and prove otherwise. If this is a taste of bigger tragedies to come, then how will we face them? Once again, it is the common man that has shown his virtue in responding to this tragedy and not the governments(all of them).