Bush fails a global test

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
When other world leaders rushed to respond to the crisis caused by last Sunday's tsunamis in southern Asia, George Bush decamped to his ranch in Texas for another vacation. For three days after the disaster, the only formal response from the White House was issued by a deputy press secretary. Finally, after a United Nations official made comments that seemed to highlight the disengaged nature of the official U.S. reaction to one of the worst catastrophes in human history, the president appeared at a hastily-scheduled press conference to grumble about how critics of his embarrassing performance were "misguided and ill-informed."

The president's missteps have been noted by the rest of the world, and by diplomatic observers at home. Leslie Gelb, the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, said Bush had missed an opportunity to display humanitarian, moral and diplomatic leadership in the world. Reflecting on the administration's response, Derek Mitchell, an expert on Asian affairs at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said, "I think politically they've done poorly."

At a time when the U.S. image abroad has been battered by the president's unilateral decision to order the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration should have been sensitive to the need to respond quickly and effectively to a disaster of this magnitude. But that did not happen. Bush failed to engage at the critical point and then peddled the lie that the U.S. is in the forefront of providing humanitarian aid.

http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=2093

I hear that he's now increased aid to $350m. But was that just in response to his critics abroad?
 
Pretty much what MrBadExample said: If you're waiting for Bush to care even slightly about 100,000 dead people and millions homeless, don't hold your breath. Bush 'cares' about things only so far as it advances his political agenda.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Pretty much what MrBadExample said: If you're waiting for Bush to care even slightly about 100,000 dead people and millions homeless, don't hold your breath. Bush 'cares' about things only so far as it advances his political agenda.[/quote]

dubya-tsunami-drive.jpg
 
And of course the Bush-hating media doesn't help.
He originally pledged 35 million or whatever. Not enough, give us more you stingy bastards.
Now pledged 350 million.
Seen on CNN's Factoid crawl today:
'It's All Gone: Bush's pledge of 350 million for tsunami aid empties world emergency fund' [or whatever it's called.]
Even if I detested Bush, I'd support him in the face of this biased bullshit.
I dont' care it the president, any president 'cares.' BFD. That and a dollar might get you a candy bar. *Do* something if you're going to.
How many of you have given to the tsunami aid efforts?

"Secretary of State Colin Powell estimated that the U.S. contribution in the wake of the disaster will reach $1 billion when all aid is counted. Indeed, the president noted that this country provided $2.4 billion in food, cash and humanitarian aid to cover disasters in 2003. "That's 40 percent of all the relief aid given in the world last year,'' he said."

"Using a common measure of development aid, the United States spent almost $15.8 billion for "official development assistance" to developing countries in 2003. In second place was Japan at $8.9 billion. That doesn't include U.S. spending on special projects, such as HIV/AIDS assistance."

'Then there are personal contributions. Americans heavily support many U.S.- and internationally-based aid and relief organizations, such as the Red Cross. They routinely respond with open wallets to special fund drives for victims of disasters such as the one on the Indian Ocean. They can be expected to do so this time."

http://www.tauntongazette.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=1711&dept_id=226963&newsid=13658333

Stingy? While I have only the best thoughts and prayers for those affected by the disaster, those calling us as a country or as a citizenry can, well, GFY.
 
There is a huge Muslim population in the area. A quick response would have dispelled the notion that we are on a jihad against Muslims. It was an opportunity for Bush to help reform our image in the world, and Bush basically stayed on his ranch and read My Pet Goat.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']And of course the Bush-hating media doesn't help.
He originally pledged 35 million or whatever. Not enough, give us more you stingy bastards.
Now pledged 350 million.
Seen on CNN's Factoid crawl today:
'It's All Gone: Bush's pledge of 350 million for tsunami aid empties world emergency fund' [or whatever it's called.]
Even if I detested Bush, I'd support him in the face of this biased bullshit.
I dont' care it the president, any president 'cares.' BFD. That and a dollar might get you a candy bar. *Do* something if you're going to.
How many of you have given to the tsunami aid efforts?

"Secretary of State Colin Powell estimated that the U.S. contribution in the wake of the disaster will reach $1 billion when all aid is counted. Indeed, the president noted that this country provided $2.4 billion in food, cash and humanitarian aid to cover disasters in 2003. "That's 40 percent of all the relief aid given in the world last year,'' he said."

"Using a common measure of development aid, the United States spent almost $15.8 billion for "official development assistance" to developing countries in 2003. In second place was Japan at $8.9 billion. That doesn't include U.S. spending on special projects, such as HIV/AIDS assistance."

'Then there are personal contributions. Americans heavily support many U.S.- and internationally-based aid and relief organizations, such as the Red Cross. They routinely respond with open wallets to special fund drives for victims of disasters such as the one on the Indian Ocean. They can be expected to do so this time."

http://www.tauntongazette.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=1711&dept_id=226963&newsid=13658333

Stingy? While I have only the best thoughts and prayers for those affected by the disaster, those calling us as a country or as a citizenry can, well, GFY.[/quote]

Bush has gone on to spend over $200b in Iraq so far. As the death toll was reaching tens of thousands from the tsunami, Bush pledged $0.035b only after breaking away from his vacation. That's 0.0175% of what he was willing to spend in Iraq. What does that tell you?
 
[quote name='dtcarson']And of course the Bush-hating media doesn't help.
He originally pledged 35 million or whatever. Not enough, give us more you stingy bastards.[/quote]
It is pretty dang stingy when you consider that he planned to spend more on his inaguration. Because, after all, parties for rich people are more important than millions of homeless poor people.

Now pledged 350 million.
Click to expand...
AFTER he gets called on being a cheap SOB. If there hadn't been a public outcry over his penny-pinching in the face of one of the worst natural distasters in human history, do you really think he would have bothered?

Seen on CNN's Factoid crawl today:
'It's All Gone: Bush's pledge of 350 million for tsunami aid empties world emergency fund' [or whatever it's called.]
Click to expand...
Sounds like the emergency fund needs more funding. Oh, wait, we threw all the money down the rathole in Iraq so Bush's oil buddies could make a few billion more bucks.

Stingy? While I have only the best thoughts and prayers for those affected by the disaster, those calling us as a country or as a citizenry can, well, GFY.
Click to expand...
The US citizenry has helped relief efforts quite a bit. Bush, on the other hand, is a heartless, cold-blooded bastard. And since he is the chosen representative of our country, his actions (or lack thereof) make us look bad.
 
What's it supposed to tell me?
The US gives 40% of all relief aid in the world.
What's that tell you?

And don't forget, Bush didn't spend that money himself. There's this little thing called the Congress that helps to sign the checks. They've proven quite adept at filibustering judicial nominees, if they wanted to stop spending on Iraq, they could. But they pander to whatever way the polls are showing. What does that tell you?

And my issue isn't with giving. I'm all for helping people who need help, and this disaster is definitely one of Nature's most brutal. But if we're going to help, don't say 'Hey, you didn't give me enough!' Again, this is directed at the US-hating politicos, not the people who are affected by the tragedy. If I need help, I appreciate every bit of help I can get, I don't badmouth the people who gave, because it wasn't enough.

I don't have a problem with the private population helping more than the government. In almost every category, private money can be spent more productively than government money. So 1 million from Bill Gates' charity can be more powerful than 2 million official US dollars.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']What's it supposed to tell me?
The US gives 40% of all relief aid in the world.
What's that tell you?[/quote]

This is a disaster of biblical proportions. When was the last time something like this happened? Noah's ark? It's going to require much, much, much more money than what was in that fund previoiusly to deal with this situation.

[quote name='dtcarson']And don't forget, Bush didn't spend that money himself. There's this little thing called the Congress that helps to sign the checks. They've proven quite adept at filibustering judicial nominees, if they wanted to stop spending on Iraq, they could. But they pander to whatever way the polls are showing. What does that tell you?[/quote]

That tells me that Congress shouldn't be controlled by Republicans.

[quote name='dtcarson']And my issue isn't with giving. I'm all for helping people who need help, and this disaster is definitely one of Nature's most brutal. But if we're going to help, don't say 'Hey, you didn't give me enough!' Again, this is directed at the US-hating politicos, not the people who are affected by the tragedy. If I need help, I appreciate every bit of help I can get, I don't badmouth the people who gave, because it wasn't enough.[/quote]

Yeah, the U.S. should've donated $1 then bitch at everyone who calls them stingy.
 
Like we would just sit here and not help. We are the #1 contributer to disasters in the world.

fuck all of you that say the US isnt doing its part.
 
What responsibility do we have to pay one damn dime for relief? There's no Constitutional provision for giving away millions of dollars just because it's the "nice" thing to do.

You morons.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']What responsibility do we have to pay one damn dime for relief? There's no Constitutional provision for giving away millions of dollars just because it's the "nice" thing to do.

You morons.[/quote]

LOL, I was going to post a similar statement. Some peopel just dotn get i PAD, they just dont get it.
 
Where was Kofi Annan? On vacation.

The US has already pledged $350 million which will probably increase with time. That is not counting private funding with the Red Cross having some $45 million (reportidly) already. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, one of the richest countries in the world, is only donating $10 million.

Oh and what are the tsunamis up to now? 150,000? Guess how many Saddam killed.
 
Wow. The last few posts apparently reflect the "Christian values" of the republican party. Good thing bush "won" the election on "moral values".
 
The current US administration (and large swaths of the midwest) only became interested in Darfur after they heard that there was a significant amount of Christians there (and enough still has not been done)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/01/international/africa/01sudan.html

You expect them to care about Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindis? That would involve reading the entire Bible, especially the part about the "Good Samaritan". Bushy's much more interested in promoting the parts that label homosexuality as a sin against god and that outlaw birth control.

webshirt-oreillyvsjesus-lg.jpg
 
You know, you're equating government with religion EZB and camoor. You're saying because an election issue was moral values it is now up to the government to step in and act like Christians. We're not allowed to act Christian, that would be a violation of church and state wouldn't it?

What's wrong with me giving $100 to Oxfam, the Red Cross or CARE? Why does our government need to give $350 million when individuals and groups in this country have donated billions and thousands upon thousands of man hours?

Reliefe doesn't need to come from government to be representative of us as a country. Only fools like you think it is so.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You know, you're equating government with religion EZB and camoor.[/quote]

Nope, Bush did that. I'm only pointing out how hypocritical Bush's faith actually is.

Guess what PAD? It's my tax money too. I want to support building shelter for displaced Indonesian orphans in instead of occupying Middle East countries and killing Muslims in wars that have nothing to do with WMDs.

The fact that this US administration had to be shamed into helping the victims with significant funds is a disgrace.
 
[quote name='bignick']Like we would just sit here and not help. We are the #1 contributer to disasters in the world.

shaq-fu all of you that say the US isnt doing its part.[/quote]

I'm 100% with you on this one. People act as if Bush could will it and it would be done instantaneously. We sent out military aircraft and ships within hours after the tsunami to do recon and then move in aid and workers. People who are blaming Bush for directing this effort from Texas not Washington or those who somehow think the U.S., who is doing the most, is not doing "enough" are just plain ignorant or Bush- and U.S.-hating tools.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']WAH WAH WAH!

Your tax dollars probably couldn't buy a stapler, desk calendar and a pack of office pens. STFU.[/quote]

Since when has American policy been driven exclusively by the opinions of the rich and the huge corporate interests?

Oh that's right, since Bush was elected.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Has he ever passed a test...
Spelling?
Public speaking?
Algebra?
Air Force Physical?
Breathalyzer?[/quote]

Well, he did have a better college grade point average than Al Gore.


This has to be the most naive statement to date from the camoor keyboard:

Since when has American policy been driven exclusively by the opinions of the rich and the huge corporate interests?

Oh that's right, since Bush was elected.
Click to expand...

Don't look now, but your age is showing....
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Your tax dollars probably couldn't buy a stapler, desk calendar and a pack of office pens. STFU.[/quote]
Considering that those supplies quite possibly cost the government $50,000+ because the people who award government contracts tend to do so under the influence of bribes and kickbacks, quite possibly not...
 
[quote name='bmulligan']This statement has to be the most naive statement to date from the camoor keyboard:

Since when has American policy been driven exclusively by the opinions of the rich and the huge corporate interests?

Oh that's right, since Bush was elected.
Click to expand...

Don't look now, but your age is showing....[/quote]

Corporate interests have always played a part. However Congress has been completely hijacked by corporate interest, and this President acts a puppet for every big corporation from oil to pharmaceuticals.

Nice trick though, trying to insinuate that I am naive because I didn't believe that corporate interest played a part in politics before Bush.

Exclusive - not divided or shared with others
Click to expand...
 
Corporate interests have always played a part. However Congress has been completely hijacked by corporate interest, and this President acts a puppet for every big corporation from oil to pharmaceuticals.
Click to expand...

Riiiiight. And this has just happened recently, within our lifetime. Okay.

Nice trick though, trying to insinuate that I am naive because I didn't believe that corporate interest played a part in politics before Bush.
Click to expand...

It's not a trick, you're the one who said it as a statement of fact. Oh yeah, guess what ? Congress represents groups of people with interests, they always have. They also represent people with money or who own property; always have. Bet you didn't realize THAT one either, eh?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']
Corporate interests have always played a part. However Congress has been completely hijacked by corporate interest, and this President acts a puppet for every big corporation from oil to pharmaceuticals.
Click to expand...

Riiiiight. And this has just happened recently, within our lifetime. Okay.[/quote]

So when did it happen buddy? My sources tell me Jan. 20, 2001 -- You have something different?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Riiiiight. And this has just happened recently, within our lifetime. Okay.[/quote]
All you have to do is look at copyright laws to see that it has. Congress has on many occasions through the 70's and 80's ensured that copyright laws have given consumers adaquate fair usage rights. As recently as 1992, Congress passed the Audio Home Recording Act to ensure that consumers have the right to copy their audio CDs for their own person use.

Now, however, we have a congress completely beholden to the recording industry and Hollywood, who pass utter crap like the DMCA, who's goal is quite clearly to gut Fair Use, if not eliminate it completely. This is a complete reversal of the position that Congress pushed a mere 12 - well, 13 now, I guess... - years ago. So, unless you're less than 13 years old, yes, this has happened recently, within our lifetime.
 
It happened the day after the first congressional election. Representatives have always represented certain interest groups, be they land owners, coffee importers, tobacco growers. Congresspeople are enlisted to reflect their suitors, always have been.

In fact, one might say that the job description of a representative is to use his influence to promote the corporate, or capitalist interest of his constituency.
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='bmulligan']Riiiiight. And this has just happened recently, within our lifetime. Okay.[/quote]
All you have to do is look at copyright laws to see that it has. Congress has on many occasions through the 70's and 80's ensured that copyright laws have given consumers adaquate fair usage rights. As recently as 1992, Congress passed the Audio Home Recording Act to ensure that consumers have the right to copy their audio CDs for their own person use.

Now, however, we have a congress completely beholden to the recording industry and Hollywood, who pass utter crap like the DMCA, who's goal is quite clearly to gut Fair Use, if not eliminate it completely. This is a complete reversal of the position that Congress pushed a mere 12 - well, 13 now, I guess... - years ago. So, unless you're less than 13 years old, yes, this has happened recently, within our lifetime.[/quote]

So becuase Congress reverses itself, they are beholden to industry, nice leap. I guess prohibition wa repealed becuase they were beholden to the liquor industry. And slavery was repealed becuase they were beholden to the , to the, to the.........?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']So becuase Congress reverses itself, they are beholden to industry, nice leap.[/quote]
This isn't just a minor reversal of a small point of law: this is the complete dismantling of Fair Use, which has existed since the first US congress created the first US laws establishing Copyright. When you throw away 200 years of consumer protection in order to make some media companies happy, what exactly do you call that, other than being beholden to the industry?

The fact is simple: for 200+ years, Congress has worked hard to balance the needs of information creators with the rights of the public to use that information. Why? Because congress works for US, the people of the United States. In one simple (well, far from simple... Its written in double-speak legalese to disguise most of what it does...) act, they threw that away and shit all over the American public.
 
[quote name='camoor']Since when has American policy been driven exclusively by the opinions of the rich and the huge corporate interests?

Oh that's right, since Bush was elected.[/quote]

I'm sure you're not really dumb enough to believe that.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'][quote name='camoor']Since when has American policy been driven exclusively by the opinions of the rich and the huge corporate interests?

Oh that's right, since Bush was elected.[/quote]

I'm sure you're not really dumb enough to believe that.[/quote]

What a surprise. An ad-hominem attack, a put-down post that offers no evidence to the contrary.

Even you can do better then that PAD.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='Drocket'][quote name='bmulligan']Riiiiight. And this has just happened recently, within our lifetime. Okay.[/quote]
All you have to do is look at copyright laws to see that it has. Congress has on many occasions through the 70's and 80's ensured that copyright laws have given consumers adaquate fair usage rights. As recently as 1992, Congress passed the Audio Home Recording Act to ensure that consumers have the right to copy their audio CDs for their own person use.

Now, however, we have a congress completely beholden to the recording industry and Hollywood, who pass utter crap like the DMCA, who's goal is quite clearly to gut Fair Use, if not eliminate it completely. This is a complete reversal of the position that Congress pushed a mere 12 - well, 13 now, I guess... - years ago. So, unless you're less than 13 years old, yes, this has happened recently, within our lifetime.[/quote]

So becuase Congress reverses itself, they are beholden to industry, nice leap. I guess prohibition wa repealed becuase they were beholden to the liquor industry. And slavery was repealed becuase they were beholden to the , to the, to the.........?[/quote]

What are you trying to prove? That congress is beholden to special corporate interests from day one (by sponsoring legislation like the DMCA). Or that congress managed to balance corporate and civil legislation in the past (citing acts such as the abolition of slavery that granted civil rights to a segment of America at the expense of the bottom line for certain corporate interests)
 
You honestly believe that the rich, corporations and large political donors just started having major influence beginning January 20, 2001?

You my friend are dumber than dirt.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You honestly believe that the rich, corporations and large political donors just started having major influence beginning January 20, 2001?

You my friend are dumber than dirt.[/quote]

My quote "Since when has American policy been driven exclusively by the opinions of the rich and the huge corporate interests?
Oh that's right, since Bush was elected."

Exclusive means not divided or shared with others. In the past, corporate interests were balanced against what was fair for the average US citizen to a much greater degree. The level of almost-complete corporate control of congress and the white house is a fairly new development.

The Jan 20 comment was just me making a joke in my conversation with bmulligan. I thought it was obvious to everyone that a change like the one I have described is actually part of a greater, more gradual shifting towards increased corporate influence in government. The joke centered around the fact that the Bush Administration has been pretty blatant about their support of corporate interests, as long as the interests don't tip into Enron territory (Jan 20, 2001 was the date of Bush Jr's first inaguration)

No need to resort to your usual bullying and name-calling, PAD.
 
I believe half or more of you expected me to say "Who cares if 150,000 people died. They're all stupid non-Christian brown people who never contributed anything to the world. We're all better off without them.".

Some of you need to get your heads examined and take a long hard look at why it is the party that most closely represents your personal beliefs will not control one branch of government for another 10 years or more. Think about this, you haven't controlled any house in Congress for 10 years. You're not going to get it back in the next 10. You're not going to win the White House anytime in the next 4 years. Your party is going to be out of any kind of government power for a generation or more.

You have nothing. All you can do is bitch and complain and say its your duty to question government. In reality you're whining spoil sports. You don't care about tragedy, you don't care about death and human misery. Your only wish is to criticize a President. Your lack of any kind of empathy and focus on the disaster itself is revealing; you care more about calling someone inhumane than putting those energies into raising money or doing good for millions and acting humane yourselves.

Keep it up though, you're whining your way further into political obscurity every day. You don't even need to be prodded into it, you're doing it on your own.

Good job, opposition like this is like playing 8-2 CTF on Mech Assault 2; easier than hell and gives us plenty of time to toy sadistically with your kind. Someday someone in your party will re-write "He's Just Not That Ino You" and retitle it "America's Just Not Into Us" and they'll make millions. Hell, maybe I should write it myself, I could start with the nonsensical posters here that make even those on DU seem logical.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You honestly believe that the rich, corporations and large political donors just started having major influence beginning January 20, 2001?

You my friend are dumber than dirt.[/quote]

My quote "Since when has American policy been driven exclusively by the opinions of the rich and the huge corporate interests?
Oh that's right, since Bush was elected."

Exclusive means not divided or shared with others. In the past, corporate interests were balanced against what was fair for the average US citizen to a much greater degree. The level of almost-complete corporate control of congress and the white house is a fairly new development.

The Jan 20 comment was just me making a joke in my conversation with bmulligan. I thought it was obvious to everyone that a change like the one I have described is actually part of a greater, more gradual shifting towards increased corporate influence in government. The joke centered around the fact that the Bush Administration has been pretty blatant about their support of corporate interests, as long as the interests don't tip into Enron territory (Jan 20, 2001 was the date of Bush Jr's first inaguration)

No need to resort to your usual bullying and name-calling, PAD.[/quote]

I would like to see your support if you don't mind.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You know, you're equating government with religion EZB and camoor. You're saying because an election issue was moral values it is now up to the government to step in and act like Christians. We're not allowed to act Christian, that would be a violation of church and state wouldn't it?

What's wrong with me giving $100 to Oxfam, the Red Cross or CARE? Why does our government need to give $350 million when individuals and groups in this country have donated billions and thousands upon thousands of man hours?

Reliefe doesn't need to come from government to be representative of us as a country. Only fools like you think it is so.[/quote]

Acting Christian is not a violation of separation of Church and State. No one has ever said that.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']What's it supposed to tell me?
The US gives 40% of all relief aid in the world.
What's that tell you?

And don't forget, Bush didn't spend that money himself. There's this little thing called the Congress that helps to sign the checks. They've proven quite adept at filibustering judicial nominees, if they wanted to stop spending on Iraq, they could. But they pander to whatever way the polls are showing. What does that tell you?

And my issue isn't with giving. I'm all for helping people who need help, and this disaster is definitely one of Nature's most brutal. But if we're going to help, don't say 'Hey, you didn't give me enough!' Again, this is directed at the US-hating politicos, not the people who are affected by the tragedy. If I need help, I appreciate every bit of help I can get, I don't badmouth the people who gave, because it wasn't enough.

I don't have a problem with the private population helping more than the government. In almost every category, private money can be spent more productively than government money. So 1 million from Bill Gates' charity can be more powerful than 2 million official US dollars.[/quote]


Actually, the dems have shown themselves to be quite inadequate at blocking nominees. Most of Bush's nominations have gone through. The repubs blocked far more nominees under Clinton than the dems have under Bush.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
You have nothing. All you can do is bitch and complain and say its your duty to question government. In reality you're whining spoil sports. You don't care about tragedy, you don't care about death and human misery. Your only wish is to criticize a President. Your lack of any kind of empathy and focus on the disaster itself is revealing; you care more about calling someone inhumane than putting those energies into raising money or doing good for millions and acting humane yourselves...

Good job, opposition like this is like playing 8-2 CTF on Mech Assault 2; easier than hell and gives us plenty of time to toy sadistically with your kind. [/quote]

PAD, this is the VS forum. It's the place to discuss shortcomings in government policy, there is already information about how to donate to the Tsunami effort on the front page of CAG, so there was no need for anyone (Democrat or Republican) to bring it up here.

PAD, I know you're trying to be the good guy here, so I'll give you some advice - stay away from phrases like "toy sadistically". They show the soft moral underbelly of your "compassionate conservatism".
 
[quote name='gamefreak']I would like to see your support if you don't mind.[/quote]

Here's an example, Bush's support of pharmaceutical companies at the expense of sick people and seniors who can't afford the medicine. His solution involves spending more government money to keep drug prices propped up so that seniors will be able to (barely) afford the drugs. The Fed government is trying to clamp down on importation of drugs from Canada, because they claim that the Canadian drugs can't be verified as safe for consumption (yeah, right). All of these judgements help the pharmaceutical companies more then any other group.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='gamefreak']I would like to see your support if you don't mind.[/quote]

Here's an example, Bush's support of pharmaceutical companies at the expense of sick people and seniors who can't afford the medicine. His solution involves spending more government money to keep drug prices propped up so that seniors will be able to (barely) afford the drugs. The Fed government is trying to clamp down on importation of drugs from Canada, because they claim that the Canadian drugs can't be verified as safe for consumption (yeah, right). All of these judgements help the pharmaceutical companies more then any other group.[/quote]

Don't forget the energy companies that met with Dick Cheney to discuss forming Bush's energy policy back in 2000. They fought all the way to the Supreme Court to keep even the names of those people secret.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='gamefreak']I would like to see your support if you don't mind.[/quote]

Here's an example, Bush's support of pharmaceutical companies at the expense of sick people and seniors who can't afford the medicine. His solution involves spending more government money to keep drug prices propped up so that seniors will be able to (barely) afford the drugs. The Fed government is trying to clamp down on importation of drugs from Canada, because they claim that the Canadian drugs can't be verified as safe for consumption (yeah, right). All of these judgements help the pharmaceutical companies more then any other group.[/quote]

Don't forget the energy companies that met with Dick Cheney to discuss forming Bush's energy policy back in 2000. They fought all the way to the Supreme Court to keep even the names of those people secret.[/quote]

Just like Naked Gun 2 1/2. SMOKE, SPILL, and KABOOM :wink:
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
You have nothing. All you can do is bitch and complain and say its your duty to question government. In reality you're whining spoil sports. You don't care about tragedy, you don't care about death and human misery. Your only wish is to criticize a President. Your lack of any kind of empathy and focus on the disaster itself is revealing; you care more about calling someone inhumane than putting those energies into raising money or doing good for millions and acting humane yourselves...

Good job, opposition like this is like playing 8-2 CTF on Mech Assault 2; easier than hell and gives us plenty of time to toy sadistically with your kind. [/quote]

PAD, this is the VS forum. It's the place to discuss shortcomings in government policy, there is already information about how to donate to the Tsunami effort on the front page of CAG, so there was no need for anyone (Democrat or Republican) to bring it up here.

PAD, I know you're trying to be the good guy here, so I'll give you some advice - stay away from phrases like "toy sadistically". They show the soft moral underbelly of your "compassionate conservatism".[/quote]

Compassionate conservatism in action!

westboro_tsunami_1230.gif


Boy, god really threw out the baby with the bathwater on that one, huh?
 
You fail to see one thing, I never use the phrase compassion conservatism. I don't believe it's necessary, it is redundant. It's a marketing tool one person, George W. Bush, has used I don't.

Conservatism in itself is compassionate. It is compassionate to let more people keep more of their money to decide how to use it. It is compassionate to get more people off the government dole and self sufficent so they can make more working than they would had government susistence levels. It is compassionate to have a military strong enough that it never needs to be used and wars never be fought. It is compassionate to let people decide their own medical, retirement and educational fates than have it dictated by a government that neither knows or cares about individual situations and is more concerned with growing and maintaining bureacracy.

I reject the phrase in its entirety let alone support its use or defend its redundant meaning.
 
BTW, where is the overwhelming response to this disaster from the richest Muslim nations? Where are Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Kuwait, Iran, UAE, Bharain, Egypt et al. in this? Where is the support from the religion of peace? Where is the outpouring of humanitarian and financial support for the world's most populous Muslim nation from their bretheren?

Those countries are again noticably silent and missing in playing any active role in a postive manner on the world stage.

At least we have a historical tie to Thailand for their strong support against Asian communism and use of their territory for the Air Force in Vietnam. I can see supporting the world's largest democracy in India. I can see how we would want to keep stability on Sri Lanka to prevent waring factions from taking advantage of a natural disaster to further their purposes. Why is it up to the Great Satan though to send money and infidels to help Muslims in Indonesia?

Wow, this "religion" of Islam sure is great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top