Way to show class. Also all those posts in regards to admitting to being wrong. Why don't you read what you wrote. Maybe the best advice can be from yourself.
Sit on a fork and spin. I couldn't care less what you think of me.
I'm fallible, unlike you.
I don't think you've ever copped to a mistake here, SnC. Not once. Is that because you haven't made any, or are you just too cowardly to admit it when it happens?
bad memory on your part. When I am wrong, I'll say it. The one I remember off the top of my head was when I said something was a metaphor when it wasn't. You are not admitting mistake here when clearly you slandered my brand and lied about what I wrote and took me out of context.
I don't recall any such instance. Care to point one out for us?
I don't think I did. You complained about sending "other people's money" to Haiti, did you not?
You also cut and pasted a raft of slightly related material suggesting that aid is inefficient and counterproductive. Why did you do so in this thread, if you have "no problem" with aid to Haiti?
Seems like you're getting a little bit two faced, now that you've been called out as a callous jerk.
No I complained about people thinking that is compassionate on them. It is not. A govt. cannot be compassionate. Just like a business cannot.
No. Not at all. I do not worry about what people on a forum think of me. You and cryhavok just assumed you knew what I thought in an attempt to vilify me. I still don't know why. That kind of thing seems callous to me.
So how are you attached to the situation in Haiti?
You don't get it. Nothing could be clearer.
So what?
Did you read it. It was pretty good. I left the source. It was of a report on aid for natural disasters. You should have read it. If not all, what I posted would have been educational for you.
Aid to Haiti isn't about political posturing or hypocrite do-gooders. It's about helping victims of a natural disaster of historical dimensions in our own back yard.
Yeah, I read it. Comparing disaster aid to Haiti to federal hurricane relief is way off the mark. Swing and a miss, SnC.
I think it can be both.
What was it Rahm Emmanuel said? That's right, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
I hope we throw everything we have at providing relief for the Haitian people but, don't think for one minute, the Obama administration isn't calibrating their actions for the most political benefit.
ing about Haiti relief is like ing about the White House mess budget. Figure it out.
Hey, who pays to vacuum the White House? WHO PAYS?
Sure.
Sure. Who cares about that right now? There's plenty of time left for all that.
Meanwhile, millions of Haitians lack water, food, medical care and social order. That's where the focus should be right now, not on petty political bs and the propriety and effectiveness of foreign aid.
I agree. However I wouldn't think to read this from you. Should the only reason we help them is because they are near our borders?
Historically in the United States, disaster response and relief has not been considered the responsibility of government, and most especially not the federal government. People caught in natural calamities turned to family and to community organizations like churches and private charities for support. State and local governments readily engaged in rescue operations and the task of re-establishing and enforcing civil order when necessary, but the federal government maintained a hands-off stance until the early 20th century. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire prompted the first-ever federal allocation of disaster aid. Congress appropriated $2.5 million* in disaster aid – a small gesture compared to modern FEMA response – to cover the cost of food, blankets, tents and other relief supplies requisitioned from West coast Army depots. While President Roosevelt telegraphed California Governor Pardee and San Francisco Mayor Schmitz to express concern and offer “assistance,” the assistance consisted mainly of sending Secretary of Commerce Victor Metcalf to the city to keep the White House informed of developments. Tellingly, Roosevelt declined assistance and donations from abroad, saying that the U.S. had sufficient resources, and he directed offers of domestic assistance from such sources as the city governments of Chicago, Boston, New York, and from John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie to go to the Red Cross rather than to the notoriously corrupt San Francisco city government. (Strupp, 18-23)
I just saw the argument polarizing over the two choice and wanted to point out it can be both and, in this case, probably is.
@SnC: Haiti may be a basket case, but in significant respects it is our basket case.
And yes, their geographical closeness to the USA has political ramifications we would ignore at the peril of our own standing in the world. We're best situated and best equipped to help.
I"ve stated this twice, in two separate threads. It's not my fault that you're too lazy to read it.
BTW, SnC, my heated reply to you had to as much do with your suggestion that my comment about the lack of food, water, medical care and security was "slanted" or otherwise untrustworthy b/c the source was NPR, as it did with your grievously misplaced focus on foreign aid in general and federal disaster aid.
You then followed up with an ad hominem attack suggesting (against all credibility and readily checkable evidence in this forum) that I rely exclusively on NPR and HuffPo for what I post here, and inferentially, that what I posted about Haiti was somehow less than trustworthy.
What was the point of all that, if we are essentially in agreement about the condition of Haiti, and the moral and political necessity of aid? I'd really like to know.
You complain that I ran down your "brand", but you seem to have forgotten you attacked mine first.
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-20-2010 at 08:50 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
