"Bush, whose initial reaction to the catastrophe was criticized as sluggish (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7223195&src=rss/topNews), has announced the U.S. government is providing $350 million in relief assistance. Many Americans have already been making private donations."

http://wwwi.reuters.com/images/w148/amdf811264.jpg

your the only man i know who can take something as good as the president trying to make a difference and show your true liberal colors. Why dont ya go cry to your union and see if they will donate some cash to the cause.


Here is the true flag of the liberal

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
your the only man i know who can take something as good as the president trying to make a difference and show your true liberal colors. Why dont ya go cry to your union and see if they will donate some cash to the cause.


Here is the true flag of the liberal
Ah man, you are hilarious. I love posts like yours; they are constant reminds that the world is full of idiots who equate equal rights with communism, and then have the audacity to whine when people claim Bush has a resemblance to Hitler (Not saying I think that). Hypocrite.

It has nothing to do with equal rights, it has everything to do with liberals shaping a Godless generation. One based on "civility and tolerance" while all along stomping on those who actually stand for something. Equal Rights is a guise for systematic elimination of values.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
It has nothing to do with equal rights, it has everything to do with liberals shaping a Godless generation. One based on "civility and tolerance" while all along stomping on those who actually stand for something. Equal Rights is a guise for systematic elimination of values.
Tinfoil hat, anyone?

your point???

My point is that you are delusional.

You have no position. So therefore you are resulting to personal attacks. You have no stomach for the truth. You dont want equal rights, you want to eliminate morals, you want to eliminate a patriarchial system, you want to teach our children, yet you are going against what we teach them. Equal Rights...a farse.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
You have no position. So therefore you are resulting to personal attacks.
How exactly am I supposed to make a cogent argument against "Liberals are communists"? It's a factually incorrect statement.
You dont want equal rights, you want to eliminate morals, you want to eliminate a patriarchial system, you want to teach our children, yet you are going against what we teach them. Equal Rights...a farse.
First of all, don't make the mistake of assuming that I am a liberal. I'm not. I am a libertarian. Second of all...let's examine your post piece by piece.
You dont want equal rights
Yes I do, and so do most liberals I know.
you want to eliminate morals
You think it's immoral to have sex with another guy? Fine! Don't do it. You think it's immoral to have an abortion? Fine! Don't have one. You think it's immoral to be an atheist? Fine! Don't be one. You see where I am going with this?
you want to eliminate a patriarchial system
Marriages and such should be handled by the couples themselves. If the woman becomes dominant, fine. If the man does, fine. If it's a gay relationship...either one...it doesn't matter! Gender does not matter except when it comes to making babies!
you want to teach our children
What, you're against education?
yet you are going against what we teach them
Teach your kids whatever you want, go ahead. I don't really give a damn. Just don't tell my hypothetical kids what to think.
Equal Rights...a farse.
Whatever. :rolleyes:

I think letting two loving people, get married, who care for one another, is very moral.

Then again, I'm a communist! ;)

I think letting two loving people, get married, who care for one another, is very moral

As long as it is a man and a woman.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
As long as it is a man and a woman.
And why exactly should it matter what sex the two people are?

(Please don't forget that I have a post above OD's that I'd like you to look at.)

Oh I looked at it, I just chose not to respond to it.

As for what matters, it does matter and the people of eleven states agree because they passed defense of marriage acts. You have to have more than love to have a marriage.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
As for what matters, it does matter and the people of eleven states agree because they passed defense of marriage acts. You have to have more than love to have a marriage.
I disagree. It should not matter what genitalia you may or may not possess.

you can disagree all you want, the majority has spoken. We dont have to recognize it and we dont have to accept it. Why should we have to accept something that deviates from normal social standard that has been there for years?

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
you can disagree all you want, the majority has spoken. We dont have to recognize it and we dont have to accept it. Why should we have to accept something that deviates from normal social standard that has been there for years?
No one is asking you, personally, to recognize or accept anything. Merely the state, which should not be concerned with any "normal social standards." Instead, it should concern itself with justice. And not allowing gays to marry is not just.

The State is the entity that sets those standards in place. We as citizens are the State at Large.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
The State is the entity that sets those standards in place. We as citizens are the State at Large.
Okay, I can accept your opinion on this, as I see we are getting nowhere. But if you ever try to say that the Republicans are the "small government party" after this statement, I am going to jump all over you...

Enough said Borg. I can accept yours as well.

:eek: OH MY GOD, we've all agreed to disagree and we're all still nice to each other! An Allforums first! :@@:

Getting back to the original post. Bush being seen as sluggish in giving aid to tsunami victims as posted by Shaman. My response is: Since when is the world OWED aid by the U.S.? And why the hell should we give aid when we got some idiot up there at the U.N. calling we Americans stingy? So now we get judged by how much aid we give to disaster victims, and to be found wanting. I think people should know that we are not obligated to give anybody a god-damned thing. Furthermore the same idiots at the U.N. who has the absolute gall to call us stingy, should keep in mind that they stood by and stuck their heads up their ass while the oil for food scandal was going on and genocide happened to Rwanda.

Who the hell are these people to criticize anything Bush or any American does? Dammit!

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Who the hell are these people to criticize anything Bush or any American does? Dammit!
Because we impact the entire world with our foreign policy.

Yes, dose, we do impact the world with our policies. But keep in mind that lack of actions in other parts of the world make as much of an impact, if not more. I'll refer you to the slaughter in Rwanda as just one example.


But that still isn't relevent to the question of why the world sees us as OWING aid to tsunami victims or the right to criticize us for not giving "enough." Why not ask the Chinese, the Russians or the Saudi Arabians?

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
your the only man i know who can take something as good as the president trying to make a difference and show your true liberal colors. Why dont ya go cry to your union and see if they will donate some cash to the cause.
A Union is the LAST place (http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia197.htm) you wanna be caught, during the Bush-years!!!! :eek:

"As Amnesty International recently explained, the military engages in the “practice of launching often spurious criminal investigations against human rights defenders and other civilians. These tactics are designed to tarnish defenders and social activists by accusing them of guerrilla activity, exposing them to heightened risk of violent attack by paramilitaries, regardless of whether or not investigations uncover evidence of criminal wrong-doing.” A notorious example of such tactics, as elaborated in this same report, is the Army’s rounding up and detention of 2,000 civilians, including “[m]ost of Saravena’s human rights community, as well as many known trade unionists and other social leaders,” by the 18th Brigade during a traditional fiesta in 2002.

What is happening in Saravena is not an anomaly. The U.S. State Department itself has concluded that human rights in Colombia remain poor, that social activists, such as trade unionists, are being killed at an alarming rate, and that they are being killed mostly by paramilitary groups that are receiving the active support and collaboration of the very military which the United States is funding at record levels. Looking at the situation of trade unionists in particular, 94 trade unionists were assassinated in Colombia last year out of a total of 123 killed worldwide. In other words, as has been typical for the last several years, Colombia has accounted for approximately 75 percent of the trade union killings in the world."

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
You have no position. So therefore you are resulting to personal attacks. You have no stomach for the truth. You dont want equal rights, you want to eliminate morals, you want to eliminate a patriarchial system, you want to teach our children, yet you are going against what we teach them. Equal Rights...a farse.
Yeah........you "conservatives"/Puritans have quite the distinguished-history in battle against Equal Rights. (http://www.postfun.com/pfp/misogyny.html) :@@:

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
you can disagree all you want, the majority has spoken. We dont have to recognize it and we dont have to accept it. Why should we have to accept something that deviates from normal social standard that has been there for years?
Oh.......you mean (like) Slavery & voting-rights?? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
So now we get judged by how much aid we give to disaster victims, and to be found wanting. I think people should know that we are not obligated to give anybody a god-damned thing.
Ah, yes!

Bragging-about being a Christian-nation is much less-expensive than acting like one, right?

http://prodtn.cafepress.com/3/13630973_F_tn.jpg

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
But that still isn't relevent to the question of why the world sees us as OWING aid to tsunami victims or the right to criticize us for not giving "enough."
Yeah........we wouldn't want to (actually) DO anything about the ROOTS of terrorism!!!!!! (http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=7521)

"Half of the world was left out of the economic expansion," Clinton told a packed crowd of 2,000 people. "Not surprisingly, they don't think as much of this new world as many of us do, because they are not a part of it."

Clinton said promoting education and health care in poor countries through foreign aid and debt relief is key to fighting terrorism.

"We've got to spread the benefits and shrink the burdens of the modern world," Clinton said, citing his administration's debt relief program that directed money toward education.

"This (money) was peanuts when it comes to us, and it makes all the difference in the world to them", he said."

*

The Bushes could LEARN something (about fighting-terrorism), from Bill Clinton!!!!!!!

Shaman,

Thanks for twisting my words to make one of your idiot points yet again.

What I said was that the world has no bounds to criticize the generousity of the U.S. or lack there of. Seeing as how we already spend more on foreign aid than any other country on the planet.

Also, I take issue with your idea that Jesus would be a liberal. While Jesus would like to see everybody in the world fed and clothed, I think it would have been more important to him that everyone on earth has the same rights, freedoms and digninties that we enjoy here in the U.S. You want a safer world, the first step is to get rid of the despotic regimes that are rampant in the Middle East and whose chief export (outside of oil) is terrorism. If people the world over had the same oppurtunities we enjoy in the U.S., then the numbers of those who need to be fed and clothed would plummet exponentially. You very well might get your panties in a bunch when the U.S. tries to export democracy, but Jesus would see it as a first step to world peace. How else do so many people from different "cultures" religions, backgrounds, ethnicities and so on get along so damn well here in the U.S.?

Also, seeing Bill Clinton's absolutely abysmal record on terrorism throughout the nineties, I'm surprised you have the gall to say he has any credibility on how to handle terrorism at all.


Third, perhaps your worst point is the very god-damned idea that poverty breeds terrorism. Despotic regimes breed terrorism! Dammit. Look at what is happening in Iraq when we the U.S. is trying to give the people their the right to choose their own government! They try to kill those who are trying to make Iraq a democracy! Bin Laden has railed against it. Iran doesn't like it because they both know that you don't get very many terrorists from democratic countries! Geez!

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Also, I take issue with your idea that Jesus would be a liberal. While Jesus would like to see everybody in the world fed and clothed, I think it would have been more important to him that everyone on earth has the same rights, freedoms and digninties that we enjoy here in the U.S.
I’m sure he would want everyone to have the same rights, freedoms and dignities that we enjoy in the United States. Although, I’m sure he would have wanted use to do it in a peaceful way. Not a war-mongering way. I’m also sure, he would want us to make sure the Iraqis are actually leading a better life then what they had with Saddam. Right now, they are leading a much worse life.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
You want a safer world, the first step is to get rid of the despotic regimes that are rampant in the Middle East and whose chief export (outside of oil) is terrorism.
Wrong. Our world isn’t safer. Getting rid of Saddam has increased terrorism, according to the Pentagon’s report of terrorism throughout the world. Also, terrorism has increased throughout the world, as shown in the 2003 terrorist report. So really we aren’t having this “safer world” you dream of.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
If people the world over had the same oppurtunities we enjoy in the U.S., then the numbers of those who need to be fed and clothed would plummet exponentially.
It’s funny because the countries in Africa are much, much worse off…then say, Iraq. Why didn’t we go in and support them since they were worse off then Iraq? As for being “fed and clothed” The Iraqis have horrible conditions right now, worse then when Saddam was in power. So, what is your point?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Look at what is happening in Iraq when we the U.S. is trying to give the people their the right to choose their own government!
We are choosing their Government for them. They aren’t choosing their Government, we are. Think again.

I always replied to your gay marriage opinion on “needs new thread” and also on your Iraq War opinion.

I’m sure he would want everyone to have the same rights, freedoms and dignities that we enjoy in the United States. Although, I’m sure he would have wanted use to do it in a peaceful way. Not a war-mongering way. I’m also sure, he would want us to make sure the Iraqis are actually leading a better life then what they had with Saddam. Right now, they are leading a much worse life.
United States as a minimum, or a standard? Minimum I'll buy, standard, no damn way.

Wrong. Our world isn’t safer. Getting rid of Saddam has increased terrorism, according to the Pentagon’s report of terrorism throughout the world. Also, terrorism has increased throughout the world, as shown in the 2003 terrorist report. So really we aren’t having this “safer world” you dream of.
Ah, such a hasty generalization. Not only was it not following in his response, but something that you've said so many times yet I've seen no reasoning for why it applies to all. Was the increased terrorism because of Saddam's removal? Or was it because of the method. I believe it was entirely the method, the ousting of Saddam in general is a good thing, and I see no reason why it would not be. Only thing there appears to be a problem with would be our current methods of war, which are horribly insufficient and inappropriate for the warfront we now face.

Third, perhaps your worst point is the very god-damned idea that poverty breeds terrorism. Despotic regimes breed terrorism!
Oh no no no. Reason breeds terrorism. No matter what basis the resoning is off of, it's there and has a grounding in reallity. We've screwed up before. Why not face up to the fact that we've made mistakes, one of them being Saddam, another Osama. And one that we're seeing going to trial now, Pinochet. Face reality, we've made mistakes, now we have to fix them. The terrorists have a point, we've been assholes, we've fucked up their lives. Do we plan on redeeming ourselves? Or are we going to kill all those evil terrorists off and create more, or attempt to stop it once and for all? Do you see another option?

Originally posted by Blibblob
Ah, such a hasty generalization. Not only was it not following in his response, but something that you've said so many times yet I've seen no reasoning for why it applies to all. Was the increased terrorism because of Saddam's removal? Or was it because of the method. I believe it was entirely the method, the ousting of Saddam in general is a good thing, and I see no reason why it would not be. Only thing there appears to be a problem with would be our current methods of war, which are horribly insufficient and inappropriate for the warfront we now face.
Indeed. Getting rid of Saddam is good, hurrah, hurrah. Bush just didn't go about it well, nor at the proper time.

I'm finding that any and all efforts on the side of the United States to provide a better international living environment are in vein. We've eliminated a ruthless dictator from ethnically cleansing his precious domain and the move was viewed by most liberals as inappropriate. We've sent hundreds of millions to the tsunami victims, and it wasn't enough. We, on a worldwide scale, provide more humanitarian and financial aid than ANY other nation, and once again have come to find out that some cock smoker overseas calls us "stingy" for doing so. I'm getting to the point of saying fuck everyone who isn't American. They can make their own fortunes, and spend them how they see fit.