Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Manx
You forgot those bastions of liberalsim, George Bush Jr. and George Bush Sr. They've certainly gotten onboard the whole aid to tsunami victims bandwagon.
But since you wanted to create a polarizing discussion I suppose it makes sense for you to blame the "liberals".
|
Just so I'm clear, how many discussions here AREN'T "polarizing?"
Anyway, you are incorrect in assuming I like everything Bush Sr. and Jr. do. My opinion is that it is inappropriate for our government to decide what charities to support. If I believe my earnings should go to the Sudan, I should be free to send them there, instead of having them confiscated and sent by our government to a cause I don't support as much.
Quote:
|
If you could have put aside your own hate for anything and everything liberal, you would probably have been able to recognize some of the obvious differences between the tsunami and, as per your example, Sudan.
|
And if you could put aside your hatred, period, you'd see that my support for the Lost Boys of the Sudan could go a long way toward preventing another Rwanda. Or have you forgotten your own words:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Manx
And when you're done, spend 2 hours researching Sudan so in a decade when the Hotel Sudan flick comes out you'll be like "Oh yeah, I remember that."
|
Quote:
Here's a couple:
- The tsunami was a blindingly sudden event. The tragedy in Sudan has been slowly progressing for a decade.
- The tsunami is what is commonly referred to as an act of God, i.e. a natural occurence. The tragedy in Sudan is a political/racial conflict between groups of people.
Both of these aspects are rather significant in regards to emotional response. So it is clear why conservatives and liberals have gotten behind the tsunami relief.
|
When I look at two starving children, I don't find one more compelling because he came into that circumstance suddenly. How you can so blithely relegate the Sudanese to the back of the bus is beyond me.
Quote:
|
Or I could flip it back on you - didn't you start a thread or complain about how the U.S. was accused of being stingy in aid? Well, now you're doing the exact same thing to "liberals" like Madonna and George Clooney. Aren't they doing enough for you by donating the money and time for any cause? You should be satisfied instead of criticizing them, right. But now you claim the you have no issue with personal contributions ... what do you call Maddona's and George Clooney's time and money? Or are celebrities not supposed to be allowed to use their celebrity status for good deeds if they don't use it for every possible good deed?
|
I call it publicity-seeking in the case of Madonna and Clooney. On second thought, I'm sure Madonna would never do such a thing.
Quote:
|
edit: On second thought, I think you just had a typo in your first post. You're actually disappointed in conservatives for getting behind this tragedy as opposed to others. ANd this must be true because you have no qualms with personal donations, so you must be referring to government donations. ANd since we have a Republican government, that must be the source of your angst. Am I right or am I right. I thought so.
|
I think you should consider a switch to decaf.