Evil Bastard Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 I think there are more results that prove it at least can help. Ask any of the military guys on the board (the government's biggest program) if the government helped them better their lives. 68077[/snapback] Can't the same be said about corporations? You are making them out to be nothing but evil (I can relate to that ), but you are ignoring the good that they do. How much do these corporations contribute to charities, how much time do they donate to helping various causes, etc? Companies are in business to make a profit. Without that profit, you, myself, and most people on this board would not have jobs. Now look at the government. How many miles of proverbial red-tape must they go through, wasting billions of dollars in administrative costs which have no displayed end benefit, before the end researcher/charity sees any money? Selling one short, while promoting the other (which has the same flaws) is disingenuous. Both positives and negatives reside in both.
VABills Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 Can't the same be said about corporations? You are making them out to be nothing but evil (I can relate to that ), but you are ignoring the good that they do. How much do these corporations contribute to charities, how much time do they donate to helping various causes, etc? Companies are in business to make a profit. Without that profit, you, myself, and most people on this board would not have jobs. Now look at the government. How many miles of proverbial red-tape must they go through, wasting billions of dollars in administrative costs which have no displayed end benefit, before the end researcher/charity sees any money? Selling one short, while promoting the other (which has the same flaws) is disingenuous. Both positives and negatives reside in both. 68100[/snapback] Oooo and how much did the last Democrat presidential candidate give to charity. Oh thats right NONE. He said it was the governments job to fund these organizations.
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 I have visited a lot of the rest of the world. I understand AIDS research would help out, but to do so and lead the effort without the rest of the world is doing so without payback. I am not saying it is wrong. I also feel getting rid of evil tyrants who are a threat to us or our allies (which includes Israel) is also a good cause. How many people are dying because of starvation, gas attcks by their own government, genecide (think Sudan)? The UN does nothing but when the US steps forward demands action or they take action, we are mistreated and bemoaned publicly by the rest of the world. 68087[/snapback] It depends on what kind of action we take, and how we make our case. I think that case could have been strengthened with finished inspections. The UN has dropped the ball on Sudan and numerous other occasions like this. And Oil for Food was a disaster. I have lost a lot of faith in the UN, though I still contribute to UNICEF and believe in some of its programs. On a side note, watching "No Man's Land" about the Bosnian-Serb conflict was a definite eye-opener. Strongly suggest watching it. I think the AIDS research and education funding is something we, in a great position, owe the world for the good of humanity. That's my opinion and I can certainly understand the wish for some reciprocation and thanks, but we all know that stuff doesn't make the headlines. I am a firm believer in the idea that you get what you give, and my support for AIDS causes is just an extension of that.
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 Sure it did, but you also have the risk of dying. But you and a lot of your friends here think the military guys join up shouldn't be held to their contracts. You say, "Oh they signed up but not to fight. Not to be extended. Even if their contract says they can, they didn't mean it". Screw that I signed up, got paid poorly, learned a few things, and went it harms way a couple of times. But I lived up to the contract and demand nothing less of the current batch. 68094[/snapback] Please stop putting words into my mouth. And thanks for your service. My post was not to belittle anyone's service. Only that the government does provide opportunities that better peoples' lives. In your case with special risks involved.
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 I'm not sure what your last statement has to do with anything, but it's obvious you don't know much about the charitible contributions of the two candidates. Do some research. 68073[/snapback] It looks like Bush gives more ($20 grand more this past year) but the sources I've found don't indicate whether that includes Heinz money, which I am inclined to think it does not -- as pretty much all Teresa does is charitable work and loafing.
Alaska Darin Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 It looks like Bush gives more ($20 grand more this past year) but the sources I've found don't indicate whether that includes Heinz money, which I am inclined to think it does not -- as pretty much all Teresa does is charitable work and loafing. 68121[/snapback] Look closely at the time he wasn't married to her. That tells more about the man than anything.
nobody Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 Look closely at the time he wasn't married to her. That tells more about the man than anything. Should do that for both Kerry and Bush.
Adam Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 Stem cell research had BETTER happen. and if Bush stands in the way of it, then he is for those horrible diseases. My father has dementia, so I have a much better perspective on it than Bush does. Maybe we'd be better off if he did have that perspective!
VABills Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 Should do that for both Kerry and Bush. 68161[/snapback] Bush was married to Teresa. Well now that is just wrong.
Evil Bastard Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 Stem cell research had BETTER happen. and if Bush stands in the way of it, then he is for those horrible diseases. 68187[/snapback] Ummm...yeah.
RkFast Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 Stem cell research had BETTER happen. and if Bush stands in the way of it, then he is for those horrible diseases. That makes LOTS of sense.
Chef Jim Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 Your tax dollars are currently being used for this research under the Bush administration. 68067[/snapback] And I disagree with that too.
Kelly the Dog Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 Virtually EVERYONE, from both sides of the aisle, I would think, found Christopher Reeve to be a courageous and a good man. EVERYONE everywhere seemingly admired the enormous and tremendous hard work he put in to not let his tragedy take over his life. And give in. And EVERYONE would, I imagine, wish that everyone with a disability had as good an attitude and a look on life that Christopher Reeve did from the moment of his injury until the moment he died. The ONLY reason Christopher Reeve acted, said, and did what he did in those last several years of his life was directly because he told himself, "One day I will get up out of that wheelchair and walk." It is the one sentence that made him do everything that he did. As Ronald Reagan's daughter recently said, "There is no such thing as false hope. There is only hope or the absence of hope -- nothing else"
Recommended Posts