Bush is Safer

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

Now that Bush’s term is winding down, I wanted to highlight a common phenomena. The liberal press, after years of outright hostility to GWB, is actually trying to understand him.

In other words, now that he isn’t such a “threat” to their pet causes/influence, they are doing what they should have been doing all along.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717934,00.html

I encourage everyone to read this. (Don’t worry, Bush Brain Freezers, there’s enough Anti-Bush rhetoric to give you wood.)

JeffR

2

Good article.

3

A story about about US taxpayer funded foreign welfare projects? I guess that might be something for a liberal to enjoy.

4

Wow. Good read. Thanks.

5

[quote]Sloth wrote:
A story about about US taxpayer funded foreign welfare projects? I guess that might be something for a liberal to enjoy.[/quote]

Or maybe you should read the rest and see that the basic reason behind those “welfare projects” is to try and prevent hopeless people. “Hopelessness breeds extremism.” I can’t disagree with that.

Note that all that’s being spent by the US in Africa is but a tiny fraction of what you spend in a month in Iraq.

Prevention and compassion before a bad situation degenerates is probably a lot cheaper in the long run than ruthlessness and intervention after it has. And not just in cash, but in human lives and pain an anguish.

There is something sick with people denouncing money being spent to help ease human suffering…

6

YEah pookie there’s a little something wrong with all of us.

7

I have heard that some Africans are of the opinion that the vaccines being brought in are not vaccines at all but the diseases themselves to try and make them sick and die so white people can take over or something.

8

Pookie, don’t you know feeding the hungry is altruistic and therefore evil and will lead to global totalitarianism?

9

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
A story about about US taxpayer funded foreign welfare projects? I guess that might be something for a liberal to enjoy.

Or maybe you should read the rest and see that the basic reason behind those “welfare projects” is to try and prevent hopeless people. “Hopelessness breeds extremism.” I can’t disagree with that.

Note that all that’s being spent by the US in Africa is but a tiny fraction of what you spend in a month in Iraq.

Prevention and compassion before a bad situation degenerates is probably a lot cheaper in the long run than ruthlessness and intervention after it has. And not just in cash, but in human lives and pain an anguish.

There is something sick with people denouncing money being spent to help ease human suffering…
[/quote]

Oh yeah, sure, we’re already going bankrupt through domestic welfare programs, might as well speed up the process by increasing spending on foreign welfare programs. WE’RE ALREADY BORROWING MONEY FROM THE SAUDS AND CHINA TO FIGHT OUR OWN WARS, AND TO PAY OFF DICTATORS!

When will people learn this isn’t the government’s money? If one feels the need, go through a private charity for goodness sake. Stop praising these politicians for spending money we don’t have. Cripes, does anyone keep a checkbook balanced?

10

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Pookie, don’t you know feeding the hungry is altruistic and therefore evil and will lead to global totalitarianism?[/quote]

Hey, Zap. If you’re willing to spend US taxpayer money on welfare programs, how about we at least keep it domestic? We could use it to make sure illegal aliens can afford to eat, recieve medical treatment, and put a roof over their head. I mean, as long as we’re going to spend the taxpayer’s money on non-citizens, why not those that are already here?

Or, we could, you know, redirect foreign aid funds towards our debt, paying for our own military adventures, infrastructure, shoring up what entitlement programs we already have, etc.

Yeah, good 'ole big spending, big government Bush. What a great legacy.

Edit: Our GAO has told us we’re heading into a financial crisis if we don’t make dramatic cuts in our spending. Charitable? What’s charitable about adding even more debt our own children’s shoulders? You people would bankrupt the next generation so you folks can feel good about yourselves today? So you don’t actually have to mail out your own money to a private charitable organization?

How dare anyone try to call this altruism, and try to place a guilt trip on me.

11

In my Anthropology class, we just learned about balanced polymorphism, and heterozygote advantage in regards to malaria.

Apparantly, the gene that causes sickle cell anemia, also protects against malaria. If you have 2 copies of the gene you get sickle cell anemia and die. If you don’t have any copies of the gene and catch malaria, you will likely die. If you just have 1 copy of the gene, you will have protection from malaria, but not have full blown sickle cell anemia and be at a unique advantage for survival in malarial regions.

This was interesting stuff, I wonder if people should be screwing around with natural selection like this, curing every disease like this, and screwing up natures plan.

Same thing with cystic fibrosis, and a plethora of genetic diseases.

12

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
A story about about US taxpayer funded foreign welfare projects? I guess that might be something for a liberal to enjoy.

Or maybe you should read the rest and see that the basic reason behind those “welfare projects” is to try and prevent hopeless people. “Hopelessness breeds extremism.” I can’t disagree with that.

Note that all that’s being spent by the US in Africa is but a tiny fraction of what you spend in a month in Iraq.

Prevention and compassion before a bad situation degenerates is probably a lot cheaper in the long run than ruthlessness and intervention after it has. And not just in cash, but in human lives and pain an anguish.

There is something sick with people denouncing money being spent to help ease human suffering…
[/quote]

If I may chime in, and I may because it is an open forum, I see both points. I agree with sloth in that, America is spread to thin militarily and financially around the world. We have many programs and project internationally that are unnecessary and expensive.

I disagree with pookie’s harshness in dealing with you, because you have always been articulate and intelligent in your arguments and always been a worth opponent to those who disagree; BUT I agree whole heartedly with pookie’s point.
I africa there is much despair and hopelessness. I don’t talk about it a lot, but it does bother me a lot that it is happening. But that’s not why I agree with Pookie. Oppressors, tyrants, dictators and enemies prey on this hopelessness to gain power. All they have to do is relieve this desperateness just enough and they have the support of the people. Hell, look at Hezbolah, Hamas, Chavez, etc.

Al qaeda is in Africa it is gaining a base their. The U.S. is aware of it and doing several things to combat it, it is just not news worthy to our media. If we can gain advantage by helping the people they are trying to gain favor with, it will prevent a lot of blood in the long run. On top of that, we help people who really need it, so it is a total win, win for the U.S.

One of the biggest african fronts against islamic terrorism is in Somalia and is being fought by Ethiopia at our request. Their soldiers are their putting their lives on the line for us as well as themselves. Yet the country needs things from us and we are not doing enough to help them. God forbid they turn on us, Somalia makes Iraq look like Switzerland in it’s stability. They have no government. Hopefully we have pledged more aid and dough to them otherwise we’ll have an african front sooner than later and sooner is not good in out current situation.
In the end I do believe their will be an african front to the war, but hopefully what we are doing now will make it a minimal event.

13

We weren’t attacked because we weren’t bribing enough people to fight Islamists (i.e. foreign aid). We were attacked because we CHOSE to enter conflicts that weren’t ours.

14

[quote]Sloth wrote:
We weren’t attacked because we weren’t bribing enough people to fight Islamists (i.e. foreign aid). We were attacked because we CHOSE to enter conflicts that weren’t ours.[/quote]

Easy Sloth, your posts are starting to sound like mine.

Dustin

15

Well, I don’t understand what’s so controversial about it, Dustin. Seems like common sense to me. If you protect a regime from it’s enemies, congrats, you’ve adopted those enemies. If you arm one side in a conflict, you’re now viewed as being part of the conflict by the other side.

16

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, I don’t understand what’s so controversial about it, Dustin. Seems like common sense to me. If you protect a regime from it’s enemies, congrats, you’ve adopted those enemies. If you arm one side in a conflict, you’re now viewed as being part of the conflict by the other side.[/quote]

I agree, it isn’t. For some reason many see it as controversial.

Dustin

17

[quote]Sloth wrote:
pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
A story about about US taxpayer funded foreign welfare projects? I guess that might be something for a liberal to enjoy.

Or maybe you should read the rest and see that the basic reason behind those “welfare projects” is to try and prevent hopeless people. “Hopelessness breeds extremism.” I can’t disagree with that.

Note that all that’s being spent by the US in Africa is but a tiny fraction of what you spend in a month in Iraq.

Prevention and compassion before a bad situation degenerates is probably a lot cheaper in the long run than ruthlessness and intervention after it has. And not just in cash, but in human lives and pain an anguish.

There is something sick with people denouncing money being spent to help ease human suffering…

Oh yeah, sure, we’re already going bankrupt through domestic welfare programs, might as well speed up the process by increasing spending on foreign welfare programs. WE’RE ALREADY BORROWING MONEY FROM THE SAUDS AND CHINA TO FIGHT OUR OWN WARS, AND TO PAY OFF DICTATORS!

When will you people learn that this isn’t the government’s money? If you feel the need, go through a private charity for goodness sake. Stop praising these politicians for spending money we don’t have. Cripes, does anyone here keep a checkbook balanced?[/quote]

I think Sloth’s point is a good one. Going further into debt to be charitable is plain stupid.

Bush should be impeached and he’s trying to rebuild his image by helping poor Africans.

He’s a phony. Put him on a plane to Bagdad and let him fight his own fucking wars!

18

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
A story about about US taxpayer funded foreign welfare projects? I guess that might be something for a liberal to enjoy.

Or maybe you should read the rest and see that the basic reason behind those “welfare projects” is to try and prevent hopeless people. “Hopelessness breeds extremism.” I can’t disagree with that.

Note that all that’s being spent by the US in Africa is but a tiny fraction of what you spend in a month in Iraq.

Prevention and compassion before a bad situation degenerates is probably a lot cheaper in the long run than ruthlessness and intervention after it has. And not just in cash, but in human lives and pain an anguish.

There is something sick with people denouncing money being spent to help ease human suffering…
[/quote]

Spend your own money. I work hard for my money and I think I should be the one to choose how MY money is spent. The people in Africa should rely on private charity.

It also wouldn’t hurt if they’d quit killing each other and have stable societies. Then their economies could grow and they wouldn’t have to rely on criminal Bush and his charity (at taxpayer expense).

19

I didn’t mean to come off angry with anyone here, if I did. But, for me personally, the notion that Bush has saved his legacy because he’s been a big spender, doesn’t sit well. And, it’s not comforting if Republicans pull a “see, he’s not evil, he’ll spend money we don’t have to help non-citizens!” I’d rather a Republican President’s legacy to shaped from shrinking government, budget surpluses, dramatically lower spending. But, now we’re to praise him for increased spending? How things have changed.

20

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I didn’t mean to come off angry with anyone here, if I did. But, for me personally, the notion that Bush has saved his legacy because he’s been a big spender, doesn’t sit well. And, it’s not comforting if Republicans pull a “see, he’s not evil, he’ll spend money we don’t have to help non-citizens!” I’d rather a Republican President’s legacy to shaped from shrinking government, budget surpluses, dramatically lower spending. But, now we’re to praise him for increased spending? How things have changed.[/quote]

Oil is over $100 a barrel, and it costs me at least $10 a day to get to work. That’s over $2500 a year, and Bush is worried about Africans and how he’ll look in his legacy.

I own a small business and all I want is to be basically let alone. I don’t need or want to give money that I sweated for to anyone, unless I want to.

To watch this idiot pour out hundreds of billions into stupid wars and profligate spending galls the hell out of me. Trouble is that the next bunch to get into the White House is even worse. They actually want to spend more on all their stupid programs.