Community

General discussion

Locked

1? 2? 3? There Goes Another

By Peter Warren ·
In the world today, on each and every day of each and every year, a child starves to death or dies from hunger related diseases every three seconds. 1... 2? 3? there goes one. 1? 2? 3? and another 1? 2? 3? and another 1... .2? 3? one more???.

And what is the response of our government, the ?Christian values? people in power in America? The silence is deafening isn?t it.

1?2?3? another child 1?2?3? and another. While the ?Christian family values? Republicans plough hundreds of billions to the wealthiest Americans, while they pour hundreds of billions into Iraq, and hundreds more into our war machine, remember - 1? 2 ? 3? there goes another.

While the ?Christian? right fights against birth control, reproductive choice and AIDS vaccines; while it wastes our time and money on futile attempts to outlaw all things sexual outside of marriage between one man and one woman; while it rails against homosexuality and vilifies its opponents, remember - 1? 2? 3? another child gone.

While Republican supporters twist all logic in a vain attempt to be both Christian and free-market capitalists, remember - 1 ? 2 ? 3, another child dies

The farcical tragedy of America?s ?Christian family values? Republicans and ?Christian? right is that they are even less Christian than I am. 1? 2? 3? 1? 2? 3??................... ?????????????????????????????????????.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Puppy chow

by Peter Warren In reply to That would be nice

--According to you, we're going to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans, stop the war in Iraq and let the chips fall where they may, dismantle the military, and prevent Congress from allocating funds for all projects since all projects have some pork built in. Oh, and I assume that you want to remove Congress totally since it's filled with "a bumper crop of hypocrites and liars". I assume that you would prefer a dictatorship? Or is that only if the dictator happens to be an atheist Democrat??

You have quite an imagination.

-- Now we have billions and billions of dollars to spend on your poor dying children. ?

Their not particularly my children, but watch out, you?re providing a fine example of what it means to be a bogus, right wing ?Christian.?

--How would you suggest the money be distributed so it is fair and equitable for all concerned and remove all possibility of fraud or theft? ?

I?ve put in a call to Tom Delay. I?m sure he?ll know about fair and equitable for all concerned and removing all possibility of fraud or theft. Nice try pb, but people who live in glass houses shouldn?t throw stones.


--And please remember that any plan you come up with has to be done in less than six months because that's about as long as the country would last after making your well thought out changes.--

They aren?t my well thought out changes, they?re yours. You came up with them.

Collapse -

not rationalization,

by TonytheTiger In reply to That would be nice

sarcasm. One thing I've noticed about most liberals: Everything good that happens is always their own doing, but everything bad that happens is always someone else's fault. I suppose one has to fill an empty soul with something!

Collapse -

Maybe I misunderstood you

by puppybreath In reply to That would be nice

When you stated that one of the problems with the current administration was that they "subsidize tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans" weren't you advocating that taxes be increased for these individuals? If not, what exactly is your point?

And when you complained that the current administration was responsible for babies' deaths because they "contribute to the hundreds of billions being poured into the boy emperor's Iraqi adventure" - weren't you advocating that we end the war in Iraq and remove the possibility of spending additional billions of dollars? If not, what exactly is your point?

And when you complained that the current administration was responsible for babies' deaths because they "help fund a war machine that soaks up more money than the total spent by all of our allies and enemies combined" - weren't you advocating that we cut military spending which in effect dismantles the miltary? If not, what exactly is your point?

And when you complained that the current Congress was responsible for babies' deaths because they create "a host of wasteful pork barrel projects to benefit "connected" business cronies of our elected ?representatives?" weren't you advocating that we stop projects that have pork attached which is effect all projects? If not, what exactly is your point?

And when you complained that the current Congress was responsible for babies' deaths because they create "a host of wasteful pork barrel projects to help assure reelection of the current bumper crop of hypocrites and liars." weren't you advocating the removal of all of these hypocrites and liars? If not, what exactly is your point?

And your flippant comment regarding Tom Delay didn't answer my original question - "Now we have billions and billions of dollars to spend on your poor dying children. How would you suggest the money be distributed so it is fair and equitable for all concerned and remove all possibility of fraud or theft?"

Would you please explain what your plan would be assuming that money was allocated for the expressed purpose of saving all of the starving children in the world? Please, no changing the subject, throwing out insults, or using your 1-2-3 comments. Just answer the question. What's your plan?

It's OK to admit you don't have a plan, most liberals only complain and whine without offering solutions. But at least admit it so we know where you stand.

Collapse -

You did

by Peter Warren In reply to That would be nice

I'll explain it when I have more time.

Collapse -

Puppy Chow - part 2

by Peter Warren In reply to That would be nice

--When you stated that one of the problems with the current administration was that they "subsidize tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans" weren't you advocating that taxes be increased for these individuals? If not, what exactly is your point??

Yes, I was advocating repealing the wildly irresponsible tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. For example, last year?s energy bill included as much as $15 billion in tax breaks for the struggling American oil industry. What? They don?t make enough already? We have to subsidize them to get them to spend money on exploration, refineries, and alternative energy?

--And when you complained that the current administration was responsible for babies' deaths because they "contribute to the hundreds of billions being poured into the boy emperor's Iraqi adventure" - weren't you advocating that we end the war in Iraq and remove the possibility of spending additional billions of dollars? If not, what exactly is your point??

To date, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the US admits spending $277 billion dollars on the boy emperor?s Iraqi adventure. This sum would have been enough to fully fund global anti-hunger efforts for 11 years. Worst of all, because of their dangerous naivet? and blind refusal to listen to more knowledgeable experts, the boy emperor and his chicken hawk, neo-conservative policy wonks have put us in a bind from which we cannot escape unscathed. The chips always fall where they may. The best anyone can do is to conduct the nation?s business in as judicious a manner as possible. As far as Iraq is concerned, this administration clearly threw all caution to the wind, and that?s always a sure-fire formula for fiascos like the boy emperor?s Iraqi adventure.

The opportunity to save the $277 billion we?ve already wasted in Iraq was lost about five weeks after the invasion, when the consequences of going to war without a plan began to manifest themselves. To just blindly cut and run will only compound the damage, but this possibility is made all the more likely because of the ongoing asinine Iraqi policy of the boy emperor and his minions.

--And when you complained that the current administration was responsible for babies' deaths because they "help fund a war machine that soaks up more money than the total spent by all of our allies and enemies combined" - weren't you advocating that we cut military spending which in effect dismantles the miltary? If not, what exactly is your point? ?

The FY?06 Defense Authorization bill includes $441.6 billion for the Department of Defense and the nuclear weapons activities of the Department of Energy. This is $19.5 billion above the amount authorized for FY?05. The bill also authorizes another $49.1 billion (and counting) for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This funding is NOT counted as part of the $441.6 billion. Compared to the rest of the world, US military spending is:
? Two-fifths of the total
? 7 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender
? 29 times as large as the combined spending of the six ?rogue? states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.65 billion
? More than the combined spending of the next 14 nations.

The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea). The six potential rogue state ?enemies,? as well as Russia and China, together spend $139 billion, 30% of the U.S. military budget.
Just how would cutting military spending ?dismantle? the military? Are you seriously arguing that we can?t afford to reduce this bloated budget?

?Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes ? known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.? No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.?
James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

--And when you complained that the current Congress was responsible for babies' deaths because they create "a host of wasteful pork barrel projects to benefit "connected" business cronies of our elected ?representatives?" weren't you advocating that we stop projects that have pork attached which is effect all projects? If not, what exactly is your point? --

I don?t think I need to respond to this sophistry, but I?ll give it the answer it deserves. Unlike simple-minded buffoons who can only see the world as black or white, I know intelligent leadership can significantly reduce unnecessary pork.

And when you complained that the current Congress was responsible for babies' deaths because they create "a host of wasteful pork barrel projects to help assure reelection of the current bumper crop of hypocrites and liars." weren't you advocating the removal of all of these hypocrites and liars? If not, what exactly is your point?

Yes, by the electoral process, which you seem to have confused with ?removing congress totally and preferring a dictatorship.?

--And your flippant comment regarding Tom Delay didn't answer my original question.?

But it does draw attention to Republican hypocrisy and point out the sophistry that you like to substitute for legitimate discussion.

--Would you please explain what your plan would be assuming that money was allocated for the expressed purpose of saving all of the starving children in the world? Please, no changing the subject, throwing out insults, or using your 1-2-3 comments. Just answer the question. What's your plan? It's OK to admit you don't have a plan, most liberals only complain and whine without offering solutions. But at least admit it so we know where you stand.?

I?m working on it. It will be an outline of already existing plans for saving the children who are starving to death and dieing of hunger related diseases at the rate of ONE EVERY THREE SECONDS OF EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY HOUR OF EVERY DAY OF EVERY YEAR. You guessed it. I?ll use whatever comments I please. Remember 1 2 3, 1 2 3, 1 2 3, and on and on and on ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Collapse -

Thanks for the clarification

by puppybreath In reply to That would be nice

Sorry, but your response has generated a couple of more questions. I hope you don't mind but you are so knowledgeable about everything happening in the world.

If we take away tax cuts from the oil companies, isn't there a chance that the unemployment rate will go up as the companies cut back to keep their investors happy? And wouldn't a higher unemployment rate mean less tax dollars for the children? And if the profits of the oil companies fall because of the increased takes, doesn't that mean less taxes for the Government?

If we cut back on military spending, doesn't that also mean less soldiers which also means adding to the unemployment rate and means fewer dollars for the children?

Where are you going to find these politicians who are going to work to eliminate pork when the pork is what is keeping them elected? A new comer to politics who advocates cutting special projects in his/her district would never get elected since it would adversly affect the voters. And even if some did get elected, one term wouldn't be enough time to get things done and they'd never get re-elected if the cuts they advocate meant jobs at home. So how do you correct this and get the right people in office, by your standards?

You are advocating that we spend billions of dollars to save dying children which is indeed a noble cause. Bush spent billions of dollars saving millions of people in Iraq. Are they less important than your children? Should we ignore them and their problems and focus solely on the starving children? Or should we spend our tax dollars saving the entire world from all problems?

Have you finalized your plan yet? Remember, 1,2,3 children are dying while you're still trying to come up with a plan. 1,2,3 - there go three more. Stop stalling and get this fixed. 1,2,3 you're not trying hard enough.

BTW, what are your qualifications for solving the world's problems? What makes you ideas that much better than all of those who have tried before you? I know your parents must be proud that they raised someone of such a superior intellect. After all, you can use words like sophistry in a sentence so you must be smart.

Why don't you get elected and then you would have a better chance of completing your noble mission? It would be outstanding to have someone of your intellect and moral fiber in politics.

Collapse -

Alternative energy

by TonytheTiger In reply to That would be nice

Why would you think that Oil companies should be required to have anything to do with alternative (assumedly non-oil based] energy sources?

Collapse -

I don't mind

by Peter Warren In reply to That would be nice

--If we take away tax cuts from the oil companies, isn't there a chance that the unemployment rate will go up as the companies cut back to keep their investors happy? And wouldn't a higher unemployment rate mean less tax dollars for the children? And if the profits of the oil companies fall because of the increased takes, doesn't that mean less taxes for the Government?--

Such a miniscule amount of US tax money is going to feed starving children that your question only serves to beg the question: why should oil companies with record profits need subsidies for anything? They only employ people they need, so fairly taxing them is not a concern. If they need them, they?ll employ them. If they don?t, they won?t. Fairly taxing oil companies will never mean less tax revenue for the government.

--If we cut back on military spending, doesn't that also mean less soldiers which also means adding to the unemployment rate and means fewer dollars for the children?--

This is a far cry from ?dismantling? the military. And no, if we use our resources wisely, cutting back on military spending need not translate into unemployment.

--Where are you going to find these politicians who are going to work to eliminate pork when the pork is what is keeping them elected? A new comer to politics who advocates cutting special projects in his/her district would never get elected since it would adversly affect the voters. And even if some did get elected, one term wouldn't be enough time to get things done and they'd never get re-elected if the cuts they advocate meant jobs at home. So how do you correct this and get the right people in office, by your standards?--

That' the problem, isn't it? I support a line item veto for the President. And I think all ?unrelated pork? that is attached to bills should be struck as a matter of course. If a congress person wants to pass a spending bill for a project in his or her district, then put such a bill on the floor and let it stand or fall on its own merits.

--You are advocating that we spend billions of dollars to save dying children which is indeed a noble cause. Bush spent billions of dollars saving millions of people in Iraq. Are they less important than your children? Should we ignore them and their problems and focus solely on the starving children? Or should we spend our tax dollars saving the entire world from all problems?.--

I don?t believe in destroying a country in order to save it. The war was ill-conceived, poorly planned and miserably executed by a group of chicken hawk neo-cons with fanciful dreams of dominating the world. We?d do ourselves a lot more good feeding starving children. And it would cost much less.


--Have you finalized your plan yet? Remember, 1,2,3 children are dying while you're still trying to come up with a plan. 1,2,3 - there go three more. Stop stalling and get this fixed. 1,2,3 you're not trying hard enough.
BTW, what are your qualifications for solving the world's problems? What makes you ideas that much better than all of those who have tried before you? I know your parents must be proud that they raised someone of such a superior intellect. After all, you can use words like sophistry in a sentence so you must be smart.
Why don't you get elected and then you would have a better chance of completing your noble mission? It would be outstanding to have someone of your intellect and moral fiber in politics.--

My qualifications come from the insistent calls for me to come up with a solution. In any case, plans already exist. All I can do is summarize them for you. Or you can do a search on global hunger and see what?s going on. You give me far too much credit for having original solutions. I never claimed to, nor is that important. What is important is that we, as a nation, begin to seriously try living up to our own high standards.

Collapse -

A question

by maxwell edison In reply to 1? 2? 3? There Goes Anoth ...

Therefore what?

Please be VERY specific.

By the way, the United Nations World Food Program says every five seconds. Where did you get three? And the bulk of the problem is in Africa.

So be VERY, VERY specific as to your proposed solution (you DO have a proposed solution, DON'T YOU?), and answer the "therefore what" question.

And considering epw will probably not answer (since this was just a thinly veiled disguise to, yet again, criticize the Bush administration), anyone else is certainly welcome to answer in his or her behalf.

Collapse -

Huge hurtle

by JamesRL In reply to A question

One of the reasons why government aid is ineffective, and private aid doesn't have sufficient reach is the amount of political corruption in many parts of Africa. Aid gets skimmed or outright stolen. Those in need starve while theives prosper.

I don't have a ready solution. I would propose that our governments work with other governments to find ways to reduce this corruption and theft - that could be a bigger contribution than increasing the government's donations. Private charities may be better at getting aid directly to those in need because they have feet on the ground. Governments could find ways to help them.

This is a prime example where "throwing money" at the problem doesn't work.

My family directly supports an orphanage in South Africa for aids babies. One of the congregation where my wife goes to church works there almost full time. I know evey dollar is improving the lives of some small child in Africa.

James

Related Discussions

Related Forums