The Temple of Dagon

Aid packages aren't fired from an assault rifle, man. America gives bullets.

And yes, I'd launch one. I'd opt for the Tsar Bomba model the Rushkies made, and take out most of France.

Enkil wrote:Yea, like you, or any of use, can sign all the wellfare checks they can; even just the legit ones. Or you can provide the support the gov't gave to New Orleans over the course of a single month, even if it was delayed and half assed. Can you provide relative security to a nation spanning over 3000 miles, or give aid packages to various nations across the world?

None of us can, and even though they pull a lot of dirty shit they also do a lot of good.

I do try to help those I can however. I do not use the help I offer as captial for later gain. Show me the good we do, and no, not a link to someone's blog. Show me actual, verifiable sources that We The People are making the world a better place.

Starbucks in Zaire will not cut the mustard, either.

You have to be kidding yourself if you think American doesn't give aid or sign wellfare checks. I never said the world.

Enkil wrote:You have to be kidding yourself if you think American doesn't give aid or sign wellfare checks. I never said the world.

Domestic. Fareign. That is pure semantics. Again, show me what our Nation does for anyone, itself included and does not use that for gain later for those who implement this "help".

odin2 wrote:Ummm, was that a joke?

it's all a joke, my friend. a joke on us

Find the links yourself. I couldn't be assed to waste my time looking for them for someone who blatently denies such a thing or asks for proof. You're probably and apologist too.

decadence wrote:and does not use that for gain later for those who implement this "help".

What does this mean?

JJ Burke wrote:

odin2 wrote:Ummm, was that a joke?

it's all a joke, my friend. a joke on us

What are you talking about?

i'm talking about politics and leadership in general. we (the little guys) are rarely the ones left laughing

Hodgson wrote:

decadence wrote:and does not use that for gain later for those who implement this "help".

What does this mean?

The programs and institutions which I believe that other "creature" is trying to dispell my original statement with, always, without exception, are used to further those in power who push them. History 101. It is a snake, eating its tail, so to speak. This could be seen as my opinion by people who have no grasp of political sciences, so I am not offended by the vehemence expressed. It simply shows who read what they WISH to read and build their world view from, and those whom actually get it. I am not saying anything which is arcane, drug induced, or simply pulled from my ass canyon. Public data refutes the debate, and some people cannot swallow this.

Enkil wrote:Find the links yourself. I couldn't be assed to waste my time looking for them for someone who blatently denies such a thing or asks for proof. You're probably and apologist too.

The first sign a debate has been sodomized into defeat: Insults.

a‧pol‧o‧gist  /əˈpɒlədʒɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-pol-uh-jist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.
2. Ecclesiastical.
a. Also, a‧pol‧o‧gete /əˈpɒləˌdʒit/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-pol-uh-jeet] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation. a person skilled in apologetics.
b. one of the authors of the early Christian apologies in defense of the faith.
[Origin: 1630–40; apolog(y) + -ist or < F apologiste]

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
a·pol·o·gist (-pl-jst) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "apologist" [P]
n.

A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.
------------------

JJ Burke wrote:i'm talking about politics and leadership in general. we (the little guys) are rarely the ones left laughing

Okay, I understand that. But Enkil was only saying that the government provides for people and sends a great deal of assistance to other countries. I wasn't sure whether you were disagreeing with him or only registering a general frustration with the government on more particular grounds. I take it you mean the latter, in which I can also readily assent.

decadence wrote:

Hodgson wrote:

decadence wrote:and does not use that for gain later for those who implement this "help".

What does this mean?

The programs and institutions which I believe that other "creature" is trying to dispell my original statement with, always, without exception, are used to further those in power who push them. History 101. It is a snake, eating its tail, so to speak. This could be seen as my opinion by people who have no grasp of political sciences, so I am not offended by the vehemence expressed. It simply shows who read what they WISH to read and build their world view from, and those whom actually get it. I am not saying anything which is arcane, drug induced, or simply pulled from my ass canyon. Public data refutes the debate, and some people cannot swallow this.

Stellar performance. And I still don't know what you're talking about.

As for your question about foreign aid, here are some links.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ ... 6s1284.xls
http://qesdb.cdie.org/gbk/index.html

The first is given in millions, the second in billions.

i think this debate is more about egos than facts.

the way i see it, this boils down to a question of the ends justifying the means: do our 'good works' offset all the lying, cheating and stealing?

it seems decadence would emphatically say no, while enkil and hodgson might look at it as more of a balancing act. which viewpoint is more valid? one is idealistic, the other is pragmatic. but neither one is being expressed without the corrupting effects of 'me vs. you.'

this is the punchline to the joke of politics. people think they're talking about the big picture, when it's really just a couple of egos trying to score points on each other

JJ Burke wrote:i think this debate is more about egos than facts.

the way i see it, this boils down to a question of the ends justifying the means: do our 'good works' offset all the lying, cheating and stealing?

it seems decadence would emphatically say no, while enkil and hodgson might look at it as more of a balancing act. which viewpoint is more valid? one is idealistic, the other is pragmatic. but neither one is being expressed without the corrupting effects of 'me vs. you.'

this is the punchline to the joke of politics. people think they're talking about the big picture, when it's really just a couple of egos trying to score points on each other

I asked D what he was talking about and he came back with snakes eating their tales and 'ass canyons'. Since it seemed impossible to formulate any considerable response to what looked mainly like irate gibberish, I essentially signed off, giving him links to information he asked for.

Does that make it 'me vs. you'? I also asked you what you were referring to, but you told me in a few words, I agreed and that was the end of it.

I don't think my ego's gotten the better of me. But D carries on like this all the time.