Haiti wiped off the map

[Schmeltz]

One young man yelled at reporters in English: "Too many people are dying. We need international help ... no emergency, no food, no phone, no water, no nothing." - Reuters (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/100114/world/international_us_quake_haiti)

A colossal 7.0 quake hit just miles from Port-au-Prince. The port, the airport, the hospitals, the UN HQ, the presidential palace, the cathedral, the Parliament house, and thousands of homes are destroyed. There's no police presence and emergency services are apparently nonexistent. The entire nation is overwhelmed. A hundred thousand people could be dead. It's a catastrophic tragedy of historic proportions.

It's also a chance for the international system to pull together and score a shot for global humanitarianism. It seems clear that Haiti can't salvage itself from the magnitude of this disaster; its entire structure is simply unable to cope. It's therefore the scope and efficiency of the international community's response to this horrific event that will ultimately determine the scale of the damage and destruction. The survival of an entire nation could hinge on the speed and skill with which its neighbours can take up its burdens. Will the nations of the world move quickly enough to help one of their own, or will Haiti be allowed to collapse in the wake of a natural disaster?

I think the end of 2009 saw a real tremor go through the whole framework of international relations when the climate change talks came to nothing in Copenhagen. The frustration and lack of cooperation between the major players sabotaged any real progress on one of the most significant global issues of our time, and left me feeling disappointed in the prospect of the cooperative resolution of any other. I really hope that 2010 will see a turnaround in the attitude of uncompromising self-interest that's come to dominate international relations in the last few years. The infliction of truly crippling damage to a struggling and neglected member of the world community is a chance for the spirit of cooperation and generosity to manifest itself within that community. And for the millions affected by the chaos and death in Haiti, there couldn't be more at stake.

[Randetica]

that earth quake seems a bit late, most real damage bringing ones seem to shake at end of december and it usually always hits the poorest of the poor ones


i watch news all the time and hope help will arrive soon

[valvano]

they obviously need higher taxes on the wealthy, more govt regulation, more environment controls, free and public access to abortion, and a card - check unionization effort to recover from this disaster...

[saz]

you even have to troll and politicize a thread about the disaster in haiti? what the fuck is wrong with you?

[Echewta]

Excellent well thought out point Valvano. I agree 100 percent.

Thats why the U.S. didn't accept any assistants during Katrina, 9/11 in NY, and the invasion of Iraq. Because of the policies you point out, the U.S. was able to take care of itself. I'm suprised the world hasn't figure out the key to success yet.

[valvano]

you even have to troll and politicize a thread about the disaster in haiti? what the fuck is wrong with you?

actually, if you want to know the truth, our church took up an offering last night for the IMB (International Mission Board), a Baptist based mission service, along with a dontation of supplies several other churches in our area are pooling together...

what did you do besides wake up this morning, eat your fruit loops, check you facebook status, and go to politcal science class???:rolleyes:

[saz]

shocking, another juvenile and snide post from you. i'm neither a student nor do i eat fruit loops, sorry to disappoint, but please keep up the generalizing.

in fact, you could've just mentioned in your first post what your church did to assist the situation, instead of acting like a troll.

[Drederick Tatum]

I'm not sure you should be helping the Haitians, valvano, because according to one of your country's most powerful Christian leaders, they're in league with the devil. (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/01/13/haiti.pat.robertson/index.html)

how about taking up an offering and writing to him as a fellow Christian to condemn such mindless musings?

[Echewta]

Giving a few bucks is the easiest thing someone can do. Giving to a group that does missionary work has more to do with converting than helping, I'm sure. If not, you would have given to a aid agency that doesn't have a religious agenda.

Weak example of doing something.

[Whatitis]

they obviously need higher taxes on the wealthy, more govt regulation, more environment controls, free and public access to abortion, and a card - check unionization effort to recover from this disaster...

I'm surprised you didn't break out with the 'It was Gods way of punishing the Haitians for their evil Haitian ways'.

[Bob]

they obviously need higher taxes on the wealthy, more govt regulation, more environment controls, free and public access to abortion, and a card - check unionization effort to recover from this disaster...

hundreds of thousands dead and this is where your brain goes

[RobMoney$]

I think the end of 2009 saw a real tremor go through the whole framework of international relations when the climate change talks came to nothing in Copenhagen. The frustration and lack of cooperation between the major players sabotaged any real progress on one of the most significant global issues of our time, and left me feeling disappointed in the prospect of the cooperative resolution of any other. I really hope that 2010 will see a turnaround in the attitude of uncompromising self-interest that's come to dominate international relations in the last few years. The infliction of truly crippling damage to a struggling and neglected member of the world community is a chance for the spirit of cooperation and generosity to manifest itself within that community. And for the millions affected by the chaos and death in Haiti, there couldn't be more at stake.


Interesting that no one chose to criticize Schmeltz's post for politicizing the catastrophe.



Copenhagen? Really?

Suggesting nations would hesitate to aid the disaster because of political differences seems pretty disgraceful if you ask me.
If you can produce some evidence of a nation being guilty of such, I'd love to be enlightened.

[valvano]

Giving a few bucks is the easiest thing someone can do. Giving to a group that does missionary work has more to do with converting than helping, I'm sure. If not, you would have given to a aid agency that doesn't have a religious agenda.

Weak example of doing something.

what have you done about anything beside bitch like a baby on some internet message board?

not all work that is done through mission / religious programs is about converting people...i guess you dont support habitat for humanity, for example?

you must lead a sad and dark existence to be this negative towards things...

[saz]

what have you done about anything beside bitch like a baby on some internet message board?

you must lead a sad and dark existence to be this negative towards things...

the irony is astounding, as all you do on here is whine and cry and act like an obnoxious teenage brat.

[Drederick Tatum]

Interesting that no one chose to criticize Schmeltz's post for politicizing the catastrophe.



Copenhagen? Really?

Suggesting nations would hesitate to aid the disaster because of political differences seems pretty disgraceful if you ask me.
If you can produce some evidence of a nation being guilty of such, I'd love to be enlightened.

how is expressing a desire for more global cooperation and generosity after a major breakdown in international diplomacy similar to linking the disaster to divisive political issues?

[saz]

Interesting that no one chose to criticize Schmeltz's post for politicizing the catastrophe.



Copenhagen? Really?

Suggesting nations would hesitate to aid the disaster because of political differences seems pretty disgraceful if you ask me.
If you can produce some evidence of a nation being guilty of such, I'd love to be enlightened.

he didn't politicize anything. he cited the failure of copenhagen as a major international let down, while hoping that in 2010 the world's major players will pay more considerable attention to a neglected state such as haiti.

[RobMoney$]

how is expressing a desire for more global cooperation and generosity after a major breakdown in international diplomacy similar to linking the disaster to divisive political issues?


I fail to see how nations differing on opinion on politics in Copenhagen and the enviorment would lead anyone to draw a line to suggesting ANYONE would hesitate to provide support for a natural disaster.

Schmeltz suggessted politics were the reason for the lack of humanitarian support. There was no evidence of that being the case. at all.
Such a statement is criticizing America because of our role in Copenhagen, and I think that's blantly unfair.

As an American, I was offended.

[RobMoney$]

Photos from Haiti - Very Heavy Stuff.
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/01/haiti_48_hours_later.html

[ms.peachy]

I'm somewhat loathe to admit it, but I'm *a little bit* with Rob on this one. It did seem somewhat opportunistic for Schmelz to jump in on this disaster so quickly with an agenda - much as I might actually support that agenda. In other words, I don't think what Schmelz has said is wrong, but I think throwing it out there so soon is a bit tacky.

The difference between what Schmelz wrote and what valvfuckhead wrote - well actually there are a lot of differences, but besides the one about Schmelz's being thoughtful and well reasoned, was the fact that clearly Schmelz's sentiments are intended to be kind and empathetic, whereas v' are, as usual, a lame attempt at pointscoring off the backs of millions of suffering human beings. As you'll recall, this is the twat who used MCA's cancer diagnosis in the same way to comment on health care, so we should expect no less, or rather, no more of him, really.

[ms.peachy]

Photos from Haiti - Very Heavy Stuff.


Oh man. That picture #15 is going to haunt me all day.:( Not the most graphic image, but the one that hardest for me to take, as a parent.

All those poor people, like their lives weren't already shitty enough.

[RobMoney$]

#27 is the one that got me.

Fuck me.
The gf's been out of work for 4 months, but I'm still donating.

[kaiser soze]

No matter what we do to improve our environment we will never be able to change the fact that earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, and volcanic eruptions happen. This is mother nature at her most violent and we cannot control that.

It is bad enough that some idiots have said some shitty stuff in the media, no need to be mean here - bad words won't change a thing, it won't change someone's political position and it won't change the how people feel about how this disaster is being handled.

[BoggleKing]

I actually have a few friends working down there now with these programs..

http://www.pih.org/home.html

http://doctorswithoutborders.org/

I also have friends who have not heard from their families yet..

Whatever and wherever you can give, please do...

[Randetica]

always a big disaster has to happen before people/countries spend money

many died there before because of starving and no one cared

it will be just another 'few weeks hype' and then people forget again

[Drederick Tatum]

I still don't see this tacky agenda that Schmeltz is supposedly peddling. Are we so cynical that support for increased global humanitarianism is now seen as a political agenda? Robmoney, I think you're rather insecurely jumping to conclusions regarding the target of his measured criticism, or are you just looking for any perceived point of difference to argue about?

I'm sure Schmeltz will be along sometime to clarify his remarks, even though such action is unnecessary.

[RobMoney$]

If my agenda was to simply play devil's advocate for the sake of arguing, I would have posted my opinion within the first few posts.
Originally I thought that the criticism wasn't important enough to include in the discussion. I didn't want to drag a conversation about a tragedy down with petty bickering.
I only decided to post my opinion after everyone jumped on valvano for "politicizing" a tragedy.
At that point, the thread had already been drug down to the partisan bickering level, so no one had anything further to lose.

I really don't know what else to say about the OP.
The critical tone of the last paragraph is unnecessary IMO. He assumes aid is not going to be what it should be because of what happened in Copenhagen.
I don't understand why any nations' opinions and disagreements about CO2 and the enviorment would have any influence whatsoever with charitable aid during a disaster? Does Schmeltz really think that little of his nations leaders?
And if he is suggesting that the leadership of America is that petty, then as an American I'm offended.

Drederick, you called it his "measured criticism", correct?
Why was he criticizing anyone mere hours after the incident occured?
I mean it's telling that someone's mind is on politics at all when deciding to start a discussion like this about such a tragedy.

He made that assumption a mere 2 days after the quake happened.
How long do you think is appropriate to mobilize the various rescue and support efforts, and get them all to Haiti?
I would have loved to have seen support there instantaneously as much as anyone would have, but I also understand reality too and to get upset and start making accusations based on Copenhagen is unfair.

[ms.peachy]

I still don't see this tacky agenda that Schmeltz is supposedly peddling.

To clarify: I did not say that his agenda was tacky; in fact I said I agree with it. What stuck me as a bit tacky was the "too soon" aspect - it seemed (to me - these are only my opinions, no one else is required to share them) that he was jumping in a bit too quickly to use this disaster as a platform from which to air his own political views. Views which, as I said, I happen to (generally) share - just think it was a bit tasteless to voice them when the suffering and tragedy is still so fresh.

[QueenAdrock]

This just about made me cry. (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/01/14/watson.haiti.trapped.girl.update.cnn?hpt=C1)

We've donated to Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross, but I still feel so helpless.

[Guy Incognito]

Photos from Haiti - Very Heavy Stuff.
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/01/haiti_48_hours_later.html

Indeed. the last pic had me welling up.

I know the photographs are doing their job and helping show the plight to millions to help get aid but i honestly dont know how people manage to hold a camera faced with this kind of thing. i would be in pieces and would throw the camera away and help in whatever way possible, it must take a very strong type of person to do that.

[RobMoney$]

Danny Glover tries to one up Pat Robertson and Schmeltz.
Another ridiculous statement, using the Haiti tragedy to further a political platform...

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/pact_with_gaia/


"When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I'm sayin'?"



Maybe Schmeltz was onto something?
Perhaps he was in the right church, but just in the wrong pew.
Perhaps the Earth really has attacked Haiti because of what happened in Copenhagen?
What say all you Global Warming theorists,...do you support the Earth attacking Haiti in this manner?

I for one, think we should pump more CO2 into the atmosphere.
We need to let the Earth know that we will not be bullied.
If we don't respond, then the Earth wins.

This aggression will not stand.

[Drederick Tatum]

you really are tiresome.

[RobMoney$]

Believe me, my feelings for all the uber-liberals are mutual.

[kaiser soze]

Robertson is an uber-liberal now

greeeeeat

[RobMoney$]

Who do you think has a louder voice, Robertson or Hollywood (Glover)?


Some questions I have for Schmeltz and Danny Glover...

Will Haiti continue to take a pounding until "cap and trade" is passed and the government begins to get a handle on CO2 emmissions?

If so is there any sense in trying to rescue and rebuild right now?

Will mother nature move on to destroying other small Caribbean islands until Al Gore is President, or will it always be Haiti that pays for the hubris of man?

What does Mel Gibson think about all of this, and does it have anything to do with Jews?

[Dorothy Wood]

Danny Glover's got your feathers ruffled? DANNY GLOVER?

He's hardly the voice of hollywood, even in his hey day he wasn't that famous.

Give me a fucking break.


The earth buckled, thousands died. There's no reason for anyone to make snide remarks about anything. Seriously, I could fucking puke.

[Drederick Tatum]

Who do you think has a louder voice, Robertson or Hollywood (Glover)?


you're rather misguided/dishonest here in your comparison. why do you decide to attach an entire industry and geographic entity to Glover yet simultaneously frame Robertson as a lone figure even when he is the one that has, among other tools, a television network and a university to his name?

anyway, I've had enough of this. arguing on the internet is only fun when it concerns trivial matters, otherwise it's just depressing.

[WildBaldMonkey]

This just about made me cry. (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/01/14/watson.haiti.trapped.girl.update.cnn?hpt=C1)

We've donated to Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross, but I still feel so helpless.

Wow I can't believe she died...what's worse is I'm sure there's hundreds more like her, or more......

[kaiser soze]

Who do you think has a louder voice, Robertson or Hollywood (Glover)?



actually it would be Limbaugh who has the loudest voice

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/01/15/2010-01-15_rush_limbaugh_haiti_earthquake_comments_are_rea lly_stupid_says_white_house_press.html

There's no reason for anyone to make snide remarks about anything. Seriously, I could fucking puke.

true, such a shame

[Schmeltz]

Seriously, valvano, stay the hell out of my threads. I don't appreciate you coming along and dumbing down the discussion with your repetitive broken-record litany of right-wing buzzword bullshit. Just fuck off.


What stuck me as a bit tacky was the "too soon" aspect - it seemed (to me - these are only my opinions, no one else is required to share them) that he was jumping in a bit too quickly to use this disaster as a platform from which to air his own political views.

I understand your point, but after all this is the General Political board. We discuss the political aspects of events here. If you're not going to politicize a subject you're discussing, then why post it here? We can make a thread in Beastie-Free about all the suffering and tragedy in Haiti, if we want, but my guess is it will be pretty insubstantial stuff. I don't see anything inappropriate about discussing politics in the political forum.

Second: I was actually quite surprised that this was the first thread made about what is clearly an event of historical proportions. This is the information age, the era of instant communication and access to vast amounts of information. It doesn't make much sense to me to hold off on discussing events of major impact out of some abstract sense of propriety. At what point is it not "too soon" to discuss something this major? A week? On September 11th, 2001, how long did it take for the internet to explode with frenetic discussion of any and all points of view? Minutes. How long should we have waited before it would have been appropriate to talk about it?

The quake in Haiti is an event of monumental significance and global repercussions, and therefore an opportunity for dissection and analysis. This doesn't in any way undercut the tragedy and horror of what's happened, and I think my initial post took that into account. I don't see why we should refrain from discussing any aspect of it, as long as it's clear that our respect and compassion for the victims remains undiminished.


He assumes aid is not going to be what it should be because of what happened in Copenhagen.
I don't understand why any nations' opinions and disagreements about CO2 and the enviorment would have any influence whatsoever with charitable aid during a disaster?

As usual, you've completely missed the point of what I was saying, although I’m pleased to see most everyone else here seems to have picked up on it. But just for the sake of clarification: nowhere did I say or even imply that any nation would refrain from helping Haiti out of self-interest or contention. What I said was:


It's therefore the scope and efficiency of the international community's response to this horrific event that will ultimately determine the scale of the damage and destruction. The survival of an entire nation could hinge on the speed and skill with which its neighbours can take up its burdens.

So if you actually read my post you will note that my concern wasn't with whether Haiti would receive any help at all, but whether the international community could cooperate and coordinate its efforts in a manner sufficient to meet Haiti's overwhelming and desperate need for immediate assistance. As it turns out, this concern wasn’t entirely unwarranted (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100116/world/haiti_quake). The whole point of this thread was to put the quake in the international context and express my hope that the world’s response to it would serve as an opportunity to counter the discord and lack of cooperation that characterized the most recent international summit on a global issue – ie Copenhagen. I think Randetica is on point here:

always a big disaster has to happen before people/countries spend money

many died there before because of starving and no one cared

it will be just another 'few weeks hype' and then people forget again

Most of the time the nations of the world are ambivalent at best about the plight of their impoverished and struggling neighbours, like Haiti, and concerned largely with forwarding their own interests. Copenhagen was only the latest example of this tragic trend. Now an unprecedented crisis is testing not just the people of Haiti but the ability of the world to help it. It’s a dramatic, historic trial of the system of international relations. I only hope we can move forward from it with some productive lessons learned.

Of course in typical right-wing blowhard fashion you’re so busy going out of your way to be offended that you totally missed the point, but it’s not as though anything more is ever expected from you. And of course this also means all your silly bullshit about CO2 emissions is just so much hot air. Pun intended. But let me ask you this: where do you get off pretending to be all “offended” by my concern about international cooperation, and then turning around and spouting off a bunch of cheap, snide jokes about the earth “attacking Haiti”? Do you think at all about these things before you post them or are you really just that dumb? What a joke.

[ms.peachy]

I understand your point, but after all this is the General Political board. We discuss the political aspects of events here. If you're not going to politicize a subject you're discussing, then why post it here? We can make a thread in Beastie-Free about all the suffering and tragedy in Haiti, if we want, but my guess is it will be pretty insubstantial stuff. I don't see anything inappropriate about discussing politics in the political forum.


Again, I don't disagree, but again, it felt to me 'too soon' to be looking at the event through a political lens. In other words, it wasn't the content, it was the timing. That's all.

[RobMoney$]

Of course in typical right-wing blowhard fashion you’re so busy going out of your way to be offended that you totally missed the point, but it’s not as though anything more is ever expected from you. And of course this also means all your silly bullshit about CO2 emissions is just so much hot air. Pun intended. But let me ask you this: where do you get off pretending to be all “offended” by my concern about international cooperation, and then turning around and spouting off a bunch of cheap, snide jokes about the earth “attacking Haiti”? Do you think at all about these things before you post them or are you really just that dumb? What a joke.

I guess this was directed at me?
I asked those snide jokes as a response to your snide supposition that there would be hesitation in sending aid to Haiti because of nations' differing in opinion on the effect of CO2 emmissions on the earth.
Being that there is no proven scientific data to support anyone's opinion on CO2, it's all just a matter of opinion at this point.
Glover took it a step further and suggested this disaster was directly related to our failure to work together on enviormental issues in Copenhagen.

Robertson suggests the great Religion God in the sky is smiting Haiti, and Glover suggests it's the great Science God.
All three of you are politicizing the disaster to further your personal political agendas, although Robertson and Glover took to completely insane extremes, it's all politicizing just the same.


You also responded to Randi's post with this:

Most of the time the nations of the world are ambivalent at best about the plight of their impoverished and struggling neighbours, like Haiti, and concerned largely with forwarding their own interests. Copenhagen was only the latest example of this tragic trend. Now an unprecedented crisis is testing not just the people of Haiti but the ability of the world to help it. It’s a dramatic, historic trial of the system of international relations. I only hope we can move forward from it with some productive lessons learned.


I don't remember what country you're from, but you do realize the US has plenty of impovershed families of it's own that need help?

[Schmeltz]

Again, I don't disagree, but again, it felt to me 'too soon' to be looking at the event through a political lens. In other words, it wasn't the content, it was the timing. That's all.

That's cool. Might I ask, though, at what point it becomes OK to examine the political context of a tragic event? How long do we have to wait? I still think that in an era of digital communication and instant transmission, respect and sympathy can freely coexist with analysis and discussion. I don't think we do the victims any disservice by discussing their plight and its resolution, so long as it's done respectfully, which some people in this thread are having a tough time working out. Speaking of which:

I asked those snide jokes as a response to your snide supposition that there would be hesitation in sending aid to Haiti because of nations' differing in opinion on the effect of CO2 emmissions on the earth.

... the only problem being, of course, that I made no such supposition, as I have pointed out to you. That's just some silly bullshit you made up out of nowhere. You're good at that.

All three of you are politicizing the disaster to further your personal political agendas, although Robertson and Glover took to completely insane extremes, it's all politicizing just the same.

Man, when I email Patty and D-Glove and tell them how you're talkin shit, they're gonna be pissed off! Seriously what the hell is wrong with you?? Again, this is the political forum. We discuss things of political import here. That includes the spectrum of international relations and the actions of its members. And again, the only agenda I'm pushing is one of greater multilateral cooperation within the global community. Why you are having so much trouble comprehending this is beyond me. It's like you go out of your way to be as dim and thickheaded as possible.

I don't remember what country you're from, but you do realize the US has plenty of impovershed families of it's own that need help?

This is the one thing you've posted in this thread that comes even halfway close to discussing the topic at hand, so for the sake of civility I'll entertain it. You're quite right that people continue to suffer from privation and poverty even in the richest country in the world, and of course the state in every nation has a responsibility to the welfare of its citizens. But in the case of the rich and powerful countries who form the leadership of the global body politic, especially the USA, these domestic considerations can (and should) exist side-by-side with international obligations. It is well within the ability of your country and its government to assist its underprivileged citizens and form the backbone of an international assistance effort at the same time. I don't think anyone's going to suggest that relief for Americans be diverted to Haiti. Nor is there a need for such a thing.

Besides, aren't those impoverished families struggling because they're weak and lazy? Couldn't they be rich if they just worked hard enough? Why do they need any help? Can't the market take care of it? Why is a diehard right-wing arch-capitalist like you playing such a socialist card?

[RobMoney$]

That's cool. Might I ask, though, at what point it becomes OK to examine the political context of a tragic event? How long do we have to wait?

I'd like to respond to this.
Perhaps you could have waited to comment on the amount of aid and cooperation (or the lack of) of nations to provide such aid until the aid had actually begun to arrive?
Unfortunately, it takes longer than 2 days for governments to make decisions and mobilize such things. Criticizing such efforts does no one any good at that moment.
I'm sure everyone involved was doing the best to mount support efforts. The least we could do as bystanders is to not criticize the job that they're doing and perhaps show some understanding and support of our own.



... the only problem being, of course, that I made no such supposition, as I have pointed out to you. That's just some silly bullshit you made up out of nowhere. You're good at that.


You said:

I think the end of 2009 saw a real tremor go through the whole framework of international relations when the climate change talks came to nothing in Copenhagen. The frustration and lack of cooperation between the major players sabotaged any real progress on one of the most significant global issues of our time, and left me feeling disappointed in the prospect of the cooperative resolution of any other. I really hope that 2010 will see a turnaround in the attitude of uncompromising self-interest that's come to dominate international relations in the last few years. The infliction of truly crippling damage to a struggling and neglected member of the world community is a chance for the spirit of cooperation and generosity to manifest itself within that community. And for the millions affected by the chaos and death in Haiti, there couldn't be more at stake.

Translation:
The world couldn't work together and agree on enviormental issues in Copenhagen, let's hope we can all work together on providing aid to Haiti in it's moment of need.
Correct?

So you absolutely made the supposition that aid would be affected in some way because of Copenhagen.
Again, my issue is that you criticized the aid efforts before they even had a chance to be mounted.

You and I seem to differ on the politics of the enviorment and what measures should be taken to protect it, but I don't think that discourges either of us from agreeing that Haiti is fucked and needs all the help we can afford to give them right now. I think our nations leaders are exactly the same. Perhaps I have more faith in them than you do?

I mean Haiti isn't about politics right now, it's about humanity and helping out your fellow man.


Man, when I email Patty and D-Glove and tell them how you're talkin shit, they're gonna be pissed off! Seriously what the hell is wrong with you?? Again, this is the political forum. We discuss things of political import here. That includes the spectrum of international relations and the actions of its members. And again, the only agenda I'm pushing is one of greater multilateral cooperation within the global community. Why you are having so much trouble comprehending this is beyond me. It's like you go out of your way to be as dim and thickheaded as possible.

For once, let's not let this debate degrade into disparaging name calling.
You're better than that, Schmeltz.

Besides, aren't those impoverished families struggling because they're weak and lazy? Couldn't they be rich if they just worked hard enough? Why do they need any help? Can't the market take care of it? Why is a diehard right-wing arch-capitalist like you playing such a socialist card?

Perhaps you fail to understand the very foundation of our (con vs. lib) differences of politics.
It's not that I don't want the government to help it's citizens, it's just that I (con) want it to provide more opportunity, and you (libs) want it to provide more entitlements.

BTW, I've never been called an arch-capitalist before.
That just made my day.

[HAL 9000]

they obviously need higher taxes on the wealthy, more govt regulation, more environment controls, free and public access to abortion, and a card - check unionization effort to recover from this disaster...

I didnt think my opinion of you could get any lower. Which makes this post the first time you have successfully changed my mind about anything. Well done.

[RobMoney$]

For anyone dissappointed with the outcome of the Copenhagen meetings, read this.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

[Documad]

always a big disaster has to happen before people/countries spend money

many died there before because of starving and no one cared

it will be just another 'few weeks hype' and then people forget again
This might be the first time I've ever agreed with you.

[saz]

It's not that I don't want the government to help it's citizens, it's just that I (con) want it to provide more opportunity, and you (libs) want it to provide more entitlements.

oh please, providing assistance to citizens is providing more opportunity, not entitlements.

[RobMoney$]

I wasn't talking about Haiti, I was talking about the US Government's role pertaining to it's own citizens.

[saz]

yeah i know

[freetibet]

I sooo don't care about 'em. New Orleans 2005 revisited. They need to help themselves on their own first.

[Bob]

shock