Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/7/05 11:24 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Ok I just want to adress the percentage of income as the definition of how much one should give. A family of say 4 on an income of $40 000, not much left after you pay for housing, food, transport, utilities and such. They have virtually no disposable income. Now say the president who makes 400k a year and supports a family of 4 there is a little more pie on the table. Not to mention his expenses are almost none. His house is payed for, his food, his transportation and travel costs. Plus he already has several million dollars in the bank. So who has more disposable income to give to charity?

Why, the president of course. Considering he gave 2.5% of his yearly income, and the average American has sent twenty bucks each.
Whoops. Who's that was stingy again?

At 1/7/05 07:34 PM, Draconias wrote: Also, Bush's salary is exactly $400,000 per year. He gave 2.5% of his yearly salary for a single disaster. The average salary for middle class citizens is $60,000 a year. 2.5% of that salary is $1500. Until you get off your ass and donate that much money to the tsunami victims you have no right to criticize Bush. Your measily 0.03% of your salary donation to charity each year isn't cutting it if you want to call Bush stingy.

Exactly the point. How many other American's donated 2.5% of their yearly salary? Did bullock? No. Did bill gates? No. Who did? George fucking Bush.

At 1/7/05 04:03 PM, Maus wrote: Wow.
Sandra Bullock sure has a lot more than 1 million dollars. Sharon Osbourne has more than 200 thousand dollars. Why don't you go bitch at them too?

Well, because they don't have a personal vendetta against bullock. They don't spend hours everyday sifting through news articles, looking for something to pick at...about bullock.

At 1/7/05 04:03 PM, Maus wrote: Sandra Bullock sure has a lot more than 1 million dollars. Sharon Osbourne has more than 200 thousand dollars. Why don't you go bitch at them too?

Because this is politics? And they've always held the mantle of being cheap bitches as opposed to Bush who ran while adhering his so called Christian morals. I'm curious though. What are the proportions of money that these people are sending versus their estimated worth? I'd be willing to bet that the percentage that Bullock is sending as a cheap actress (cheap in the sense that she normally spends her money on herself as opposed to others) is far greater than that of Bush's proportion.

At 1/7/05 04:06 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: 10000 is just about what I make in a year. You don't get much less stingy than that. I've only personally donated 20 dollars. Calling Bush stingy in this situation is just..... ungrateful.

Yeah, but your a technician at a local church he's got one of the highest paying jobs in the country after athletes. (I didn't count actors because they're paid per job as opposed to a salary.) Do you realize how much more Bush makes than you?

Besides, it isn't Bush who's giving/not giving out this money.

Um, we're talking about his personal contribution so yeah it is him.

At 1/7/05 05:01 PM, Maus wrote: Then why haven't I read squat about Michael Moore's donations?

Why should he donate? He's greedy and people know it. It's not as if he's a prominent politician anyway.

At 1/7/05 05:01 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Dude, any argument containing the word "should" is pretty fucking weak. Period. The whole point of ownership of money is that you can do whatever you want with it, no matter what anyone else says.

I'm just noting the disparity between what he says he is and what he really is.

Why should Bush be held to a higher standard?

Because he holds himself to higher standard and has the resources that we don't have.

At 1/7/05 06:48 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote: So if bush spends the amount he did, democrats bitch about how little money he spent, but if he were to give a great deal of money, then democrats would bitch about bush giving too much...nothing is right is it?

Are you kidding? We're talking about his personal contributions.

Can anyone show me how much John kerry or michael moore contributed (serious question)?

They probably donated anonymously. The governor of Massachusetts did so that people would only donate to one charity. To me it's more noble that you give freely than give to gain fame.

At 1/7/05 07:34 PM, Draconias wrote: You are in no position to criticize Bush.

Considering I gave up my last two paychecks for the disaster relief and I'm sorely in need of money, I'd say I'm in a perfect position. Yay for the three copper pennies parable. And you people think I don't do anything other than bitch about the condition of the world.

According to national statistics (look them up yourself), the average American provides 13 cents per day for foreign aid through taxes and 5 cents per day for foreign aid through non-government groups.

Since when are any of us the average American citizen? Heck, Veggie the topic starter isn't even American much less average. Don't pigeon hole us.

At 1/8/05 08:10 AM, Veggiemeal wrote: Some people here are missing my point. Why don't I give a piddly squat about what Michael Moore or Sandra Bullock donated to Asia? Because those people didn't bother us about sending millions to Iraq to rebuild that country, a country with rich oil resources that was a lot better of than most of area's hit by the tsunami are right now. Bush used billions of taxpayers money to "rebuild" Iraq and Afghanistan, but he can't spare more then 10 grand for those devasted country's were almost 200.000 got killed, diseases are breaking out and billions of dollars of damage has been made.

No, that only 10000 of his PERSONAL money. He's already send quite a few million in tax payer money, and is right now assessing how much more tax payer money he's going to send out. After all, what good is sending money if you don't send it to the right people?

It's just kinda hypocrit in my humble wooden shoe person opinion. Also, anyone who thinks Bush really just makes 400 grand a year needs to get his head examined.

No, seriously, the POTUS doesn't make that much money. It's an American thing, where government officials serve their country more out of duty than out of greed..... but then again I guess a European wouldn't understand that kind of patriotic altruism....

Oh and by the way FUNKbrs, what would you know? You're a stupid American!

OMG!!! RACISM!!!! I'M SURE LUCKY CAR BEATS WOODEN SHOE EVERY TIME!!!!

At 1/8/05 04:43 PM, FatherVenom wrote: Because this is politics?

Celebrities run their mouths about politics every chance they get.

I'd be willing to bet that the percentage that Bullock is sending as a cheap actress (cheap in the sense that she normally spends her money on herself as opposed to others) is far greater than that of Bush's proportion.

Forbes ranked Bullock as the 29th highest paid celebrity in 2003-2004 with $30 million in earnings. 1/30 of her salary is .03%.

Sharon Osbourne is also a multi-millionaire, thanks to MTV and all the marketing she's done for her family.

Why should he donate? He's greedy and people know it. It's not as if he's a prominent politician anyway.

He may not be a politician in the technical sense, but he is a prominent political pundit.

At 1/8/05 04:43 PM, FatherVenom wrote:

At 1/7/05 04:03 PM, Maus wrote: Sandra Bullock sure has a lot more than 1 million dollars. Sharon Osbourne has more than 200 thousand dollars. Why don't you go bitch at them too?

Because this is politics? And they've always held the mantle of being cheap bitches as opposed to Bush who ran while adhering his so called Christian morals. I'm curious though. What are the proportions of money that these people are sending versus their estimated worth?

Cnn says the average American gave approx. twenty to thirty dollars. How big of a percent, compared to yearly income, do you think that is? Bush gave 2.5% of his yearly salery. Who else has given that much?
Twenty bucks ain't 2.5 percent of your yearly income.

I'd be willing to bet that the percentage that Bullock is sending as a cheap actress is far greater than that of Bush's proportion.

I doubt a million dollars is 2.5% of her yearly income.

At 1/7/05 05:01 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Dude, any argument containing the word "should" is pretty fucking weak. Period. The whole point of ownership of money is that you can do whatever you want with it, no matter what anyone else says.

I'm just noting the disparity between what he says he is and what he really is.

He says he's a man of high moral value...and he gave 2.5% of his yearly income. That pretty much juxtaposes, doesn't it?

Can anyone show me how much John kerry or michael moore contributed (serious question)?

They probably donated anonymously. The governor of Massachusetts did so that people would only donate to one charity.

Bullshit. Kerry and moore would BOTH make it public, for the fame. And you know it. Moore especially. He pretends he's some kind of people-loving philanthropist, or something.

At 1/7/05 07:34 PM, Draconias wrote: You are in no position to criticize Bush.

Considering I gave up my last two paychecks for the disaster relief and I'm sorely in need of money, I'd say I'm in a perfect position. Yay for the three copper pennies parable. And you people think I don't do anything other than bitch about the condition of the world.

When you give 2.5% of your yearly income, you'll be able to compare yourself to bush.

Since when are any of us the average American citizen? Heck, Veggie the topic starter isn't even American much less average. Don't pigeon hole us.

I'm an average American citizen. And i don't appreciate being refered to as anything else.
The status quo ROCKS, brother.

At 1/8/05 02:06 PM, Maus wrote:

At 1/8/05 01:57 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: I don't think we should give the fucks anything. They can come crying to us all they want, but there the ones that built on a coastline.

Are you serious?

Most of the affected countries are islands. Would your attitude be the same if the same thing happened to Hawaii?

www.fuckthesouth.com

I love how people in one breath can advocate sending enormous amounts of money to foreign nations ravaged by a disaster, yet tell their fellow countrymen to fuck off after they've been devastated by a disaster just because they have different political views. Not that this is your view, Maus, as your quote proves, but I'm sure there are people out there that have this, judging by the entusiastic response to that site.

Yes, I believe in helping out. I've donated $100 to the disaster relief efforts in Florida, and $100 to the disaster relief efforts for the tsunami.

Am I stingy? Maybe. I don't know. But if everyone in the US did the same, then we could donate around $20,000,000,000. 20 billion! I hardly call that stingy. And while the tsunami was more devastating than the Florida hurricanes, it has always been my belief that you should help those first, and more, that are the closest to you. The way I see it, if I were a Floridian, I would want my fellow countrymen to help me before a village over across the globe. Likewise, if I was an Indonesian, I would want my fellow Indonesians to help me before they sent aid to Florida.

Wait.... so you've donated a pittance, but yet you criticize Bush.... what a fucking hypocrite. Thanks for the bullshit excuse, though! I'm sure the dying really appreciate it!

Wait wait wait. Where did I criticize Bush for donating $10'000? Anyone? I have not said anything of the sort, I mentioned that looking at his income is an incorrect approach in measuring how much he relatively gave. Especially since my income is currently negative, which would make a graph look very strange indeed.

I also find it amusing that you think my excuse is bullshit. If you had a set budget for 4 months would you actually think to budget for "unexpected global disaster" which happens nearing the end of the 4th month after you've bought your Christmas presents? What do you expect me to do? Magic money out of thin air?

You do realise that more money will be needed for the rebuilding and to deal with the long-term affects and it's not just immediate donations which will make a difference?

Yeah, but *gasp* there will become a point when that region *OMG* WILL BECOME SELF SUFFICIENT.

And it will require aid to do so, will it not? Aid from charities (such as Water Aid) that I'm already a member of.

Besides, now is the only time you can give.

No it's not. Now is the only time you can give for short-term emergency aid. Long-term aid is going to be going for quite a while.

Forbes ranked Bullock as the 29th highest paid celebrity in 2003-2004 with $30 million in earnings. 1/30 of her salary is .03%.

I'm not sure if Americans have a different way of representing maths or whatever but it's 3.33%, not 0.03%.

It is a statistical inaccuracy to measure how much Bush currently earns. He is already a multi-millionaire http://www.bushpresident2004.com/bush-background-governor.htm

At 1/9/05 08:59 AM, Slizor wrote: Wait wait wait. Where did I criticize Bush for donating $10'000? Anyone?

Well, the entire thread is devoted to how stingy Bush is.... It's not a big stretch to say that since you're not defending Bush's contribution, you are at least in a small way attacking it. Meh, I made a mistake, so sue me.

I have not said anything of the sort, I mentioned that looking at his income is an incorrect approach in measuring how much he relatively gave. Especially since my income is currently negative, which would make a graph look very strange indeed.

Well, since my point is that he's not obligated to personally give ANYTHING, being that the money he pays in taxes/has paid in taxes is going to going for aid no matter what he personally contributes. Therefore, even if he only gave 0.50 USD, he'd still be being generous.

I also find it amusing that you think my excuse is bullshit. If you had a set budget for 4 months would you actually think to budget for "unexpected global disaster" which happens nearing the end of the 4th month after you've bought your Christmas presents? What do you expect me to do? Magic money out of thin air?

No, I expect you to realize that you are not in a position to criticize the giving of anyone else. Since random circumstance put you in a position where you couldn't give as much as you want to, what's to say the same didn't happen to Bush? I imagine most of his money is tied up in various investments; it's not nearly as free for him to decide where it goes as many posters in this thread would have it appear.

Yeah, but *gasp* there will become a point when that region *OMG* WILL BECOME SELF SUFFICIENT.

And it will require aid to do so, will it not? Aid from charities (such as Water Aid) that I'm already a member of.

What part of "self-sufficient" don't you understand? The part where they become independent of foreign aid, or the part where you stay the fuck out of their personal lives from the other side of the world?

No it's not. Now is the only time you can give for short-term emergency aid. Long-term aid is going to be going for quite a while.

Having trouble with the whole "past,present,future" thing, are you? Now is the only time you can give. EVER. You can only ever do things NOW. Doing something in the future is just a fancy way of making a promise.

And besides, what makes you think these people want foreigners up their ass all the time? Do you really think they LIKE being helpless? They're going to want to be able to solve their own problems, not being reliant on the whims of a bunch of foreign charities. The more locally the new infrastructure is built, the more trustworthy it's going to be.

At 1/8/05 05:02 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: When you give 2.5% of your yearly income, you'll be able to compare yourself to bush.

I gave 5%, I make only a grand a year. Yeah I've got a crap job but it's the only job I could get.

At 1/8/05 04:56 PM, Maus wrote: Celebrities run their mouths about politics every chance they get.

Yeah, but who listens? Hell I haven't even seen a Bullock movie out in a while, much less heard from her.

Forbes ranked Bullock as the 29th highest paid celebrity in 2003-2004 with $30 million in earnings. 1/30 of her salary is .03%.

Sharon Osbourne is also a multi-millionaire, thanks to MTV and all the marketing she's done for her family.

What I'm saying is that they didn't pretend to be something that we're finding out that they're not. I'm not really all that pissed that he's being a tightwad as much as I view it as he lied to the American public. Besides, I didn't say salary I said worth.

He may not be a politician in the technical sense, but he is a prominent political pundit.

Exactly, a pundit, as in couldn't raise enough money to actually run for office, doesn't care unless somebody is screwing up.

At 1/8/05 05:02 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: Cnn says the average American gave approx. twenty to thirty dollars. How big of a percent, compared to yearly income, do you think that is? Bush gave 2.5% of his yearly salery. Who else has given that much?
Twenty bucks ain't 2.5 percent of your yearly income.

Will you stop with the averages? Besides it's not like the American people stand out for their generosity, much less paint themselves in that light. I sent all of my last two paychecks to relief aid. I'm planning on sending the next two as well and I can't really afford it. So don't tell me about who's being stingy.

I doubt a million dollars is 2.5% of her yearly income.

Good thing you have reading comprehension, oh wait... nope sorry.

He says he's a man of high moral value...and he gave 2.5% of his yearly income. That pretty much juxtaposes, doesn't it?

Income is crap. Look at it more from a standpoint of how much of his worth is he giving. Go read the parable of the three copper pennies.

Bullshit. Kerry and moore would BOTH make it public, for the fame. And you know it. Moore especially. He pretends he's some kind of people-loving philanthropist, or something.

No they wouldn't necessarily do that and no, Moore didn't even try to deny the facts behind the Evian debacle.

When you give 2.5% of your yearly income, you'll be able to compare yourself to bush.

Seriously, go read the parable of the three copper pennies. Besides, I'm pledged to give over 6% of my yearly income. Which is much more money than I have in the bank at present.

I'm an average American citizen. And i don't appreciate being refered to as anything else.
The status quo ROCKS, brother.

No, you're not. Most people aren't. The average isn't the mode, it's the mean. That you have internet access readily available puts you above the average already. Did you see that movie where the giant insects from South America came to destroy the United States by posing as humans and blowing up nuclear power plants? The roles they were playing were the average Americans. You aren't that.

At 1/9/05 09:10 AM, Slizor wrote: I'm not sure if Americans have a different way of representing maths or whatever but it's 3.33%, not 0.03%.

1 divided by 30. 1/30. Equals. Point. Zero. Three.

At 1/9/05 12:52 PM, Maus wrote:

At 1/9/05 09:10 AM, Slizor wrote:

1 divided by 30. 1/30. Equals. Point. Zero. Three.

Lol. Maus, come on! You know that 0.03 is actually 3%. Because it's 3/100. Think of it as money. You have three cents. One hundred cents makes a dollar... Do you see? Besides, try working that backwards. Is that approximately 100? It's simple math, silly. :P

Well, since my point is that he's not obligated to personally give ANYTHING, being that the money he pays in taxes/has paid in taxes is going to going for aid no matter what he personally contributes. Therefore, even if he only gave 0.50 USD, he'd still be being generous.

Again, I still haven't criticized him. Although I would consider that stingy. According to your definition of generous stingy doesn't exist.

What part of "self-sufficient" don't you understand? The part where they become independent of foreign aid, or the part where you stay the fuck out of their personal lives from the other side of the world?

You need a base to become self-sufficient. Even when the money is given to you to make that self-sufficient base you are still self-sufficient.

No it's not. Now is the only time you can give for short-term emergency aid. Long-term aid is going to be going for quite a while.

Having trouble with the whole "past,present,future" thing, are you? Now is the only time you can give. EVER. You can only ever do things NOW. Doing something in the future is just a fancy way of making a promise.

No, you're having a problem with the past present future thing. I can donate in the future and I will.

And besides, what makes you think these people want foreigners up their ass all the time? Do you really think they LIKE being helpless? They're going to want to be able to solve their own problems, not being reliant on the whims of a bunch of foreign charities. The more locally the new infrastructure is built, the more trustworthy it's going to be.

What the sod are you talking about? What is your problem at the moment? You're attacking me for things that either are completely not related to anything I have said or attacking me on the basis of things I haven't said at all.

At 1/9/05 03:00 PM, Slizor wrote: Again, I still haven't criticized him. Although I would consider that stingy. According to your definition of generous stingy doesn't exist.

That's true. I don't believe stinginess exists, because I don't believe anyone is obligated to give anyone else anything. The entire concept of "stinginess" implies a sense of entitlement, a belief that need is a sufficient cause for a gift, and that failure to supply a sufficient gift is a moral failing. This implies that poverty is a direct result of immorality on the behalf of those who are not poor no matter what the actual circumstance. This belief removes all power of self determination from the poor and needy, and relegates them to the position of animals who can only become human through a redistribution of resources.

Any philosophical concept that makes people into animals is abhorrent.

You need a base to become self-sufficient. Even when the money is given to you to make that self-sufficient base you are still self-sufficient.

self-suf·fi·cient (slfs-fshnt): Able to provide for oneself without the help of others; independent

You were saying?

No, you're having a problem with the past present future thing. I can donate in the future and I will.

That's a promise, not a donation. Until you make the donation, it will only ever be a promise. When you make the donation, the moment you will be in is the present. Until that time, it is merely an empty promise. A true promise, but still just a promise.

What the sod are you talking about? What is your problem at the moment? You're attacking me for things that either are completely not related to anything I have said or attacking me on the basis of things I haven't said at all.

What I'm saying is that is that if a person exists soley at the generosity of others, that person is nothing more than a slave, because at the whim of a benefactor that existance would cease. No matter how aesthetic that generosity may sound, it still results in the degradation of those who recieve it.

That is the result of longterm charity. Short term charity is a fine and noble thing, but long term charity results in the weakening of those who recieve it, just as muscles atrophy when they are not forced to endure excercise.

I apologize for any meandering of subject within this post, however, the issue of foreign aid is much more complex than that of the relief for an individual catastrophic event.

People try and remember, not only was he already a millionaire, but he has almost no expenses, travel, housing, food, utilities are all payed for by you the taxpayer.

At 1/9/05 02:33 PM, Pyrrho wrote: It's simple math, silly. :P

Arg. Point taken. Math was never my strong suit. :D

At any rate, I don't see why everybody is still crabbing about this. Those that give, do so. Those that don't, have no obligation.

You all sound like the apostles making fun of the widow's mite. It really shouldn't matter how much people gave, as long as they did it.

At 1/9/05 04:40 PM, Maus wrote:

At any rate, I don't see why everybody is still crabbing about this. Those that give, do so. Those that don't, have no obligation.

Exactly.

You all sound like the apostles making fun of the widow's mite. It really shouldn't matter how much people gave, as long as they did it.

True again. I'm in total agreement.

At 1/9/05 11:23 AM, Ravens_Grin wrote:

At 1/8/05 05:02 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: When you give 2.5% of your yearly income, you'll be able to compare yourself to bush.

I gave 5%, I make only a grand a year. Yeah I've got a crap job but it's the only job I could get.

Well then, you are among the minority of Americans, brother. Yet your donation is appreciated no less, don't get me wrong.

And no, for once, i'm not being sarcastic.

At 1/9/05 04:50 PM, BarferPro wrote: Did the Official Bush Topic just vanish or something?

No, but that's really only for blatant Bush bashing. This topic actually has somewhat of an issue behind it, and more importantly, it doesn't have Bush in the subject line. The OBT is only for people who can't figure out how to leave Bush out of the subject line/ do a topic search.

At 1/9/05 12:51 PM, FatherVenom wrote:

At 1/8/05 04:56 PM, Maus wrote: Celebrities run their mouths about politics every chance they get.

That's not the point. You don't listen to Bush's rhetoric, yet, because of that very same rhetoric...you hold it against him that the didn't give 50% of his yearly income, or something.

What I'm saying is that they didn't pretend to be something that we're finding out that they're not. I'm not really all that pissed that he's being a tightwad as much as I view it as he lied to the American public. Besides, I didn't say salary I said worth.

He didn't lie to the people. Ten thousand dollars...2.5% of yearly income...out of his own pocket...is generous. This is just another reason for you to piss and moan about your personal dislike of bush.

At 1/8/05 05:02 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: Cnn says the average American gave approx. twenty to thirty dollars. How big of a percent, compared to yearly income, do you think that is? Bush gave 2.5% of his yearly salery. Who else has given that much?
Twenty bucks ain't 2.5 percent of your yearly income.

Will you stop with the averages?

Why? Because it makes your argument look childish, and personal?

I sent all of my last two paychecks to relief aid. I'm planning on sending the next two as well and I can't really afford it.

Well good for you. I'm ever so proud.

I doubt a million dollars is 2.5% of her yearly income.

Good thing you have reading comprehension, oh wait... nope sorry.

As maus pointed out: "1 divided by 30. 1/30. Equals. Point. Zero. Three.'
I really couldn't have said it better.

He says he's a man of high moral value...and he gave 2.5% of his yearly income. That pretty much juxtaposes, doesn't it?

Income is crap. Look at it more from a standpoint of how much of his worth is he giving.

Goddamn...i can't believe how petty and childish this is. Could he have given more? SURE he could have. Could every American have given fifty dollars, instead of twenty? Sure. Could bill gates, and Sandra Bullock have given more? Of course.

You demean charity when you hold standards like this. "He gave...and yes...it was ten thousand dollars...but couldn't he do a little MORE?"
That's why you're pissed. He gave money, but not as much as you thought he should have? Who the fuck are you to make that judgement call? Ten thousand dollars is beyond fucking generous.

And i'm not going to compare our definitions of 'average American'. That's such a subjective, opinion-based debate, it's not worth it.

At 1/9/05 04:56 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: He didn't lie to the people. Ten thousand dollars...2.5% of yearly income...out of his own pocket...is generous. This is just another reason for you to piss and moan about your personal dislike of bush.

Fuck yearly income ok? Screw it. Get it out of your head that that's the only important figure because it's only the second most and it trails far behind the first important figure, personal monetary worth. Seriously go read Luke 21:1-4. If you look at what I gave versus what I own, I gave over 400% of my worth. How much of Bush's worth did he give? 0.002%, maybe? He's had higher paying jobs in the past. Where did that money go?

Why? Because it makes your argument look childish, and personal?

No because it makes my post impersonal. The issue is that some of the posters feel like we shouldn't be bashing Bush because we're no better than him, but the fact is that a couple of us are donating far more proportionally.

As maus pointed out: "1 divided by 30. 1/30. Equals. Point. Zero. Three.'

Which equals 3% of his yearly income which isn't what I was referencing. I don't care what that proportion is because it's basically worthless to this discussion.

Goddamn...i can't believe how petty and childish this is. Could he have given more? SURE he could have.

Did he paint himself as a person who would give more? Yes, yes he did.

You demean charity when you hold standards like this. "He gave...and yes...it was ten thousand dollars...but couldn't he do a little MORE?"

No, it's not what he's giving. It's the disparity between what he should be giving as the good ole Christian boy versus actual Bush behavior.

That's why you're pissed. He gave money, but not as much as you thought he should have?

No, not as much as he presented himself as he should have given.

Who the fuck are you to make that judgemdent call?

I didn't. He set his own standard during his campaign.

And i'm not going to compare our definitions of 'average American'. That's such a subjective, opinion-based debate, it's not worth it.

No, it really isn't. Those people that I referenced actually looked up the American average and started living it. Heck they almost mutilated their daughter's human face because her beauty was above average. We're talking strict adherence to the national average. If you want to think it's opinion based you're more than welcome to do so, but you'd be wrong.

Stop it. This is one of the most pointless conversation's ever. It has no true purpose but to serve as a steam valve for angry partisan kiddies who have no life.

At 1/7/05 07:49 PM, Rooster349 wrote:

At 1/7/05 06:56 PM, SD90 wrote: I've tried looking it up but the number Micheal Moore donated seems lost. I'm guessing he donated somewhere between $0 and $1.99.

As for Kerry...dunno. $2.99 maybe?

And Rooster...http://www.isometry.com/usahate.html. Balenced site. Mentions there's good with America.

"Balanced" is hardly a word I would use to describe it. However, I did spend some time reading the complaints and many of them are also true of other countries; countries who were also big-wigs at one time, and countries who were never as powerful.

Yeah...but at least they were honest when it came to the fact that their intent was to fuck the world over.

Besides just because the past if full of countries who were inethical, does that justify America being inethical? Two wrongs don't make a fuckin right.

Some of them are complete nonsense that have been debunked, like the "overthrow of a democratically elected Chilean" abd sine are myths based on truths like the My Lai Massacre "Massive War Crimes in the Vietnam War."

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa.html

Since...everything seems to "debunked" so instantly.

I could debunk every piece of garbage on his list, or at least give justification for it.

Do it.

I also reject the notion that the USA has been inconsiderate to the world.

Sure. VIVE LA AMERICAS! FUCKOS LA MONDE!

9/11? Only 3000 Americans die. Yet the media is still bitchin about it.

While other countries' deaths only last for a day in the media. A month at the max. 150000 people died, yet 3 months later, how much ya want to bet everyone will forget? Does anyone even remember where the Irainian earthquake occured?

They have just put themselves ahead of everyone else, ALWAYS. What's wrong with that? Every country does it; it's just they lack the pushing power of the United States.

The fact America pretends to benefit the world and how Aemrica's citizens think they are morally superior based on this "liberation". Also the "Best country" bullshit doesn't help either.

The real hatred comes from the face that we're the best, most powerful nation in history

Not quite. In history? Britain? France? Rome? Maybe in the last 70 years.

with both its shortcomings and triumphs.

America's got good things. But ya wanna look at those, go to some "I LUV AMERICA !!11111" site. So far...I can't think of much.

No one cares to focus on the shortcomings, unless you're a certain Canadian...

If no one cares to focus on the shortcomings, then everyone focuses on the triumphs, so you have to have someone to focus on the shortcomings :)

Canadian? Is that some kind of beer?

I'm not saying I wouldn't be jealous if I were in another country. Of course I would be. The United States is the greatest! I would want to live there!

America is so overrated...why would ya want to live there? Oh yeah. To get a job better then that sweatshop set up by Nike.

If you're interested in a real "balanced" history of America, and I know you aren't

Ohhh. "Balenced"=AMRICA IS TEH GREATEST !!!111 BUT HAS A FEW FLAWS LIKE (c)RAP? I'll take a look just for the hell of it. Becasue obiously anyone or anything not agreeing with you isin't "balenced".

, but perhaps others are, Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen wrote A Patriots History Of The United States: From Columbus's Great Discovery

Ohh. I feel the balence already. Calling the ethnic murdering of the Aboriginals "Great". I like it.

To The War On Terror. It's impossible to read this book without both examining America's flaws and feeling proud to be an American at the end.

Awwww. The feel-good feeling of killing random people. I love it already.