Do DUers really care about people as they claim?

[JamesA1102]

I'm beginning to think not. To me, having compassion about human suffering is the cornerstone of being a liberal or progressive or what ever you wish to call it.

However, this morning when it was announced that President Obama had reached out to George W. Bush to help raise money for relief efforts in Haiti, many DUers, not all, went into a partisan rage. Instead of seeing it as an effort to help the Haitian people on a non-partisan level, united as American, and thus maximizing contributions to help Haiti; President Obama and his action was denounced.

For months now many here have been pounding their chests in self-rightous indignation about Healthcare, Afganistan, Card Check, DADT, etc. saying it was because they cared about the plight of other human beings. If that were true then why all the partisan ranor? To me, people who really cared about relieving human suffering wouldn't do this. They would applaud such efforts regardless of from where they came.

Now everyone here has denounced the vile comments made by Rush and Pat Robertson yesterday and rightfully so. But many of the comments here denouncing President Obama and his effort to use Bush to raise money for relief efforts have been equally vile. It seems to me that many really don't care about others as they claim but have just picked a side and now refuse to see past their ideological blinders & hatreds. For them it is not about helping or having compassion for other people but about proving that they are right.

Now I know that this post will be unrecced to death and I'll be called a corportist, DLC shill, an idiot and other nasty names. But I would hope that some out their would understand my point and just not rationalize their response as upholding principle. For me, when it comes to helping people, that is the highest principle anyone can uphold.

[stray cat]

1. Some do - many don't

its easy to care about people who think like us and as long as someone else helps them. We yell for government to help but I think conservative donate more personally to help

[JamesA1102]

2. Thanks! nt

[civildisoBDence]

277. I'm not so sure conservatives are more generous

It's true that conservatives give slightly more money than liberals do, but they may donate more because they tend to be older, more established, and wealthier. Also, the religious do give very generously.

I think a good Buddhist approach might be to give with a sense of humor, for instance, by donating to the Rush Limbaugh Relief Fund.

[cali]

3. generalize much? yes, yes. All DUers are simply beasts with no compassion.

[rfranklin]

7. Me too! nt

[JamesA1102]

14. Didn't say all. Didn't even say most. Said many.

[KittyWampus]

30. the statement was well qualified. Why so touchy? Were you one of the DU'ers decrying Obama

for doing the humane thing?

And it is DISGUSTING what some DU'ers have posted regarding Obama asking Bush to fundraise.

The Opening Poster did me a favor by presenting a post that was well written and without calling anyone out.

[11 Bravo]

89. The OP explicitly specified "not all", yet you invoke "all DUers".

I hope I never require an outrage fix badly enough to post something that dishonest.

[shireen]

303. i was thinking the same ...

yes, the OP used the word 'some' ... somewhere in the second paragraph, i think. But the general tone was one of contempt towards DU in general. Not everyone on DU posts here. From those 'some' who posted, not everyone condemned Obama and W. The people you're referring to are a small fraction of the DU membership, yet the use of the word 'some' in one or two places does not adequately convey the exceptions to your claim.

[JamesA1102]

319. Sorry I didn't use the work 'some' enough to your liking.

So to make you happy here you go: some, some, some, some, some, some, some, some, some, some. If that's not enough times I'll can type some (oh there's another one) more.

And by the reactions to this thread and others on this subject, I'd say it was more than a small fraction. But on the bright side, the majority does seem to be decent people who are putting humanity over partisan vitriol.

[mkultra]

331. i guess your one of them.

[malaise]

4. George W Bush couldn't organize a pillow fight

He's a waste of oxygen.

[Arkansas Granny]

11. He doesn't have to organize anything. He just has to raise money and I believe he can do that.

[malaise]

38. I would not have George Bush involved with anything

at all.

[Shell Beau]

235. Even if it meant more money going to help?

More donations?

Really? And why? Just because he is scum doesn't mean jack shit to the people who need the help right now. And if it might mean extra donations because Bush was involved, then so be it.

[MattSh]

272. Why??

GWB is a war criminal. By pretending he isn't, (and that's exactly what Obama is doing by getting him involved in this), you're paving the way for more like him to sit in the Oval Office in the future. Just like the Ford pardon of Nixon opened the door to worse future crimes in the White house. By pretending it's OK for GWB to get involved in this, you're legitimizing GWB's past actions, indeed his whole sorry presidency.

I can't think of a better reason, but hey, if it raises more money, why the hell not?

.

[Divine Discontent]

292. I think they can raise plenty of money without involving the war criminal. There's plenty of famous

republicans that could be involved in raising money in DC, Obama could do a commercial with the leaders of the GOP & Democratic party asking for donations, etc... B*sh, the warmonger and criminal shouldn't be involved in anything.

[JamesA1102]

294. That's just putting partisanship above helping the people of Haiti.

And involving Bush as a spokesman in no way stops or prevents anyone else in helping to raise funds.

[tavalon]

285. It is part of his responsibility as a former President

It's shameful that he had to be reminded, but whatever. As long as he does no damage while raising money, I'm all for him pitching in. As he should.

[mkultra]

332. then you are blinded by your own hatred

and choked on the ashes of your enemies.

[emilyg]

112. Of course he can.

[JamesA1102]

17. Thanks for missing the point. nt

[bobbolink]

80. Whew! Think of all the feathers saved.

:hi:

[Kahuna]

84. He is not being asked to organize a pillow fight. He's being asked

to utilize the one talent he possesses. That is to raise money.

[EFerrari]

140. Junior doesn't raise money. He just channels it to BushCo cronies. Get real.

[Electric Monk]

236. Heck of a job, Brownie

[Lex]

5. Considering Bush's record on "helping people" I think people are rightfully

pissed off. Because we DO want people to be helped.

Ya think?

[JamesA1102]

18. Pissed off that he is helping to raise money to help suffering people?

That's a odd thing to be pissed off about from a group that contends it cares about people.

[Lex]

65. Pissed off that a NITWIT who has a terrrible track record of "helping people"

was chosen.

Miss the point much, genius?

Sure, if he raises some money that'd be great, but a better choice would've almost certainly raised more money.

[JamesA1102]

94. You missed it by a mile! nt

[Lex]

108. Non sequitur.

Not surprised.

[JamesA1102]

124. Weak comeback

not surprised.

[Lex]

213. What are you, 12 years old?

sheesh

[JamesA1102]

215. When they start going for the cheap shots then I know I'm

winning the arguement.

[Lex]

220. welcome to ignore

you have nothing to contribute here as you have demonstrated quite well

[JamesA1102]

222. Well at least not to the closeminded. nt

[Apinionated]

231. Many think Bush should be in jail

and not legitimized by Obama when many others more capable of helping are available. I think that was the point being made the poster, and others on the thread. Not sure that's "closeminded" but just a different point of view than yours.

[JamesA1102]

242. Maybe so.

But if he can help raise money to help the people of Haiti then why not use him? And just because Bush is involved it doesn't prevent all those others capable of helping from doing so.

[sabrina 1]

270. Do you know the Bushes used the money raised for

NOLA? Did you know that Barbara donated money for a school? Great you might think. Did you know that there were conditions? One of them that her son, Neil, the convicted criminal, would be given the contract for his educational material (I wouldn't call it educational, but that's beside the point). And she of course would get a huge tax deduction along with influencing what was taught to those children.

Legitimizing criminals is not necessary to raise money for Haiti. If Bush wanted to raise money he could do it without an endorsement from Obama.

This constant shoving down our throats of war criminals by Clinton and now Obama is getting out of hand.

And people can rest assured that if the Bushes ever give anyone anything, they will demand something in return.

Did you know that both Bushes are directly responsible for much of the suffering of the Haitian people? Do you know that they both backed coups against Haiti's elected president causing the deaths of thousands of people and suffering that has continued to this day?

I am angry that Obama insulted the Haitian people by involving a man who caused them so much heartache.

Bush Sr. supported one of their most brutal dictators, Papa Doc Duvalier, look him up. And his equally brutal son.

Please stop with the emotional manipulation. Haiti would be a happier place if both Bushes had never been born.

[JamesA1102]

288. But Bush is just being used as a spokesman

He's not collecting the money himself. This not about Bush or your hatred for the man. It is about raising as much money has possible for the people of Haiti.

[Raineyb]

309. Thank you! I was starting to think this bit of information went down the memory hole.

Why ask someone who never does anything without strings attached when there are so many people who not only didn't have to be asked but have track records of giving without strings attached that will enrich their cronies or relatives?

Apparently it's okay to allow Bush to skim off the top when what's left can be used to help rather than getting someone who won't skim off the top thus will actually end up sending MORE money to help. Unbelievable isn't it?

[JamesA1102]

317. Well if they didn't have to be asked then they'll do it anyway

And since Bush is just being used as a spokesman, he'll have no opportunity to "skim off the top".

[Raineyb]

333. Not the bloody point is it?

But then there's a giant hole in the way where you've missed point after point after point. And being "spokesman" hasn't a damn thing to do with his ability to hold back without stipulations being put forth and you damn well ought to know that. If you don't then you're too fucking stupid to bother continuing with this "conversation."

[JamesA1102]

342. No the point is about helping people in Haiti.

You're just to filled with hate to see that so instead you're making up conspiracies.

[Raineyb]

368. Making up conspiracies? Do the fucking research and you'll see the pattern for yourself!

Idiot.

[JamesA1102]

372. Call me idiot all you like.

But you still can't make an arguement that puts anything else ahead of helping the people of Haiti.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

384. This is true.

Neil Bush had a company making small computers for the classroom and it was part of the conditions for the "donation"
that the school order one for every student. Made me sick when I heard it.

I think it bothers people when "our" president does something that might make Bush redeem himself in the eyes of the public.
It just seems Obama is being overly generous. But, if it ultimately means dollars coming from sources that wouldn't have contributed
otherwise we just have to suck it up.

[Raineyb]

127. Considering the Bush family history I'm not sure how much help he will be.

What are they going to do raise some money then donate with the stipulation that it be used to buy his Neil Bush's software like they did during Katrina?

The skepticism is well deserved I'd say.

[Carni]

152. I agree!

If Bush actually DOES some good, that will be one thing, but color me skeptical...everything those clowns get involved in seems to be a *for profit* misadventure.

I just don't know that the people of Haiti will be well served with him involved....JMO

[RyboSlybo]

167. If he can help raise money we should be all for it!

It's just an excuse to bitch when Obama reaches out to Bush for help for the Haitians! It's about the people of Haiti! If anyone can help in any way, shape, or form then we should all be supportive of it! This is not about Liberal or Conservative, this is about people suffering!

This place makes me ill sometimes...

Peace...

[Raineyb]

170. Raise money for whom? The track record IS NOT THERE

But sending donations with stipulations that benefit relatives or cronies is and having someone raise money in order to siphon money off to their cronies is NOT what is needed. What's needed is someone who will raise money in a way that most benefits the people of Haiti.

[Carni]

247. My premise is

I don't think that bozo will help raise cash.

His track record of "selfless contributions" would fit on the head of a pin.

This to me isn't a partisan gripe...it's a statement of fact about the bush's past history (esp HIS)

If he actually attracts donations, then good on him and my bad, but like I said... color me skeptical.

[Fire1]

228. Here! Here! n/t

[goclark]

287. Anything GW can do is fine with me ~ he could have said

NO but he said Yes.

Maybe he learned a lesson from Katrina or maybe he wanted to do it so people will think he just may be trying to be a better person- whatever, if he can help, great!

[bik0]

88. I give Bush credit for spending $15B to combat AIDS in Africa

although his Katrina response was a disaster.

[Hello_Kitty]

6. I'm glad he asked him. It showed graciousness and was actually a smart thing to do.

As unpopular as W is with us and most Americans, he has a following. If he reached out to his network and asked for help it would be more going to Haiti.

I agree with you. K and R.

[NoSheep]

16. I say bring the assholes on board and let them do SOMETHING right.

[JamesA1102]

21. No arguement from me!!! ;-) nt

[JamesA1102]

20. Thanks nt

[madmom]

37. +1

[hileeopnyn8d]

56. Exactly.

I've read comments in several places where right-wingers are saying they won't donate because they don't want this in the "win" column for Obama. These are the people who will give if Dubya asks them to. As satisfying as it might be to spit in their faces and tell them to stick their money, it isn't about us, it's about the people of Haiti.

[Shell Beau]

237. That is such bullshit thinking. I don't care if it is a win for Bush,

Obama, or who the hell ever. Politcs go out the damn window. It is about helping humans. People who are suffering and need every damn bit they can get. And people who say they don't want a win for Obama and don't donate because of it are scum of the earth. If you can afford to donate anything, do it. It is only a win for humankind. WTF is wrong with some people?

[JamesA1102]

243. Great point. nt

[undeterred]

73. +2

[sendero]

199. I agree with you...

... nobody thinks less of the shrub than I do, but I'm betting he's got some friends that can help. And that's all that matters right now.

[dflprincess]

252. Yes, perhaps he can reach out to his fellow war criminals

then, if they're ever prosecuted, they can try to get some time off their sentences for the "good works" they did.

BTW Doesn't the BFEE have some very dirty hands when it comes to Haiti?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. You make two baseless assumptions

1. Bush will result or more or better aid. Unproven. Pugs and Dems both have little use for him and international folks despise him. I don't see it as automatic that he's a net positive.

2. If he is a net positive, you assume that in itself offsets the downside for human beings everywhere from mainstreaming/legitimizing war criminal torturer types.

[JamesA1102]

24. Wow you really missed the point, didn't you.

Even if his efforts only raise $1, that is still one dollar more than would have been raised without him.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

33. "Even if his efforts only raise $1..." That's not a very good approach to thinking

[JamesA1102]

41. It is when the goal is to help suffering people. nt

[omega minimo]

339. It's proof

the OP is not serious

[JamesA1102]

343. No I'm very serious about helping people.

That should always be the first priority that trumps everything else.

[omega minimo]

365. Ask Skinner if he'll put that in DU Rules for you.

[zipplewrath]

67. I think you might be

The question is whether he "raises one more dollar" at all. I suspect he does, but it would be interesting whether he helps more than hurts. Honestly I suspect this is more of a case of Obama making Bush look good than Bush "bringing into the fold" more people. You have to believe that there is someone out there holding a dollar that won't give it unless W asks them to. I suspect any die hard Bush supporters that won't give it if he doesn't ask, won't give it if he asks either.

[treestar]

50. I think to most Americans, Bush is mainstream

He's not considered a "war criminal." whoever supported Bush's wars at one time or another, even if they don't now, will want to save face somehow. You're forgetting that most of the U.S. just doesn't accept Bush as a "war criminal" even if they are wrong.

[JamesA1102]

52. That's not the point.

I'm not saying that Bush is a good guy. I'm just saying that if he can help raise money for Haiti it should be seen as a good thing.

[treestar]

54. I wasn't saying he was a good guy, or even to most Americans he

may not be a good guy, but to most Americans, he's probably not a "war criminal."

I despise him yet don't criticize Obama for this. I think Obama is just treating him as a former president, a position Bush does in fact hold.

[JamesA1102]

58. Sorry I misunderstood nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Some of them. Some are like that guy in the Snickers commercial.

The one pretending to like activism and blogging to get in the girl's pants.

There was a guy yesterday accusing Obama of wanting to kill brown people. Because clearly Obama hates brown people. These guys are just taking stale anti-Bush talking points and reusing them without putting any thought into it what so ever.

[JamesA1102]

27. Agreed. nt

[Arkansas Granny]

10. Fortunately, the DUers who are angry at Obama for reaching out to Bush

are not the majority. I think most of us realize that the most important thing right now is raising money to help the people of Haiti.

[CBR]

12. +1 nt

[JamesA1102]

28. Thanks! nt

[Better Today]

13. Does it occur to you that it is precisely BECAUSE we care

that we figure W shouldn't be anywhere near anyone needing help. Seriously look at his record, will you.

[EFerrari]

22. And he especially should be nowhere near Haiti whose plight

is in part a result of his criminality.

[Better Today]

47. Exactly, I don't believe in opening ways for someone to

minimize their previous hatefulness when they haven't yet admitted to those deeds. Not to mention somehow he'll also be able to use this as a way to minimize his Katrina disaster.

[JamesA1102]

62. And that is more important than helping suffering people? nt

[Better Today]

75. Yes, sometimes it is. Besides, people are going to give or not

regardless of W. To think otherwise is completely stupid. I certainly cannot imagine anyone setting around saying, "you know, I'd give, but I'm waiting for W to get involved." Get real people! This is just an offer by the administration to improve W's image.

[Kahuna]

83. I can't believe you said that. To me, that is as bad as what rush is saying..

bush is a monster. Everybody knows that. His only redemption will come from his maker, not the world at large. If he can raise money to help devasted people I could not care less that some feeble minded people might think he is now rehabilitated. This is what the Bible means about pride going before the fall. I will drop my pride if devasted people can be helped.

[Better Today]

86. As an atheist, your bible quote falls flat. To me it's principle before

the redemption of a war criminal, a Katrina fuck up, etc.

I notice you didn't answer, do you actually believe that there are some that will only donate if W is involved, really?

[Kahuna]

87. Whatever. You already have your mind made up. About EVERYTHING. nt

[Better Today]

92. Wow, you built that strawman quite quickly. Particularly lifeless

when you've still not addressed a question. Do you actually believe there are those that will only give money to Haitian relief efforts if W is the envoy?

[Kahuna]

130. That is a very stupid question. You should be embarrassed to ask it.

There are ALWAYS people who will only do a certain thing if a particular person asks it. That doesn't mean everybody. It could be just one or two people. But still, yes, there are people who will only give if w asks.

[JamesA1102]

98. Please you've proven that you have no principles.

You just want to be right and the hell with everyone else.

[bobbolink]

217. Yes, sadly, there are.

Now, go ahead and argue that its better for Haitians to suffer and die.

You prove the point of the OP--thank you for that.

[Shell Beau]

238. There are shallow people out there. So yes, that is a possibility.

And some may choose to donate more than they would have because of Bush. Whatever. It is about pulling all resources together to help a suffering people. Whatever it takes. I am sure the people who are getting the medical attention, food, water, etc., won't give a rat's ass where it came from. And it has yet to be seen if having Bush's name involved helps this situation, but if it does, then good.

[JamesA1102]

96. If you really think there is nothing more important than helping people

who are suffering and dying, then you are no liberal or progressive and are just as bad as Rush or Robertson or anyone else that puts political considerations above all else.

[Political Heretic]

193. I think you wrote that wrong.... ?

I think you meant "If you think there is something more important than helping people who are suffering and dying..."

[JamesA1102]

195. I think you are right. nt

[apocalypsehow]

135. "Yes, sometimes it is." Absurd statement. But just as long as you don't continue pretending to be

some kind of progressive or liberal, that's fine by me: because people who elevate their ideological whims over the suffering of people are neither.

[Political Heretic]

192. I don't agree that "sometimes it is" - that's not why the choice of Bush is a terrible one.

As I said below, I don't believe choosing Bush is the best way to maximize aid to suffering people.

If I did, I would support it.

[JamesA1102]

197. Then you have no business calling yourself a liberal.

Helping others is the cornerstone of being a liberal.

[Political Heretic]

204. Dude, you need to READ. Second time you've gotten something wrong.

I said that I don't agree with the person that said "sometimes it" being something other than concern for poor people "is more important."

I said I don't agree that anything is more important than helping poor people.

How difficult is that to comprehend?

[JamesA1102]

209. OK sorry,

[Political Heretic]

211. Thank you.

[Political Heretic]

189. I don't believe this will hlep suffering people

I believe there are better ways to help suffering people without legitimizing a war-criminal.

If I believed that partnering with Bush was truly the absolute best way to increase help for people in this crisis that desperately need it, I wold most certainly support it.

But I don't. And all it takes is just a simple glance at Bush's record of compassionless ineptitude to provide evidence to support my concern.

[JamesA1102]

194. This is not about Bush.

It is about helping people. He's not running anything, he's just raising money that will go to helping the people of Haiti.

[Political Heretic]

206. You and I disagree. I believe there were better ways to do more for people who desprately need it.

And saying its not "about anything" is tragically naive.

Here's how Bush's crowd of "donors" will operate in Haiti:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/14/naomi_klein_issues_haiti_disaster_capitalism

This is the fear. And there would have been lots of choices of figures to reach out to conservatives that would have been infinitely better than this war-criminal and inept failure that couldn't organize his way out of a paper bag.

[JamesA1102]

214. And Ms. Klein never mentions Bush.

And Bush isn't running or organizing anything. He is assisting Clinton in raising relief funds. If at some point in the future those organizations prove to be misusing those funds, then you have an arguement but until then you don't.

[Political Heretic]

218. As I said, you and I have a disagreement about how best to help poor people.

I'm sorry that you disagree, but that's just the way it is.

[JamesA1102]

221. I'm for helping them however possible and from where ever

possible putting any bias and partisan rangor aside.

[Political Heretic]

223. I'm for actually helping them to the maximum capacity possible.

I believe that Bush hampers those efforts, rather than helps that effort.

[JamesA1102]

225. How so?

All he is doing is helping to raise funds. How does that hamper anything?

[Political Heretic]

241. If his fundraising ability is ineffective where someone else would have been far more so.

[JamesA1102]

244. How is having Bush involved preventing anyone else from fundraising? nt

[Political Heretic]

313. Having him in position of named partner of the President when someone else would be more effective.

But hey I can turn your comment around on you?

If being a named fund-raising partner of the president doesn't matter, and anyone can fund raise and its all the same, then what the hell is your OP crying about? George Bush can fundraiser on his own, and his status as Obama designee doesn't make any difference, in which case... you're entire finger pointing "you don't care about poor people if you're upset that bush was tapped!" crap is meaningless.

Because he can fundraise on his own, and it makes no difference, right?

[JamesA1102]

318. Designee?

How is he a designee? He is just being used as a spokesman along with Clinton. And it is not meaningless if you put partisan considerations before helping people. I'm not pointing the finger at you but you've pointed it at yourself.

[TicketyBoo]

268. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I believe there are better ways to help suffering people without legitimizing a war-criminal.

While you may think it, and I may think it, he hasn't been convicted of war crimes, so it ought to be "alleged war criminal."

Regardless, he had enough campaign contributors to be elected president. (At least once. Maybe. Well, anyway, he had a lot of contributors.)

So, maybe these people will kick in more than they would have without his involvement. I find that a likely scenario.

[EFerrari]

71. I hope he gets as good a look at what he did in Haiti

as he did in New Orleans. The felon.

[treestar]

51. Haiti's political upheavals took place long before Bush

The major one was during the Clinton administration.

Haiti's plight has to do with an earthquake on Jan. 12, 2010. Before that, it was like many third world countries.

[EFerrari]

70. Haiti's "political upheavals" after independence started with Jefferson

and George Bush played the most recent, obscene part.

What you dismiss as "like many third world countries" is a direct result of US policy and the tragedy caused by the earthquake is multiplied by the fact that we killed the public sector in Haiti.

[treestar]

149. It's a long and drawn out history

But how much the U.S. is to blame is a complex matter.

[JamesA1102]

29. If he can help raise money to help suffering people

there should be no objection if you really care about helping people rather than scoring partisan points.

[Better Today]

43. And are you sure all he's going to be doing is raising money. If

the Bushes want to make a monetary difference in Haiti, they could open their own pocketbooks and donate for all of us they put out of biz and on the unemployment line.

[JamesA1102]

You totally missed my point. nt

[Better Today]

72. Then present your point so someone can understand it. Seems

anyone who doesn't agree with you is in your opinion "missing your point." So I believe that the burden of presenting your point in an understandable manner is your responsibility.

Neither I nor any of those above or below believe we have misunderstood, if you insist that we have, prove it by saying what you mean.

[JamesA1102]

99. The point is plain as day.

You just can't see it because your blinded by your own ideolocial hatreds.

[Political Heretic]

184. An obivious truth that I can't believe the OP "accidentally" overlooked.

It must be deliberate.

[JamesA1102]

187. Not an obvious truth, but a talking point. nt

[Political Heretic]

208. Says you. I disagree.

[Jennicut]

15. W. can help get more money there and that is about all he will be asked to do.

I doubt he is capable of much more.

[EFerrari]

19. Reaching out to war criminals isn't non-partisanship.

It's putting lipstick on an international terrorist.

[JamesA1102]

31. See you missed the point too. nt

[EFerrari]

44. No, I didn't miss the point and btw, I'm not "angry" with Obama.

What he does is what he does.

But objecting to George Bush has nothing to do with partisan bickering. The only thing our government should be calling on this individual for, this man who has never helped anyone in his entire life, is for an indictment. Not to rehabilitate the torture president.

So you see, you missed my point.

[JamesA1102]

46. No Your point is about you being right.

Not about doing everything possible to help suffering people. Sad that you have so little compassion for them.

[EFerrari]

69. Wrong. My point is about respecting human rights, not being right.

[KittyWampus]

76. your point is only pure money should be used to help Haitians. YOU may care, but the Haitians

with family members in pain and dying under the rubble don't.

[EFerrari]

78. See above. And if you think folding a Bush into any disaster

is actually going to help that disaster, you don't know much about disasters or Bushes.

[JamesA1102]

101. And raising money to help suffering people is not respecting

human rights?

[EFerrari]

106. Why don't you do yourself a favor and see where that money lands

before you set out to insult people who know more about our history in Haiti than you do?

[JamesA1102]

126. Wow I always know I'm winning an arguement

when the other person starts resorting to cheap insults.

[Raineyb]

131. There isn't a damn thing cheap about that insult. You're being rather obtuse here.

I'm not sure allowing the Bush family to 1. rehabilitate their image and 2. personally profit (as is their habit in such situations it would seem) under the guise of humanitarian aid is at all wise. Naturally, the president reached out to the prick because that's what presidents do but that shouldn't preclude anyone from asking if it's at all wise or helpful to have the shrub involved and objecting to a war criminal being involved in humanitarian anything does not mean that people don't care which is the nasty argument YOU brought up for discussion as per your OP.

[JamesA1102]

143. It's not about Bush.

It's about helping suffering people. So sad that you're too blinded by your hatreds to see that.

[Raineyb]

162. You really don't get it do you?

I don't think Bush will help any of these people the same way he didn't help anyone during Katrina. Anything he does will have some crony sucking at the teat which will end up siphoning off money from people who really need it.

If you really give a damn about helping people keep people who bring leeches with them away from the fund-raising.

I didn't forget how money was "donated" then stipulated that it go to a company that was run by Neil Bush. That kind of shit isn't really helping people and people are right to be skeptical about any "help" Bush may supposedly bring. I think he'll do more harm than good and if that's the case he needs to stay away.

I didn't say shit about hating Bush so how about you take your head out of your ass and respond to what I actually said rather than your warped interpretation of what it is you think I said.

[JamesA1102]

180. No it is you are the one who just isn't getting it.

You just can't see past your ideological hatreds. Bush isn't managing any of this, he's just helping to raise the funds.

[Raineyb]

255. And once again your obtuseness shines through.

What guarantee do you have that any money he raises will actually help people who need it rather than some relative or crony of his? His track record doesn't warrant that kind of faith in him. What part of that do you not understand?

My issue is, there's no evidence that this prick can be trusted to raise money without slapping some stipulation that will benefit some crony of his and so long as I don't trust him to raise the money cleanly I think there are other people more suited and more trustworthy for such a job. Period end of story.

Reading comprehension is your friend. You should try it sometime.

[JamesA1102]

258. There is no obtuseness about wanting to help suffering people

And it is not like Bush will be personally going out with a bucket asking people to stuff cash into it. He is a spokesman nothing more.

[Raineyb]

262. You don't give a shit about helping people. You only care about making a point.

And you do a piss poor job of making it too.

[JamesA1102]

289. No the point is about helping people.

Not about your outrage about Bush. You just don't like that I've put a mirror up your face and you don't like the reflection.

[Raineyb]

310. No the problem is you prefer emotional blackmail to a cogent argument.

And I'm done with your bullshit. You're a waste of time.

[JamesA1102]

320. Emotional blackmail?

Wow I must have hit a nerve.

[Raineyb]

334. Yes emotional blackmail. The act of attempting to strong arm someone into

agreeing with your point of view by attempting to make them feel bad for not feeling exactly as you do.

Of course it's complete bullshit and it's a blatant attempt at manipulation which I don't at all care for but since you have rather weak debating skills and a complete inability to either make a point or understand what you read it's not exactly surprising that you'd stoop to such an attempt.

It doesn't make your argument any more cogent. It does make you look like an asshole.

[JamesA1102]

344. The only arguement I need to make is helping people

is the top priority above all else. Everything else is just irrelevant.

[Raineyb]

369. You don't give a shit about helping people. You're just on a sanctimonious tear

one which facts can't penetrate. Enjoy having your head up your ass but don't be surprise when others comment that your breath smells like shit. It's a side effect from having your head stuck in your rectum.

[JamesA1102]

373. Wow you really like to let the nasty insults fly

But you still don't have a solid arguement for putting anything ahead of helping the people suffering in Haiti.

[TicketyBoo]

269. I don't have a problem with

Bush rehabilitating his image. Nixon held his head up high and did good things after he left office in disgrace. I never liked that man, and the lies and profanity that came out in the Watergate hearings made me detest him, but he did rehabilitate himself a lot.

Jimmy Carter left office as a failure, and went on to do good things (including winning the Nobel Peace Prize).

Bush is a former president, and his selection was predictable and totally proper as far as I'm concerned.

[EFerrari]

134. I imagine that's exactly how you know things. n/t

[JamesA1102]

147. It's exactly how I know when I'm winning the debate.

[EFerrari]

186. Winning? You start out by insulting people who disagree with you

and you follow up by displaying massive ignorance not only about Haiti but about US involvement in Haiti, not to mention Clinton and Bush involvement in Haiti. And you follow up with more insults.

You call that winning?

Have at it.

[JamesA1102]

191. You keep diverting the core issue

and can't get beyond your partisan blinders. That's not an insult that's just reality.

[EFerrari]

196. I don't keep diverting from your stawman. I keep illuminating it.

My argument has nothing to do with partisanship so your assertion is sort of ridiculous. As is your attempt to invent reality.

[JamesA1102]

198. It's not a strawman it is reality.

You're just too filled with anger and hatred to see it.

[EFerrari]

207. Kreskin, is that you?

I don't think so. Kreskin was more skillful.

[uppityperson]

415. bwahahahahahahahahaha. you slay me!

pot-kettle

[omega minimo]

338. What part of he's an UNELECTED CRIMINAL WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED

do you not understand? :evilfrown:

"... many of the comments here denouncing President Obama and his effort to use Bush to raise money for relief efforts have been equally vile."

So fucking what? It's Bush. It's DU. Get used to it.

"It seems to me that many really don't care about others as they claim but have just picked a side and now refuse to see past their ideological blinders & hatreds."

Your assumptions are absurd and insulting.

"For them it is not about helping or having compassion for other people but about proving that they are right."

YOU are the one determined that you are right and your assumptions are the only possible view, due to your "ideological blinders & hatreds."

This is still a catapult load of flamebait.

Congratulations. :freak:

[JamesA1102]

345. No I've determined that helping people is right.

and like it or not if you can't see past you're ideological hatreds and anger to see that, then thats you're problem.

[omega minimo]

364. and set up a false argument and phony controversy aka STRAWMAN and FLAMEBAIT

"Sactimonious" doesn't begin to cover your BS esp. as it is PHONY.

You just restated your core argument and everything about is FALSE. If you can't hold more than one thought in your head at the same time, that's YOUR problem.

:evilfrown:


kicking only because this turd thread keeps floating to the top. :thumbsdown:

[JamesA1102]

374. Helping suffering people is a strawman?

A false arguement? If the only thought that is floating in my head is to do everything possible to help the people of Haiti, then I'm damn proud of it!

[Better Today]

48. +1

[90-percent]

23. Empathy

I empathize with other people maybe a little more than average. I'm no Mother Teresa by any means and I have a home with two sick people - 85 year old mom with Parkinson's and an alcoholic wife trying to drink herself to death. I don't have the generosity to help anybody very much beyond this immediate requirement. Although, when I had a job a year ago, I did donate money now and then. But that's 10 or 20 bucks and a couple of mouse clicks. EZ.

But, this is a situation where partisan bickering is very inappropriate (Unless you're Rush) and the Haitians need all the help they can get.

-90% jimmy

[JamesA1102]

34. Thanks nt

[NJmaverick]

25. There are times when politics as usual must be set aside

this horrible disaster would be one of those times.

[JamesA1102]

35. Agreed. nt

[bdamomma]

125. most definitely.

[90-percent]

26. Oh OH Oh

Here's one:

Dick Armey should get a new astroturf group:

TEA PARTY PATRIOTS TO SAVE HAITI

-90% Jimmy

[elocs]

32. This is about helping people in desperate need, not partisan politics

as much as DU seems to love to make everything partisan. This is about Haiti and Bush can help raise money for that cause, for Haiti, and it has nothing else to do with anything he did or did not do in the past. He would be helping to raise money and not running the program. That should be a simple concept.

Does anyone here actually believe that anyone in Haiti that is in need would say, "Well I'm not taking that aid because the money came from Bush". Be real.

[JamesA1102]

39. Great point. nt

[EFerrari]

74. Do you actually believe this is anything more than theater?

Or about helping Haiti in any way?

This is about Obama turning the Katrina comparison on the Republicans -- and that's smart.

But Bush has never helped anyone but his cronies in his entire life and he isn't going to change that TODAY. If he does anything, it will be to facilitate expensive no bid "relief" contracts. What up and smell the mendacity.

He's not going there to wrap bandages or hand out water or money, for Christsake.

[treestar]

36. Some do some don't

But there are many who don't even claim to care about others - you can easily find posts just arguing that "me" or "my husband" can't get such and such, with the implication that Obama and a Dem Congress was supposed to fix that for them, certainly by now.

But I agree, there are many who just want to be "right" and many others who care about their cynicism way more than about the plight of anyone else.

[jobycom]

40. Agreed, there have been some threads as uncaring and self-serving

as the comments from Robertson or Rush. Some--not all, not most--DUers couldn't wait to use the quake to push their favorite religious or political agenda.

Most DUers, though, have been wonderful. As always, they rally around catastrophes, looking for ways to help. It brings out the best in most. Just not always the loudest.

[JamesA1102]

45. Very true. nt

[1awake]

61. Sometimes

I think most of the people on DU are the best people around... other times I think many people on DU are like a pack of piranha waiting for one of their own to make a misstep or say something different so they can eat their own.

[jobycom]

79. True words you speak.

Or type.

Funny thing is, they aren't always the same people. Sometimes someone you respect the most suddenly viciously attacks you, sometimes someone you've always thought of as an ass acts altruistic and pure. I guess you hang out here long enough, you catch people in a lot of different moods.

Plus, none of us can ever be wrong. Ever. That leads to conflicts. :)

[Kahuna]

81. This is true. Some have an agenda and they wait to pounce. However...

they are very selective about whom they pounce on. I use the word "cycle" and a whole sub thread accusing me of sexism (seriously) ensued. Others routinely make genuinely sexist remarks, including using the "b" word and violence against women, and nary a peep. There are bitter and immature little cliques who seem to PM each other so that they can gang up on their targets. (I am one of those targets). I put those idiots on ignore.

[mrbarber]

42. I applaud Obama for doing everything he can to help raise money for Haiti.

And am glad that he reached out to Bush if it means more money and aid will be sent.

It's Hell on Earth over there right now. I despise Bush with every fiber of my being, but I'd take ballroom dancing lessons with him and go on Dancing With the Stars if it means one less person will die because of lack of medical care or one more person will have food and clean water.

As the saying goes: Were all in this together.

[JamesA1102]

49. Excellent post. Thank you. nt

[Political Heretic]

314. I agree with everything you wrote, except that I don't think it means more aid will be sent.

I think choosing a different ally would have been far more effective in getting money and aid.

[JamesA1102]

321. You can't prove that.

Who would be more effective at getting donations from conservative organization?

[Sebastian Doyle]

53. If Chimpy was any sort of decent human being, he would have offerred help first thing

and wouldn't have needed to be asked. I'm no fan of Poppy Bush either, but we all know he's teamed up with Bill Clinton in the past when tragic events have taken place.

Chimp is a rich man, and his PNAC wars made his friends much richer. If he can get some money out of those bastards for relief in Haiti, I'm not going to complain about it. Especially since, thanks to him, I can't afford to give anything myself.

[90-percent]

55. GWB

Enlisting him might be an act of GENIUS, considering the wealth of his closest admirers:

"Some may consider you the elites; I consider you my base" - George Bush

A million dollars from each one of these Bush supporters would be a Godsend for the desperate people of Haiti.

Or they could all go out and buy a few more mansions and private jets instead?

-90% jimmy

[shraby]

57. Where's your profile icon?

[JamesA1102]

60. My what? nt

[Posteritatis]

85. A lot of DUers believe anyone with a hidden profile is automatically a conservative spy

If someone has over a thousand posts and thus qualifies as a real person, the goalposts are shifted to profile visibility if you say something that conflicts with the groupthink.

[JamesA1102]

103. I don't have a hidden profile. At least not on purpose.

How do I unhide it?

[Posteritatis]

109. options -> preferences (nt)

[Cali_Democrat]

275. LOL. So true

DU can be so ridiculous sometimes.

[Lex]

66. I'm not surprised he lacks one either. nt

[Bobbie Jo]

168. Oh...there are many others.

I would put up links, but they would only get deleted.

Amazing how some are never called on it, though. Perhaps you overlook the posters you happen to agree with? :shrug:

[DevonRex]

175. You're a little late. It's not blocked now. He's been here since 2003. nt

[Bobbie Jo]

181. Oh I know :)

I was attempting to make a point to the poster above. Just funny how they tend to 'overlook' other posters who hide their profiles. One of which is on page 1 of GD as we speak. :think:

You can be sure it won't be mentioned by the same posters who have made an issue of it on this thread.

[DevonRex]

307. Isn't that the truth?

Nary a word...

:eyes:

[TicketyBoo]

271. Mine was unintentionally hidden

until just a few days ago. I don't remember selecting it to be hidden. Is that the default setting, or was it just me being a little cautious when I signed up?

I don't know, but it was nothing nefarious, I can assure you. There may be others like me?

(I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.)

[dajoki]

59. K&R

[DevonRex]

63. Would DUers who are against W raising money rather REFUSE the money

that can help Haitians in this desperate situation? Do those DUers think the Haitians would refuse the water it will buy or the medical assistance it will provide?

[ElboRuum]

254. Wow, crickets...

I think the fact that no one responded to this rather astute observation framed in the form of an obvious question should speak volumes, especially to those who have been showing this odd sense of rancor.

[Raineyb]

370. Nobody said anything about refusing the money. At least that's not what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that one could raise more money using someone who doesn't have a habit of using crises to enrich their cronies or "donating" money with stipulations that enrich their relatives. And yes I think that should be a consideration.

[shawcomm]

64. To say it plainly: (to those upset about Bush being involved)

It's not about you and your indignation. It's not about Bush. So what if Bush raising a dollar won't erase what he's done? Again, it's not about that asshole. It's about the people suffering in Haiti. If Bush raises money, even if that money doesn't come from other countries who hate him, or us; it's still money being raised for those suffering.

If President Obama thinks he can be put to use, I say do it and help the suffering people.

[zipplewrath]

68. Is he raising a dollar?

That's an assumption that isn't immediately obvious to some.

[EFerrari]

93. Again, not it's not about us or our indignation.

It's about insulting Haiti by putting the man who kidnapped their president in charge.

It's about putting relief funds at risk by putting this mafioso anywhere need that money.

And of course, no matter how well this turns out politically for Obama, it's about rehabilitating the torture president while innocent people are still TODAY suffering in prison because of him.

I hope that's a little more clear.

[Spazito]

95. Wow, what a load of codswollup!

Bush will NOT be in charge and you damn well know that yet you try and confuse the issue.

Putting relief funds at risk exactly how? Clinton and Bush will be involved in raising funds NOT the distribution of them and, again, you damn well know that as well.

Insulting Haiti? Holy shit, I am SURE that is the top of Haitian concern, I am SURE they are going over a list of who should raise donations for their devastated country and who is on their "not allowed" list.

Who is playing politics with this tragedy? I would suggest you look in the mirror instead of pointing fingers at the President or anyone else.

[EFerrari]

102. I'm not pointing fingers, I'm pointing out the obvious.

And politics is the very least of my concern in this matter.

Obama did a smart thing when he called on the torture president, politically. I'm not denying that but you seem to be.

And I'm not confusing the issue in the least but looking at the big picture. This bit of theater will enrich the usual suspects, Obama will look gracious and if we're very very lucky, the people of Haiti might even get something out of it.

[Spazito]

107. LOL, you obviously don't read your own posts, this one OR the one to which...

I first responded. You posted this:

"And of course, no matter how well this turns out politically for Obama..."

Noooo, no "politics" being played by you on that one, right?

"Obama will LOOK (capitalization is mine) gracious..."

No politics there either, right?

Your posts are becoming even more pathetic, imo, and your contempt for President Obama is clear for all to see in your comments. Your posts come across as caring less about the people of Haiti and more about posting vitriol at a time when it is, to say the least, grossly inappropriate.

[EFerrari]

110. Nope. This was a political move by Obama and a good one

and there's no contempt in that whatsoever. He is a politician, in case you didn't know that.

There is zero vitriol in that statement unless you read it in. :)

ETA: Maybe what you're missing is that I'm not concerned with Obama this morning. He's fine. I'm concerned with Haiti. Remember, Haiti?

[Spazito]

113. Actually, it is a humanitarian move to call for aid for Haiti...

and enlist all who can help to do so regardless of "politics" but I can see why you don't get that or, even worse, get it but ignore it in order to post political barbs even at times like this.

[EFerrari]

114. Please review my posts and find one negative word about our president

if you can, and you won't.

And no, you can't see what I'm looking at because that is our history of interacting with Haiti and that has very little to do Obama at all.

You are reading political barbs, I am not posting them. I'm not "angry" at Obama or opposed to anyone raising money. What I do object to is whitewashing what both Clinton AND Junior did to Haiti by putting them in charge of anything related to Haiti.

If you don't know what they did to Haiti, maybe your time would be better spent finding out than in accusing me of a buffet of inappropriateness. Seriously.

/typo

[Spazito]

118. How US-centric of you to assume others are not as aware of the history...

of Haiti and the atrocious actions of the U.S. in that country, indeed, in many countries. Many 'foreigners' are as knowledgeable or, in some cases, even more knowledgeable about the actions of the U.S. throughout it's history. As a matter of fact, I also know how Canada's actions in Haiti have been less than admirable as well.

You really don't see how saying it is "politically smart" of Obama while also saying it is an "insult to Haiti" is a political hit, do you. That, in itself, is astounding.

Did you support the Bush admin when they refused Cuba's offer of help during the disaster from Katrina? They did it for the same reasons you profess to be against people like Bush being involved in raising funds for Haiti. I suspect you did not support the turning away of Cuba's offer based on 'political differences' and, if I am correct, your railing against Bush being involved would smack of a double standard, imo.

[EFerrari]

121. Saying that Obama did something politically smart is not a hit

unless you believe politicians shouldn't engage in politics. I don't look for opportunities to criticize Obama, quite the contrary.

And no, your analogy about Cuba/Katrina, Bush/Haiti doesn't work. Cuba didn't overthrow the government in Louisana against the people and in favor of its multinational cronies. Apples and tan bark. I am thinking about the people, you are thinking in political terms.

And, psssst, I'm not railing. I'm pointing out that this is theater and that if Junior has anything to do with this, you can expect a train of BushCo cronies to benefit. What is there in his history that would lead you to expect anything else? It's theater.

Finally, what I think doesn't matter. But how about this: I promise I will follow the money on this effort and I will post it, no matter what it turns out to be.

[Spazito]

122. You call it theater, I call it humanitarian efforts to aid a country in dire need....

we obviously have a profound philosophical difference as to need over politics. I think we have to agree to disagree on this. As to following the money, sounds good to me assuming you are specifically referring to the funds raised by Bush/Clinton. I will look forward to your follow-up post once you have the data you will need.

[EFerrari]

123. Good deal. I'll do that, then. After this discussion

I would like to know what happens.

[AngryAmish]

77. George W Bush is only going there to feast upon the flesh of the dead babies

[Spazito]

82. Well said!

I only need to look at who is taking 'umbrage' at the President's inclusion of Bush to know it is, primarily, the same poster who never have anything good to say about the President. They are a very SMALL minority of DU, thank goodness, although they are very busy posters making it look like it is a bigger groundswell than it is.

The vast majority of DUers understand the need to put aside politics at this time, thank goodness again.

[Xenotime]

90. I just want bush to go there, period. If he helps buildify and repairarate, that ok i guess

[JohnnyLib2]

91. Here in red, red KY, there are people who listen to Bush, Palin,

McCain and who oppose Obama on everything from birthplace on.

Seems to me that Obama is wise to put the former president in this position....

[CakeGrrl]

97. +1 I get it and I agree

Some here are so full of daily rage they rail at everything Obama does. But don't call it "mindless" or feel their righteous wrath.

:eyes:

It's to the point where some are so far gone they can't see the pragmatism and the plain, common-sense professional courtesy in the current POTUS reaching out to the previous occupant of the WH, who happens to be connected to a shitload of $$$ if nothing else.

Ask them how much contempt they hold for Bill Clinton, who has happily partnered arm-in-arm with Bush I for years?

[WilliamPitt]

100. It was a good idea

75% of all charitable giving in the US comes from the Evangelical community (what they give to is another, less savory issue).

George W. Bush is the world heavyweight champion of getting money from these people. He crooks his little finger, and they vaccum up coins from between the couch cushions to give to him.

If Obama is directing that fundraising prowess towards assistance to Haiti, it is exactly the right thing to do.

For the first time in his miserable life, George W. Bush is doing something useful.

[Quantess]

104. Good points, but too much generalization.

Haven't you figured out by now that DUers can't accurately be lumped together?

[JamesA1102]

129. I didn't lump them all together.

In fact I said in my OP, However, this morning when it was announced that President Obama had reached out to George W. Bush to help raise money for relief efforts in Haiti, many DUers, not all, went into a partisan rage."

[CreekDog]

105. Hating W and wanting to take care of people are not mutually exclusive

And even if W does a good job helping Haiti, forgetting what he did to the country and what he seemed to be troubled to do for New Orleans is a tough sell --and not necessarily helpful right now either.

[EFerrari]

117. I've been accused of everything but being al Qaida in this thread

but I still think it was smart of Obama to turn the Republians' Katrina comparison back on them in this way. AND, at the same time, I know that Bush is a criminal, that he (with Clinton) is responsible for the state of Haiti's weak government and basically non-existant public sector. And I can predict where most of that money will go.

Whatever. It looks like more and more relief and rescue teams are landing. That's the main thing right now.

[FrenchieCat]

283. You are such a victim.

Poor you.

Meanwhile, the people in Haiti, who are the real victims here,
don't care about your opinion on who's money will do.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

111. Great post

I voiced something similar on one of the threads you are referring to. In a time of need I dont care what your party affiliation is.

[shadowknows69]

115. I don't care if he gets Ronald McDonald to help. Lucifer. Hitler?

Just get the people help.

[EFerrari]

136. Except it doesn't work that way.

The torture president fronts raising the money, the contracts go to BushCo cronies and Haiti is still fucked.

How long has Bill Clinton been special envoy to Haiti?

We, just normal people, think about sending as much as we can over there. They think about the contracts they can finalize.

Whatever.

[shadowknows69]

139. True, forgive me for dreaming for a second.

[EFerrari]

141. I'm sorry. There are a lot of things I know that I'd rather not know.

:(

[shadowknows69]

171. You and me both my friend. I don't claim any professional expertise.

But I see how the world works.

[Raineyb]

166. Why are people ignoring this?

I remember a Katrina donation by the Bush family having the stipulation that certain educational software be purchased. And just who was running the company that would profit off the sale of this software? Neil Bush. How in light of this type of track record can anyone even dare think that any reservations about Bush's involvement is merely because they hate Bush. There's a reason people hate Bush; good reasons and those things about Bush haven't disappeared because he's been asked to raise money and I can't in good conscience ignore these things because the people of Haiti deserve better than that!

[EFerrari]

177. I don't know but it's curious, isn't it?

No one who knows anything about BushCo OR Haiti can look at this sweetheart deal and feel anything but ill.

[Raineyb]

412. Lot of crickets to that point.

But more spewage about partisanship as though repeating the same asinine points will make the point less asinine. I guess crony capitalism is a okay with some people around here.

[jgraz]

116. How many posts does it take to dig out an earthquake survivor?

This is an internet forum. People say things on it. That's it.

[Romulox]

119. In general, people are very selective with their compassion. I've found DU typical in this respect.

[omega minimo]

120. If people hate Bush, they have good reason.

"Now I know that this post will be unrecced to death and I'll be called a corportist, DLC shill, an idiot and other nasty names.'

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

[JamesA1102]

128. It's not about hating Bush.

It's about getting help to suffering people.

[EFerrari]

132. Like bringing democracy to Iraq.

[JamesA1102]

144. Nothing to do with this. This is about helping people.

Look past your ideological blinders for once and stop trying to make it about something else.

[EFerrari]

178. Bringing democracy to Iraq wasn't about helping people?

lol

Sorry, I'm not the one pushing ideology here. :)

[JamesA1102]

185. I never said it was.

BTW When the other person keeps changing the subject from the core issue, that is another sign you're winning the debate.

[EFerrari]

188. "Nothing to do with this. This is about helping people."

Another sign you're projecting too hard to actually listen to your opponent.

[JamesA1102]

200. Not that I'm not listening.

But so far I've not heard an arguement that proves that helping people is not a good thing despite where that help is coming from.

[Raineyb]

273. No, you're just not listening. THAT much has been made painfully obvious. n/t

[JamesA1102]

290. I am listening

And every arguement has nothing to do with helping the people of Haiti but more about your vitriol.

[Raineyb]

311. The argument is about getting MORE money to the people of Haiti.

But you're inability to comprehend what you read and your preference for emotional blackmail rather than the use of semi-cogent arguments blind you from it.

Like I said, I'm done with you. You're a sanctimonious prick who apparently has no problem with assholes trying to profit while pretending to help the people of Haiti. The people of Haiti deserve a hell of a lot better than that. But as you can't read and comprehend I don't expect your stupid ass to understand that. THAT would be vitriol by the way and it's squarely directed at your stupid ass.

[JamesA1102]

324. I've seen no proof that anyone is trying to profit.

Just a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations. As far as any emotional blackmail that only works if you know what you are saying is BS driven by your own anger and hatred rather than any compassion to help suffering people.

[Raineyb]

335. You're an idiot.

I'm basing my conclusions based on past behavior. Am I supposed to ignore this because you're too stupid to draw your own conclusions? I don't think so.

[JamesA1102]

346. You've basing your conclusions based on your hatred

and then making wild unsupported accusation to rationalize them. The problem is you can't make an arguement that refutes the main point that helping people is the first priorty and it trumps everything else.

[EFerrari]

362. The only person spewing hatred on this thread seems to be you.

I wonder why you'd be compelled to do that.

Many posters here have given you perfectly rational reasons why the torture president should not be representing this country in any capacity. That you write them all off as "haters" indicates irrationality on your part, not theirs.

[JamesA1102]

375. Wanting to help the people of Haiti is spewing hatred?

If so then this is indeed a bizarro world. And no one has given any rational reason that anything should be put ahead of helping people. And just because a bunch of people say something is rational doesn't mean it is. The tea baggers all think they are rational.

[omega minimo]

137. How do you know? Of course people are going to respond to his ugly phony face on this

Don't expect DU to not spit on Dubya "even at a time like this."

[EFerrari]

138. Especially at a time like this is when the disaster capitalists move in.

It astonishes me that people don't see that.

[omega minimo]

151. Including those who may sound benevolent

like Bill Clinton compellingly speaking to "continuing our work" already in motion to help Haiti. There needs to be watchdogging to make sure that actually occurrs......

[inna]

165. +1.

"Especially at a time like this is when the disaster capitalists move in.

It astonishes me that people don't see that."


Exactly.

[JamesA1102]

148. Fortunately many here really care about other people

as they claim and have no trouble with the people of Haiti no matter from where that help comes from. Those are the real liberals and progressives.

The rest are still too blinded by their ideology and care more about being right than doing right.

[omega minimo]

150. Says you

It's also possible to see more than one angle to this, which escapes you.

[JamesA1102]

157. That's just rationalization for indulging in partisan hatreds.

There is only one "angle" that matters here, helping the suffering people of Haiti.

[Raineyb]

163. No there isn't only one angle

Well there is if you have your head up your ass but for the rest of us there are in fact multiple angles to consider.

[JamesA1102]

201. At the end of the day all that matters is helping people who are suffering.

The rest is irrelevant.

[Raineyb]

256. Except you don't give a shit about them. People keep explaining their reservations

vis a vis Bush in regards to helping people and you completely ignore their arguments in order to hurl insults.

You care more about insulting people than about even considering that maybe Bush's presence does more harm than good. Take your sanctimony elsewhere will ya? You're boring me.

[JamesA1102]

259. And their reservations are ridiculous.

Bush is just a spokesman. He is not personally collecting any funds nor is he running anything nor is he preventing anyone else from collecting funds. If someone refuses to donate money to the people of Haiti because Bush is one of the people asking, then they are not very charitable people in the first place.

[Raineyb]

263. Based on the track record they are most certainly NOT ridiculous.

Not wanting this crisis to be used as a way for Bush cronies to make money is a legitimate concern. The concern is about people profiting off Bush's "charitable" activities not about people not giving because Bush is "fund-raising." Take your straw man somewhere else.

[JamesA1102]

291. But Bush's cronies are not collecting the money.

Bush is just being used as a spokesman.

[Raineyb]

312. Bush's brother wasn't directly collecting the money either

Do you not understand the concept of crony capitalism? The crony doesn't have to be involved in the fund raising to get a cut. THAT'S how it works fool.

[JamesA1102]

323. Exactly how is Bush going to get a fundraising cut for

money donated through the white house website? Now you're beginning to sound like Rush.

[eridani]

297. Explain how disaster capitalism helps people n/t

[JamesA1102]

300. Explain how your accusation has any basis in fact. nt

[eridani]

352. See below

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/13/things-to-remember-while-helping-haiti

Here's what the most evil foundation in the world has to say.

Things to Remember While Helping Haiti

Today, the United States began surveying the damage inflicted by a devastating earthquake in Haiti this week. In addition to providing immediate humanitarian assistance, the U.S. response to the tragic earthquake should address long-held concerns over the fragile political environment that exists in the region.

The U.S. government response should be bold and decisive. It must mobilize U.S. civilian and military capabilities for short-term rescue and relief and long-term recovery and reform. President Obama should tap high-level, bipartisan leadership. Clearly former President Clinton, who was already named as the U.N. envoy on Haiti, is a logical choice. President Obama should also reach out to a senior Republican figure, perhaps former President George W. Bush, to lead the bipartisan effort for the Republicans.

While on the ground in Haiti, the U.S. military can also interrupt the nightly flights of cocaine to Haiti and the Dominican Republic from the Venezuelan coast and counter the ongoing efforts of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to destabilize the island of Hispaniola. This U.S. military presence, which should also include a large contingent of U.S. Coast Guard assets, can also prevent any large-scale movement by Haitians to take to the sea in dangerous and rickety watercraft to try to enter the U.S. illegally.

Meanwhile, the U.S. must be prepared to insist that the Haiti government work closely with the U.S. to insure that corruption does not infect the humanitarian assistance flowing to Haiti. Long-term reforms for Haitian democracy and its economy are also badly overdue. Congress should immediately begin work on a package of assistance, trade, and reconstruction efforts needed to put Haiti on its feet and open the way for deep and lasting democratic reforms.

The U.S. should implement a strong and vigorous public diplomacy effort to counter the negative propaganda certain to emanate from the Castro-Chavez camp. Such an effort will also demonstrate that the U.S.’s involvement in the Caribbean remains a powerful force for good in the Americas and around the globe.

[JamesA1102]

353. Most evil foundation???

You're sounding more like Pat Robertson than like an open minded liberal.

[eridani]

390. The Heritage Foundation is against EVERYTHING that liberals stand for n/t

[JamesA1102]

391. So just because they are for something we should

automatically be against it? And you call me an idiot.

[eridani]

396. I am against disaster capitalism with or without them. Are you? n/t

[JamesA1102]

399. Sure but I've yet to see any evidence that that is happening now

So far it's been a bunch of unsupported accusations that seem to be motivated by partisanship.

[eridani]

401. Time will tell. The simple fact that the Heritage Foundation scrubbed its website

--is evidence that people are paying attention. Maybe this will prevent a wholesale assault by disaster capitalists.

[omega minimo]

340. LOL

ow! :rofl:

[JamesA1102]

351. Nice that you find people suffering and dying so amusing. nt

[omega minimo]

366. Your OP is insufferable

[JamesA1102]

376. Sorry that you think helping the people of Haiti is insufferable nt

[omega minimo]

176. Says you

[JamesA1102]

202. Mature comeback nt

[EFerrari]

179. Partisan hatreds, my baldheaded granny.

Read something. Learn something. Find out for yourself how much loot there is in disaster.

If that well known humanitarian George Bush does something for Haiti, I will apologize to you publicly. And if he doesn't, I expect you to apologize to all the people you've insulted on this thread.

[JamesA1102]

203. Take your blinders off

and stop seeing everything through partisan filters.

[EFerrari]

210. LOL

[EFerrari]

169. What a bunch of self serving cr@p.

:)

Speaking of caring about other people.

:rofl:

[JamesA1102]

205. Obviously you only care about being right

rather than doing what is right.

[EFerrari]

212. Yes, James. That is my reputation here at DU.

:)

[omega minimo]

341. Fortunately many here know a strawman when they see one.

[JamesA1102]

347. Helping suffering people is a strawman? nt

[omega minimo]

367. Phony reversal questions missing-the-point-on-purpose

are unbelievable.

[JamesA1102]

377. The only point is doing everything possible to help the people of Haiti.

And I'm not the one who is missing it.

[omega minimo]

381. Did you talk to Skinner yet about making Your Point the Only One?

Maybe he'll pin it to the top of every forum for you. :puke:

[JamesA1102]

383. No don't need to talk to anyone to know

that helping other people should always be our first priority.

[apocalypsehow]

133. Kick, Rec. n/t.

[EFerrari]

142. You know, DU raised $50,000. to buy cancer surgery for Andy Stephenson.

Apart from Haiti, your OP is disgusting to me.

DUers from all over the country and all over the world, in fact, donated to that effort to meet the deadlines.

You have no profile posted so I don't know when you came here. But in fact you are insulting a very generous community and that's all I'll say about that.

[JamesA1102]

145. That's because can't get beyond your own

self-rightousness. But at the end of the day that will do nothing to help the people suffering in Haiti.

[EFerrari]

164. Well, no. And at the end of the day, no matter how many times

you repeat something so stupid won't make it more true.

[JamesA1102]

219. The truths deserve to be repeated again and again

especially to those who are too filled with hate and anger to hear them the first time.

[EFerrari]

234. More personal attacks and no substance.

[JamesA1102]

245. The substance is in helping suffering people

whatever it takes and putting there needs above partisan anger and hatred.

[EFerrari]

249. Right. And that will not happen in Haiti.

Maybe you'd better spend your time learning history and watching this money than projecting all over other posters to this board.

[JamesA1102]

260. You don't know that.

Maybe you should spend your time learning about compassion rather than projecting your partisan hatred and anger all over this board.

[EFerrari]

261. See above.

[ieoeja]

146. I don't. (nt)

[howard112211]

153. It's a lose-lose situation for W anyway...

[ddeclue]

154. I don't object to him using W to raise money.

W's got a long way to go for redemption though.

[JamesA1102]

158. Don't disagree with that.

But this is not about Bush's redemption, it is about helping the people of Haiti.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

155. I missed the incident you're referring to, but...

"President Obama had reached out to George W. Bush to help raise money for relief efforts in Haiti..."

It's no secret to anyone who's read my posts that I am not the world's biggest George W. Bush fan, but using that incident to slam President Obama, George W. Bush, or both, is something I wouldn't do.

Everything in life isn't black & white. George W. Bush has the ability to do good, like any other man, woman or child on the planet. I think the attacks in the past have come primarily from a well-publicized reluctance to do so, but that was then and this is now. The Haiti situation won't benefit from partisan bickering.

[Bluebear]

156. OT why is your profile blocked? Just curious.

[JamesA1102]

160. Sorry, Didn't know it was blocked.

Check again.

[DevonRex]

173. So, you've been a proud DUer since 2003. And now everybody knows it.

And they should take back their insinuations.

I loved your post.

[Raineyb]

336. Who cares how long he's been here? He's still an ass and this OP is still bullshit. n/t

[JamesA1102]

348. Love how you resort to namecalling.

Just shows that you can't refute my make point that helping the suffering people of Haiti needs to be the top, the only consideration.

[Raineyb]

371. I've tried giving you an argument but you can't comphrenend because you're an idiot.

I'm not going to repeat myself ad nauseam then claim victory based on shit I imagined. That would be the difference between you and me. And you're still an ass.

[JamesA1102]

378. You keep on saying that but

you keep on coming back hurling insults at me. That's fine call me whatever you like. You still can't make an arguement that helping the people in Haiti should be the only consideration and that everything else it just partisan rangor and irrelevant.

[Raineyb]

417. I've made my argument. More than once. Your inability to read doesn't change that

and there's nothing left to say. I don't waste my time trying to argue with morons who are incapable of reading and understanding an argument. Piss off already and go congratulate yourself on having done not a damn thing but beat your chest and declare how compassionate you are. I'm sure somewhere there's some sucker who will fall for it. As the saying goes there's one born every minute, you should be able to find one. As to your blather, it doesn't impress me. In fact you're boring me.

[JamesA1102]

419. Caring about helping suffering people is blather???

Wow! The problem is that there is no arguement that can be made that puts partisan anger and hatred ahead of helping suffering people.

[Canuckistanian]

159. I thought it was a great idea

He couldn't possibly do any harm since he's not in charge of anything).

And it will show people how DEMOCRATS handle crises - by being gracious and inclusive.

[EFerrari]

174. Right and that's a political decision that will work here.

On the other hand, Clinton and Bush are responsible for ousting Aristide TWICE and imposing FTAS that have left Haiti exactly where is it now.

Not to mention, Bush is a corrupt war criminal that should be behind bars and not heading anything.

Otherwise, it's fine!

[Canuckistanian]

240. I always wonder what actual Haitians think

You know, the people who actually LIVE there?

Do they know that these two presidents screwed them royally (well, not so much GWB as his father) and are largely responsible for their (pre-earthquake) condition?

The Haitians had a shot at becoming a prosperous nation again in the 1970's and 1980's, but were literally beaten back down by American actions.

Do you think they care that the 2 people partly responsible for their poverty will be forgiven? Or do they even know, given the state of their education?

[xchrom]

161. Unrec.-- but this is one of goddamndest most arrogant

Self important, annoying OPz I've seen in a while.
Good job. -- and no -- you won't get the point.

[demmiblue]

172. Yes, I think most here really do care about people. Too bad you can't see that.

[JamesA1102]

224. Actually there are a lot here who think Bush helping to fund raise

is a good thing. So you're right their are many here that do care about people.

[Maru Kitteh]

182. I applaud ANY outreach to help people in Haiti. Period.

If Dick Fucking Cheney heads down there and hands out water and antibiotics I will applaud him too, even if he is an evil bastard.

[Political Heretic]

183. Coordinating with blood-soaked war criminals is not the best way to help Haiti.

[Lex]

216. Oh, but he might raise $1 dollar so it's awesome . . .

even if someone else would've raised a million times more than that in the same capacity as that jackass.

[JamesA1102]

226. What's to stop someone else from raising that million dollars anyway?

It's not like this was a job at the Red Cross that Obama gave to Bush over someone more qualified.

[JamesA1102]

227. Who cares who helps Haiti as long as the people get help?

Isn't that more important than anything else?

[spanone]

190. hatred for all things mr bu$h* goes way beyond ideology. it's about the wrong guy helping.

[cherokeeprogressive]

230. "it's about the wrong guy helping." That's about the funniest thing I've ever read.

"Yes, we have no bananas." "You can't get there from here." Your subject line is right up there with those doozies.

I don't think a single thirsty person in Haiti would give the slightest fuck about who is involved in slaking their thirst. I don't think a single hungry person in Haiti cares a whit about who might be involved in sating their hunger this evening. I don't think a single thinking person in Haiti cares much about who helps with sanitation in order to keep him or her from contracting cholera or a single other disease that appears out of nowhere and runs rampant when sanitary conditions disappear.

You care though. You care that a single Haitian could benefit in some way from the actions of a person whom you hate with every fiber of your being. From your subject line, I come away with the notion that you'd rather see Haitians suffer from lack of support than to see them helped by a person who affects you so deeply. Notice I didn't even mention his name in this post. That's because who helps is about the least important consideration in a situation like this. That someone does help is what I'd imagine EVERY Haitian is thinking is important above all else right now.

"it's about the wrong guy helping." I Laughed so hard... thought I'd die...

[CBR]

233. +1 nt

[JamesA1102]

246. Excellent post. Thank you. nt

[Born_A_Truman]

229. Can someone post the DU Haiti fundraising thread?

I can't find one. Thanks!

[Electric Monk]

251. Here are three

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7463429

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7467051

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7453309&mesg_id=7453309

[Born_A_Truman]

253. Ok

I was looking for one sponsored by DU like they have done for feeding the hungry, etc. I have donated but wanted to participate in any DU donation as well.

[patrice]

232. It puzzles me when people don't seem to factor in all of the POSING that goes on in an environment

like the DU.

You need to discount maybe about 25% of the extreme stuff you see around here.

[Shell Beau]

239. Some people's hatred for Bush goes beyond this, and that is sad.

I dislike Bush as much as anyone else here, but if his name being involved helps ANY, then I am all for it. In times like this, you put your feelings aside, and do what is best to help. Whatever that might be. Will it help? I certainly don't know, but I don't think it will hurt the aid to Haiti. And if someone chooses not to donate because Obama brought in Bush, then they are a sick asshole. If you can help, please do.

[tammywammy]

248. I thought Obama asking (W) Bush to work with Clinton was a great idea

The same as when HW Bush and Clinton worked together.

[DFW]

250. IF Bush is willing to help, fine with me

My problem with Bush is not that he might help, but that he wasn't out there immediately offering to do just
that, and had to be recruited to join the effort. Haiti needs any assistance it can get, and aid from Republicans,
assuming no strings are attached (and I can't imagine they'd be THAT callous), is as good as any other aid.
Starving people don't care a hell of a lot about where food comes from.

If Bush brings in help in any form whatsoever, it's welcome. I just find it sad that he had to be asked first.
I wouldn't judge people too harshly for being skeptical, either. Bush's response to Katrina is not a track
record to be proud of, and those people were our own countrymen, while he was their president.

[TicketyBoo]

279. I don't fault him for

not volunteering. I think he knows what a miserable failure he was as a president. In his position, I would have waited to be asked, too.

[DFW]

304. Can't agree with that.

As an ex-president, no matter how lousy an ex-president, he has the moral obligation to step up and offer.

[TicketyBoo]

316. We can't know what was in his head.

He may have been thinking his help would not be wanted or accepted. From the attitude of many, that could well have been on his mind.

Even now, people here on DU are saying he shouldn't be involved at all.

[ElboRuum]

257. Liberals are people too, and therein lies the problem.

First, let me start off by saying that I disagree with your definition of liberal. I don't think it is particularly wise to define any political leaning in terms of any sort of emotional import or requirement, and compassion is, while not an emotion in and of itself, certainly derives directly from empathy/sympathy with suffering, which is. No, a liberal, in its simplest terms, is a person who subscribes to the philosophy that change results in positive results for a society, change is inevitable, and change should be encouraged, especially when traditional or older methodologies of maintenance of that society and solving the problems within that society fail. It's opposite, conservatism, sees change as the devil you don't know and prefers what it perceives as tried and true answers and methodologies to solving problems. The reason why I don't think liberal means what you've deduced it to mean is because it is relative. For example, a person who believes in capitalism over socialism in a primarily socialist society would be considered the liberal in that society.

It just so happens that right now, at this very moment, the desire to assist (if not showing compassion for) the suffering is liberal because the conservative view is contemptuous and dismissive of people in need, and subscribes to the very Social Darwinist idea that the unfit should suffer and expire in silence.

Not all liberals, by this definition, must necessarily be of the compassionate variety, but all liberals, by definition, should be looking for all of the ways that are possible to render this assistance. Honestly, I do not expect people on DU to soften their hearts to a man who, eight years prior to Obama's election, not only trashed our economy and got us into a war by stating his case with his fingers crossed behind his back, but was complicit in an attempt at culturally engineering liberal thought out of all forms of expression. I don't hold them in contempt for their contempt. But I do expect them to look at Obama's reaching out to Bush as a fund-raiser as a legitimate attempt to work the problem. That you should refuse a part for someone to play because of partisanship or pride or some sense of justice or vengeance (and contrary to any rationalization that people might come up with for the rectitude of that position, that is precisely what it is)... it is, for lack of a better word, stupid.

But liberals are people too, and stupid does not afflict the neoconservative dittohead alone. Some people of liberal bent seem to want reparations from or punishment for or some form of verifiable and obvious ignominy suffered by those of the Bush Administration before they can move forward to what should be a liberal's main charge, to use the creativity and forward thinking that every one of us has to solve problems. But I have to admit, to me, it looks very much similar to the point of view that you've expressed here, it's all about being right and shouting about how right you are. And while that may score points amongst DUers, it doesn't solve the problems that this country and this world face.

Liberalism, on DU, seems to have become about a static position more than a dynamic motion forward. There is more emphasis on what constitutes the liberal position rather than the solution of problems once that position has been established as it has. If all you have is the position, then all you have is the partisanship, and here we are.

[JamesA1102]

329. I disagree.

First, I didn't define liberalism but rather said the cornerstone is compassion. And liberalism is not just change. Ronald Reagan was an agent of change, so was Bush in many ways but in neither case was it good change. For change to be good it must help people either economically or by social justice, etc. and the desire to help people comes from compassion. Without compassion we may as well be conservatives.

[Juche]

264. I do

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7461617&mesg_id=7461958

Boom baby, all that Buddhist compassion meditation paid off.

[Mithreal]

265. Thom Hartmann had a very nuanced argument about Bush and Haiti

Give your fellow DU'ers a break. I didn't jump on that bandwagon but I understand it to some extent. Most of your fellow DU'ers can be persuaded by a well reasoned argument. Bush destroys everything he touches, fine, use him as a tool but don't expect people to like Bush any more or shame them for hating him. Bush is an angel of death.

[JamesA1102]

293. Not asking anyone to like Bush.

I don't like Bush either but Bush is not the point here. He is just being used as a spokesman. The point is to do everything possible to help the people of Haiti.

[Mithreal]

296. I believe you. Just asking not to shame people for screaming

when that horrible being is mentioned.

He is an embarrassment, abomination and blight.

I did not participate in that outrage. I understand he should be used for whatever good might come from that use.

I say this humbly because I know you are right and just ask that you understand your fellow DU'ers warts and all.

[JamesA1102]

299. I'm sorry I have little understanding for a lack of compassion

by people putting politics over helping people. I denounce it when comes from people on the right like Rush and I denouce it when it comes from the left.

[Mithreal]

302. All right.

[TicketyBoo]

266. It makes sense to me.

It'll give him a chance to partially redeem himself over the Katrina fiasco.

His father and Clinton worked together for the tsunami relief. Why shouldn't this happen? I think it's a great idea.

Haiti needs all the help it can get.

[Withywindle]

267. Well, I'm reccing.

Lots of people who are comfortable in their daily lives want ideological purity. They don't even try to understand how much even a **small** political improvement means in the lives of real people who are struggling every day.

If Obama's outreach to Bush results in just ONE $50 donation that wouldn't have been there otherwise, and that just ONE $50 donation buys water and medicine to help ONE person make it through another 24 hours to the possibility of greater help.


IT WAS TOTALLY FUCKING WORTH IT.


Do you think your ideological purity is more important than ONE life? (Obviously, a stranger's life, not yours or a member of your family's, otherwise it wouldn't even be a question, would it?) I don't.

[omega minimo]

274. Wow this stupid flamebait turned out really well, didn't it.

[Cali_Democrat]

276. K&R!!!!!

I hope people will read this and realize that sometimes it's better to help suffering human beings instead of engaging in partisan attacks.

Those people in Haiti need help and I really don't care if Obama reaches out to Bush as long as those poor people get all the aid they can get.

[avaistheone1]

278. Bush did a heckofajob with Katrina, Keep Bush the hell out of this thing.

The guy can't do anything right. Bush is a complete sociopath and fool. Keep him out!!

[Terra Alta]

280. W is a fucking war criminal.

The only place he belongs is behind bars.

I can understand Obama wanting someone on the other side to help raise money -- but why Dubya? I don't like Poppy Bush either but he would have been a far better choice.

[Divine Discontent]

298. exactly - it's like saying the other MONSTERS throughout history would have been Okay to ask to help

in relief funds! It's laughable! B*sh is no different than other horribly misguided monsters throughout history. Millions of people have died because of his actions overseas. And to think of them being courted to help raise funds when he's a 'respected' criminal because he was the president, is simply nauseating. They act like no $ will be donated without him.

Pathetic.

[RainDog]

281. there are times that are not appropriate for partisanship. this is one of them.

I couldn't stand George W. - even before the 2000 selection. But when 9-11 happened, even tho I couldn't stand the man, I hoped for the best from him.

I hoped to see leadership that went beyond anger and fear.

Even tho I didn't like the man, I didn't want that occasion to be associated with George Bush - because it was about that moment and the grief of those who had lost loved ones and the coming to terms with a tragedy.

Even those which whom we don't find reason to agree can share common bonds of humanity - and, for whatever reason, for them to do so is a good thing.

[winyanstaz]

282. There are good and bad people in every party, race, nation etc...

I believe most people are basically good souls and want to help when they see suffering.

[tavalon]

284. I just saw it as President Obama reminding Bush about his responsibility

as a former President. None of the other formers needed reminding. The petulant child does. Hopefully, he will step up now. As he should.

I'm sorry that some people said some stupid things. I don't think it represents any more than I small, small part of this place. I think most of us want money and assistance to rain down upon the Haitian people from any place at all. I personally have donated to two agencies and will be researching two others in the next day or so. I don't care whether it is Republican, Democratic or non partisan help - let it happen quickly and muchly.

[Blue-Jay]

286. No. We hate people.

Feel better?

[FlaGranny]

295. Good Lord!!

I haven't been reading much here in the last few days. Do you mean people are really condemning Pres. Obama for asking G.W. to help? That's truly disturbing.

[JamesA1102]

301. Yes.

Just read some of the responses on this thread.

[EFerrari]

306. When you see those images of those poor people

who were already hungry in a country that barely has any infrastructure or government, thank George Bush.

You bet it's disturbing. There is a kind of justice in asking this criminal to help fix what he broke but for him to be in any leadership capacity is sickening. He belongs in prison.

[Political Heretic]

315. Not really. I think there are better choices for Haiti than a blood soaked war criminal.

[JoeyT]

305. Most do.

Of course self-congratulatory backpatting about being inclusive doesn't help people either.
Claiming people are being partisan when they say there are other Republicans is not only not helpful, it's outright nonsensical. If they were being partisan they'd demand Republicans not be involved at all.

"Now everyone here has denounced the vile comments made by Rush and Pat Robertson yesterday and rightfully so. But many of the comments here denouncing President Obama and his effort to use Bush to raise money for relief efforts have been equally vile."
Yeah, because claiming the people of a country deserve widespread death and destruction because they're minorities and satan worshippers is EXACTLY the same thing as not wanting a war criminal with a terrible record on disasters involved in a country his family helped fuck up. Hooray for false equivalencies.

If President Obama can't be bothered to uphold the law and prosecute Bush for war crimes like he's supposed to, I guess he may as well make him do something useful. So good on him for using him to raise more money for Haiti, and shame on him for not giving a rat's ass about upholding the law. It's not good in any way, but it's probably not all bad either. Maybe next we can volunteer Oliver North to raise money for the Red Cross in Lebanon.

[JamesA1102]

325. Wow you really missed the point, didn't you.

It's not about Bush or his crimes. It is about helping the people of Haiti. Everything else is totally irrelevant.

And anyone who puts personal partisan considerations ahead of helping people is vile. Not a false equivalency but a moral truth.

[JoeyT]

354. Speaking of missing the point.

I don't think you know what the word "partisan" means.
People are suggesting other Republicans be used instead of Bush.
That is *not* being partisan. Partisan would be insisting the Republicans not be involved at all.
Keep banging away at that buzzword if you like, but you're using it wrong.

You also missed the point. It isn't about helping anyone. It's about patting yourself on the back for feeling inclusive.
While I agreed with the OP that any means necessary should be used to raise funds to help people, I took issue with the sanctimonious attitude. I don't take issue with using Bush, distasteful as he may be, to raise funds to help Haiti. I think it's a good thing to raise money to help them however they can. As someone upthread said, if it raises a dollar, that's a dollar more that can help people.

[EFerrari]

358. And that's where we probably part company.

I understand Obama calling on Bush is ceremony.

But involved a Bush in raising a dollar will probably cost you two dollars.

[JamesA1102]

360. How so?

Do you have any proof to back up your accusations?

[EFerrari]

361. Let me ask you this: do you know the disposition of Barbara Bush's

"donation" to Katrina victims?

Former first lady's donation aids son
Katrina funds earmarked to pay for Neil Bush's software program

Former first lady Barbara Bush donated an undisclosed amount of money to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund with specific instructions that the money be spent with an educational software company owned by her son Neil.

Since then, the Ignite Learning program has been given to eight area schools that took in substantial numbers of Hurricane Katrina evacuees.



"Mrs. Bush wanted to do something specifically for education and specifically for the thousands of students flooding into the Houston schools," said Jean Becker, former President Bush's chief of staff. "She knew that HISD was using this software program, and she's very excited about this program, so she wanted to make it possible for them to expand the use of this program."

The former first lady plans to visit a Houston Independent School District campus using the Ignite program today to call on local business leaders to support schools and education.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/3742329.html

And here's madfloridian's journal on this naked scam:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/3890

[JamesA1102]

379. So what?

I agree that it was wrong for Barbara Bush to do that. But haven't seen any evidence that it's being done in this case.

[EFerrari]

385. Those goalposts must get heavy. n/t

[JamesA1102]

359. Yes I do

par•ti•san also par•ti•zan \"par-te-zen, -sen, -'zan, chiefly Brit 'par-te-"zan\ noun (1555)
1 : a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; esp : one exhibiting blind prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
(C)1997, 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved

I was refering to the blind prejudice part. And sorry if putting the needs of suffering people above all else is sanctimonious to you.

[EFerrari]

363. As with so much else in this discussion, you have misplaced your post.

[JamesA1102]

380. Thanks for the heads up. NT

[JamesA1102]

382. Yes I do.

par•ti•san also par•ti•zan \"par-te-zen, -sen, -'zan, chiefly Brit 'par-te-"zan\ noun (1555)
1 : a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; esp : one exhibiting blind prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
(C)1997, 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved

I was refering to the blind prejudice part. And sorry if putting the needs of suffering people above all else is sanctimonious to you.

[EFerrari]

356. Death Squads Negroponte is "advising" Hillary on Honduras.

Maybe we can send Kissinger on our next good will tour of Viet Nam.

[4_TN_TITANS]

308. After eight long years of chimp-bashing

my reflexive reation is to say hell no. But, if the chimp can pick some wealthy Repug pockets for the people of Haiti, so be it.

[Onesided_fistfight]

322. Does the pope shit in the woods?

people here don't give a flying fuck. Bunch of goddamn spoiled white people. You'll say "oh poor ____" but you won't get your head out of your ass long enough to actually fucking help. You people don't give a fucking shit about anything but winning the fucking game.

[gleaner]

326. I understand what you wrote ....

but I object to Bush not because he is a Republican, but because he demonstrated a notable lack of compassion for people in the US who had been victims of disaster, like the victims of Katrina. He also amply demonstrated by some of the remarks he made after Katrina that he has a pronounced racial bias. I would prefer to see someone with compassion tapped to help the people who need it most.

I think you do us all a disservice by characterizing what we feel without asking us, and it is something I am getting very weary of. I don't hate anyone. I don't go around frothing at the mouth in partisan frenzies. I don't do any of the things you characterize others as doing in your post. I do care about people. I care very much. I have lived through some bad earthquakes that I am not even going to attempt to compare to this, because of the magnitude of the disaster, but I have had enough of a taste of them that I identify with the people of Haiti more than you might think.

Natural disasters should not be used as political footballs or for political gain. I do not like being your political football for whatever you think you will get from posting as you do. I think it would be much more constructive if we cared for each other and tried to give each other as much compassion as we would like for ourselves. This concept seems not to have occurred to you. It is called the benefit of the doubt, and if there was ever a time for it, the time is now. I don't know if you think you are defending Obama by what you write or not, but now is really not the time for that either. He is fine. His house is standing, his family is alive and well and he has the power to help. He is helping, and if we all don't fall into lockstep behind everything he does to help it doesn't stop him and it doesn't end the world. For the people of Haiti the world has already ended. It would be salubrious if you remembered that before you lashed out at the other people who do care, who want to help but who may not agree with each other on the best way to do so. The impulse to help is what matters, not the rest of what is in your post. What are you doing to help? Is this the full extent of it? If it is there are so many more constructive things you could be doing. I'm sure if you put as much effort into researching them as you have into this post you could make a big difference.

[JamesA1102]

327. I don't think you really do understand.

If you really did you wouldn't have written this post voicing your objection to Bush being involved.

I wrote what I wrote after reading several other threads here where DUers were attacking the decision to reach out to Bush to help fund raise. I didn't have to ask anyone how they felt they were already expressing how they felt. So I did not do you nor anyone a disservice because your post completely proves my point.

As far as the rest it is completely irrelevant. Bush and Katrina are irrelvant. Why President Obama asked him is irrelevant. You're or anyone's objections to Bush being involved are irrelevant. It is just rationalization for putting personal partisan concerns ahead of helping people. That is the only thing important here. Nothing else should matter. Anyone that says different should really look in the mirror and examin what is really in their soul.

[gleaner]

349. My mirror at least reflects a soul ..

And I don't think you read my post carefully enough. Let's try again. I. Do. Not. Object. To. Bush. Because. He. Is. Republican. Got that. You don't tell me what I am thinking, I tell you. The people Bush would be tapping for money would be the same people who said that Katrina was "God's way of providing urban renewal in the ninth ward." The ninth ward was wiped out for all intents and purposes, or do you remember that?

Then there was another of his friends who was a Senator who said "Admit it. We're all having fun aren't we?" And Bush himself. "Great job Brownie." after Brown had turned away help from states which had swift water rescue teams already at work, one of them from my city. Bush refused all aid offered from foreign countries to the victims of Katrina. He let them die instead. They were poor and they were black like the people from Haiti and he did not want them on this earth.

I would have in mind a human being. Someone like Jimmy Carter who was not a great president, even though he was a Democrat, but who had great compassion for all human beings regardless of color or state of being and who already has ties to groups like Habitat for Humanity who help the poor in the US build homes and get jobs for themselves. The groups and individuals he would tap for money would probably give more and do more because they are human beings with empathy and not sociopaths who happen to come from a family rich enough to cover all their misdeeds like Bush does.

That is why I did write this post. I object strenuously to Bush being involved. A man who sanctions torture, false imprisonment, the kidnapping of individuals to countries where torture is legal all in the name of some retarded vision of power that he had. He is a war criminal who should be in jail. Obama is the reason he is not and now is asking the coyote to help the prey. Not the thinking of a genius, but definitely political. By all means let us be partisan with the minds and souls of the helpless, tormented and dying.:sarcasm: And that is not irrelevant. Are you so infatuated with Obama that you will use any occasion and any pretext to defame people who point out his mistakes? Well I am not, and if you don't like it, I really do not care.

Now what about my question. What have you personally done to help the victims in Haiti. Have you given money? Have you donated blood? Are you planning on going there? Are you trying to secure the very best representative of US attempts to give aid that you can or do you simply see this as a way of whacking the rest of us who care what happens there and think that people with hearts and minds are far superior to the George Bushes of this world when it comes to extending kindness. Do you understand kindness, or is everything a make Obama look good exercise to you.

As others have commented frequently, this is not an Obama board and it is not a board where all of us will sit down and be bullied and defamed because we are able to think for ourselves.

[JamesA1102]

350. As I said you don't understand.

You're still putting your ideology ahead of helping the people of Haiti. Once you do that you're as bad as Rush. Do you really think a person starving in Haiti cares about who paid for the food a red cross worker gives them? Getting relief to the people of Haiti is the only concern. It is not about Bush. It is not about Obama. Nor is it about you and me. It is about those people who are suffering and using evry resource we can to help them. If you can't see that and still put your partisan concerns ahead of that, then there is truely something lacking in your soul.

[gleaner]

388. I do understand ,,,,

You have a problem with the fact that I have and hold my own ideas. You have a bigger problem too. Did you not say that Katrina was "irrelevant?" How do you figure that. Those lives had no meaning? The separation of families, loss of homes, illnesses, death and the fact that the city has still not been rebuilt to complete habitability has no relevance. Bush not only killed the people of New Orleans, he killed the city of New Orleans. And that has a great deal of relevance. If it doesn't then you are lacking something which allows you to perceive that suffering is important and you don't reward people who cause it.

What you seem to be saying is that George Bush caused that but now Obama wants to restore Bush's reputation by giving him something to do in public that will make him look good. That is not the brightest move in the world. You don't do something unthinkable and walk away without stigma, and if you have a lifetime of disregard for other humans as Bush does, it doesn't stop. Just ask the second victim of a serial killer. Uh, excuse me, should we have punished the guy for the first murder and kept him from coming after you? Or should we have shaken his hand and told him to be a good boy and sin no more so that he could come after you. Different analogy, but same situation. Put a killer on a grand scale like Bush on a humanitarian mission and lend your tarnished presidential aura to try and improve his reputation. That is a big loss leader for Obama and he will take the heat for it.

This is not a partisan concern, but it is the last time I am going to say so. Posting the same thing over and over with you is like talking to a two year old. You say "no" really well, but you don't listen and I don't think you comprehend, so why bother? You can reflect in the second hand glory of both Bush and Obama and if that makes you feel superior to the rest of us,
enjoy yourself and heaven help you.

But you still keep dodging questions about what you yourself are doing personally and individually to help the people of Haiti. If your concern is other than political there must be something. Or is this one of those situations like we see with a person who is pro war but won't enlist? Seems like it. And by the way, go back and read your own posts. You seem to have the great partisan concern that you are condemning in everyone else, and you are whipping yourself into a frenzy because we don't, we won't and we are not about to accept judgment from someone not qualified to give it. That would be you. Last time I checked, God judged. Is that you? If not you need to do some self examination and temper your comments. If it is you, then I am deity shopping as of now.

[JamesA1102]

392. See this is why you just don't get it.

It is not about Bush or Obama. It is not about what happened in the past. It is not about me. It is not about you or your partisan outrage. It is about doing everything possible to possible, using every resource we have to help the people of Haiti.

[gleaner]

402. A war criminal who is ....

almost universally hated by every nation in the world is not going to help anyone. Much less the poor and black people whom he despises. If you consider this as a resource you probably would add strontium 90 to your milk and think it was a good way to keep it fresh.

It is not about me. I am a Quaker and my faith tells me that I live in the world but I am not of the world. I am here to extend kindness when I can, or stop cruelty when I can and to speak out and vigorously discuss what I think is wrong. This is wrong. It is wrong for humanity everywhere to sanction the behavior of a man who murders his own citizens and those across the world for his personal gain. It is not business as usual. It is not you were a bad boy, now let us move on. It is not the same as throwing spit wads. It is real life and real death and being responsible for causing it. That is where it must stop. Bush needs to go to prison like the Nazis did when the US tried them at Nuremberg and held responsible for all of his actions as the Geneva Conventions mandate. The bind the rest of the world to civilized behavior, and they bind the US too since we were instrumental in putting them together. The fact that Bush chose to disregard them and Obama chooses to take the same path does not make either of them humanitarians or heroes.

If you want to use your resources, use your best resources and stop trying to put a dog turd on my plate and tell me it is a chocolate bar. Think what you want, do what you want, but stop trying to recruit me and others to follow with your specious logic and fallacious conclusions. And try one more time to answer the question I asked you, the one you keep evading. What have you personally done to try to help the people of Haiti? If it is nothing have the guts to say so. Do stop trying to hide behind the huge favor you say you are doing for us by shoving Bush in our faces while he is trying to impersonate a human being. I have had enough.

You're right about one thing. I don't understand you, and given what I have seen I don't want to understand you. You have nothing to offer me. You are not going to tell me what to think or feel or how to react to what I see and hear. It doesn't matter what you do, that remains constant. Do you understand that? If not, we have nothing to say to each other. Other than doing something that is truly helpful for other human beings, not only in Haiti but everywhere there is nothing you could say that I want to hear.

[JamesA1102]

405. Thanks for keeping an open mind.

That's sarcasm bacause it is obvious that your mind is closed and has been from the beginning. You continue to fail to understand that it is not about Bush nor is it about President Obama nor is it about me and most importantly it is not about you and your partisan outrage. It is only about helping the people of Haiti. But like a conservative ditto head who refuse to watch anything other than FOX News or listen to Rush bacause they don't want to hear anything that challenges their beliefs, you don't want to hear anything that challenges yours.

[gleaner]

408. I think that ...

someone has been sitting in the cross patch for a little too long. Time to drag your repetitive, tired ideas out and bury them with the rest of the spoiling garbage. You can call me as many names as you want; I don't care, as I have told you. It only makes you look like your real self which you seem to think you are able to conceal, and gives me pause for wondering what your particular frenzy is about. Not about me, I'm certain. It must be about not getting your own way.

You keep referring to "partisan outrage," but I think it is your own. I don't have any. I have heard that people despise most in others, the traits that they dislike in themselves. Oh well. No converts here. Told you so but you don't listen. Ideas and thoughts that belong to others are important to them. Someone having a figurative tantrum on an anonymous talk forum won't change that. People are usually open to discourse, but very few people accept domination. Especially from someone who seems to be as life hating as you do.

People will go to great lengths to protect and express their ideas. As long as I'm here anyway, let me give you an example. The first colonists in the US had fled England to avoid religious prosecution. One of the first things they did was to start persecuting others here who did not agree with their ideas or follow their religion.

In the 1660s there was a Quaker woman named Mary Dwyer who went about Massachusetts with two other Quaker men preaching her values and ideas and questioning the right of the governor of Massachusetts to bind and execute people who disagreed with him. All three were apprehended and put into prison. The men were put to death. Mary was sent home because she was a woman and told that she would be spared as long as she did not return and refrained from stating her ideas.

After much thought, Mary could not accept those terms. She returned to Massachusetts and began teaching again. She was apprehended, "tried" and sentenced to hang. On the day she was to die she gave an eloquent speech saying that she was sorry that others had blood on their hands because of her, but that she had to teach what God directed her. The governor mocked her and vilified her as they put the noose around her neck and she responded to him by forgiving him and saying that none of it mattered because she was already in paradise. She was hung, with the governor and a crowd mocking her as she died. The actions of the colony of Massachusetts so appalled the rest of the world as it existed at that time, that the King of England ordered and end to religious persecution and execution of people who expressed thoughts and opinions different from those of the prevailing authorities. In other words people could say what they felt was right and think what they felt was true. The governor of Massachusetts was send down in disgrace and replaced. All because of an idealistic woman who was a good wife and mother who cared about the world and her own truth.

This is a simple concept that you are seemingly not capable of understanding. Mary Dwyer understood it so well that she died for it because she could not have gone on living in what she considered to be cowardly silence. She helped give birth to free speech at a terrible cost to herself, but she was smiling as she died because she felt that the cost was small. One life freely given to benefit many others and perhaps to save them from the same fate.

You, I am sure, will wonder what the hell I am talking about, but that's OK. I doubt that I could explain it to you even if I diagrammed it on large sheets of paper illustrated with the most simple words. You are that most injured of all human beings. Someone who is incapable of trusting others to be different and not detract from your small tight existence, and someone who has no center to fall back on in adversity. So you frenzy, you pound and you name call. And in so doing you show others what you are made of. Maybe some of them will see you as you present yourself, but many will not.

In closing, and I mean closing tight, ask yourself what you have done to help the people of Haiti. I have asked you several times and you have declined to respond, so I think you have probably done nothing except rant at me which has accomplished nothing for anyone. I think you are a sad, pathetic hollow person who does not have the faintest idea what tolerance and sacrifice for the good of others means. I feel sorry for you. Now you have nothing to say that I want to hear and I will respond to you no further. Go preach your gospel to someone else. Maybe you will have better luck, but I doubt it. It is, shall we say, your problem now. But then it always was.

[JamesA1102]

409. Helping suffering people is a tired idea?

Putting that before all other considerations is repetitive spoiling garbage? Wow! That is sad that you think that. If wanting to see the people of Haiti being helped and putting that above my own political views and the partisan outrage of some Duers makes me a "sad, pathetic hollow person", then I am proudly a "sad, pathetic hollow person". I would hate to be the alternative, someone who self-rightously stands by their partisan principles and outrage, putting that above helping the suffering people of Haiti and then thinking they are superior for it. And you're right I am intolerant to that kind of thinking.

[Raineyb]

414. You have the patience of a saint and are quite eloquent.

I wish I had your patience but alas, I have a fairly short temper and a low tolerance for foolishness. My hat's off to you.

:applause:

[Synnical]

328. Anything relating to the BFEE makes my stomach churn n/t

[Kaleva]

330. The few professional haters do seem to overwhelm the liberals here at times.

[EFerrari]

355. What does that mean to you in practical terms for this thread?

[Kaleva]

386. I think there are some who talk a lot but in reality, do little to nothing.

[EFerrari]

387. And so you are willing to call people "haters" because of some guess of yours?

Doesn't that seem a little over the top?

[JamesA1102]

393. No because they are spewing hate

when they should be more concerned about helping the people of Haiti.

[EFerrari]

395. You're mistaking your attributions for what people are writing here

as has been pointed out to you many times on this thread.

[JamesA1102]

398. No I'm just making observations.

Some seem to be more motivated by their anger and hatred of Bush than by their compassion for the people of Haiti.

[LatteLibertine]

337. Yes

Now is not the time for partisan politics. People are starving, wounded and many are laying dying under rubble.

I've made mighty efforts to ignore Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh to focus on other more important things.

[tonysam]

357. Only if it happens in third world countries

while belittling monstrous tragedies here, i.e., New Orleans. There seems to be a contingent around here who wants to downplay what happened over four years ago to make some sort of political point.

As for Haitian relief, I don't care if Obama uses Bush for helping raise money. I mean, this should not be a partisan effort. That's the only reason Obama has asked Bush to help despite the latter's horrendous negligence in Katrina, to help get Republicans to also contribute. Bush isn't going to screw it up with Clinton there.

[LWolf]

389. What does caring about people have to do with objecting to "reaching out" to GWB?

Nothing.

There's no correlation between the two.

[JamesA1102]

394. Object to Bush helping to raise funds to help

the people of Haiti is the correlation.

[LWolf]

406. I don't think that objecting to

Obama "reaching out" to Bush is the same thing.

Bush can raise funds without Obama. Obama can raise funds without Bush. They don't have to raise funds together to help people in Haiti, and people can object to their coziness and still care about people in Haiti, and still be active in supporting relief.

Help and care doesn't come from one source.

[JamesA1102]

407. Maybe they can.

And maybe they can eraise even more money by showing a united front rather than playing partisan politics with the issue when the goal is to do our best to help the people of Haiti.

[TicketyBoo]

418. The partnership between GHW Bush and Clinton

for tsunami relief set the precedent for this.

That's about the sum-total of this story.

There's no reason for rage about it. It's for Haiti. Good for them!

[JamesA1102]

420. Thanks. nt

[LWolf]

426. Of course there's no reason for rage.

I didn't express any.

The precedent set is simply one of utilizing a PR opportunity, since whatever any president, former president, private citizen, or humanitarian aid group will do to help the citizens of Haiti does not rely on a photo op or any "coming together" of current and former presidents.

[TicketyBoo]

430. A "coming together"

of two former presidents of different political parties in a joint effort to raise money announces to the nation and the world that America is united in the relief effort.

It is a symbolic gesture, and I think it should be appreciated, and not denigrated in any way.

[JamesA1102]

431. Well said nt.

[varelse]

397. A broad brush attack against the character and basic humanity of "DU'ers" at large

Is on the Greatest page with 72 recs. Outstanding achievement. :eyes:

How many members have bumped threads with information about opportunities to help, and about Doctors without Borders, etc?

Why focus on the comments of a few whose completely understandable mistrust and animosity toward ex-President Bush has overridden their desire to maintain an online display of compassion?

[JamesA1102]

400. Not an attack but an observation.

And I can't control that my post resonated with 72 people so much they decided to recomend it. If we can't speak the truth about ourselves with each other then what's the point.

[varelse]

410. Talking other people down is cheap and easy

self-reflection is where the real work is done.

[JamesA1102]

411. And a lot of people here need to self-reflect.

Which was the point of my post.

[varelse]

413. start with the mote in thine own eye

really.

[JamesA1102]

421. Yeah you should. nt

[Skittles]

403. please note that Skittles, detester of gwb, did not go into partisan rage

I am for anything that helps Haiti - period

[JamesA1102]

404. Thanks! nt

[uppityperson]

416. good grief,project much? Anyone who disagrees get insulted and "isn't a liberal".

"Now I know that this post will be unrecced to death and I'll be called a corportist, DLC shill, an idiot and other nasty names."

Anyone who disagrees or says they don't understand gets insulted and called nasty names by you. The only people I see doing any insulting of you is in return for your assholish offensiveness.

Yup, "helping people" is the highest principle anyone can uphold.

[JamesA1102]

422. Putting helping the people of Haiti

before partisan consideration is assholish offensiveness? Well if that is true than I am proud to be an offensive asshole. I would hate to be the alternative, someone who self-rightously stands by their partisan principles and outrage, putting that above helping the suffering people of Haiti and then thinking they are superior for it.

[uppityperson]

423. no, insulting anyone who doesn't understand or disagrees, THAT is

offensiveness. You aren't going to win many converts with an attitude like that, where if you took time to civilly explain you might.

"I am proud to be an offensive asshole. I would hate to be the alternative, someone who self-rightously stands by their partisan principles and outrage".

See, there you go again. If someone does not say "oh how wonderful you are", then you insult them. There are shades of grey, and better ways of trying to convince people of what you are trying to persuade them to do.

Perhaps for all your words you don't truly wish to convince anyone but merely insult?

[JamesA1102]

424. Sorry but I have no sympathy for people

who put their partisan outrage before helping the people of Haiti. My OP did try to civilly explain it but for some, not all, not even the majority, but some didn't even try to understand what the point was. But instead their knee-jerk reaction was take offense and attack me. You choose to do the same. Now you may think that I was insulting people but all you did was insult and attack me from your first post. So I may be an offensive asshole, but what does your reaction say about you?

[uppityperson]

425. Pointing out your behavior is attacking you? Wrong.

Reading through this thread, ANYONE who disagrees or says they don't understand you attack and insult. That is a fact. If you chose to call that an insult and attack, that is your problem.

What does my reaction say about me? That I am comfortable pointing out that honey catches more flies than vinegar and most of your posts to posters who disagree or say they do not understand are vinegar. Not an insult, not an attack, but an observation of your behavior.

Sounds like you have a personal problem with people pointing out your behavior and only reply positively to those who give you immediate positive strokes.

Get a clue. You won't convince many with that sort of reaction.

[JamesA1102]

427. Oh I didn't realize there was a double standard here.

If I point out behavior that is me attacking and insulting. If you point out behaivor that is just you pointing out behavior. And I'm the one who needs to get a clue.

[uppityperson]

428. Ah, saying you are insulting people is insulting you? Yes, you have a double standard

no, you won't convince me of your OP viewpoint, not with all that nastiness. Too bad as you might have stood a chance.

[JamesA1102]

429. I won't convince you that helping the people of Haite

should be put above all other considerations? I shouldn't have had to convince you or anyone. You should know that already.