ebert vs limbaugh
Sir Blob
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100114/OPINION/100119985
nick
> what a crackpot, we finally understand new orleans
>
What's up with that picture of Limbaugh? Is he trying to suggest
power, sexuality, what? (Whatever power and sexuality being
suggested--the bukkake effect of that swirling cigar smoke!--is
negated by those beedy dead eyes and that eerie infantile face.)
It's so hypnotically grotesque it's hard to concentrate on Ebert's
letter.
trotsky
I clicked on the link and it said "the page you've requested can't be
found."
nick
My revulsion must have been so extreme it pyschically broke the link.
moviePig
It's a Vito Corleone, Boss Tweed, Blofeld homage ...mining the deep
vein of admiration there that runs through his constituency. Remember
that he's more an effect than a cause...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
RichA
>
When gasoline taxes were created, they were created to be used for the
infrastructure of roads, things related to transportation. In Canada,
none of that happens now. Yeah, Limbaugh couldn't be MORE right about
this.
Petronius
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3092d870-9c33-4271...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Yeah, Limbaugh couldn't be MORE right about this.
Even a blind chicken gets a piece of corn...
nick
> On Jan 16, 8:03 am, nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 16, 2:11 am, Sir Blob <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > what a crackpot, we finally understand new orleans
>
> > >http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100114/OP...
>
> > What's up with that picture of Limbaugh? Is he trying to suggest
> > power, sexuality, what? (Whatever power and sexuality being
> > suggested--the bukkake effect of that swirling cigar smoke!--is
> > negated by those beedy dead eyes and that eerie infantile face.)
> > It's so hypnotically grotesque it's hard to concentrate on Ebert's
> > letter.
>
> It's a Vito Corleone, Boss Tweed, Blofeld homage ...mining the deep
> vein of admiration there that runs through his constituency.
Or perhaps Tony Soprano since Limbaugh's had a man-crush on James
Gandolfini for years. Of course when rappers pose for pictures
designed to suggest the iconography of criminality . . .
Tom
Here's the text of the letter:
A Letter to Rush Limbaugh
/ / / January 14, 2010
To: Rush Limbaugh
From: Roger Ebert
You should be horse-whipped for the insult you have paid to the
highest office of our nation.
Having followed President Obama's suggestion and donated money to the
Red Cross for relief in Haiti, I was offended to hear you suggest the
President might be a thief capable of stealing money intended for the
earthquake victims.
Here is a transcript from your program on Thursday:
Justin of Raleigh, North Carolina: "Why does Obama say if you want
to donate some money, you could go to whitehouse.gov to direct you how
to do so? If I wanted to donate to the Red Cross, why do I have to go
to the White House page to donate?"
Limbaugh: "Exactly. Would you trust the money's gonna go to
Haiti?"
Justin: "No."
Rush: "But would you trust that your name's gonna end up on a
mailing list for the Obama people to start asking you for campaign
donations for him and other causes?"
Justin: "Absolutely!"
Limbaugh: "Absolutely!"
That's what was said.
Unlike you and Justin of Raleigh, I went to Obama's web site, and
discovered the link there leads directly to the Red Cross. I can think
of a reason why anyone might want to go via the White House. That way
they can be absolutely sure they're clicking on the Red Cross and not
a fake site set up to exploit the tragedy.
But let me be sure I have this right. You and Justin agree that Obama
might steal money intended for the Red Cross to help the wretched of
Haiti.
This conversation came 48 hours after many of us had seen pitiful
sights from Port au Prince. Tens of thousands are believed still alive
beneath the rubble. You twisted their suffering into an opportunity to
demean the character of the President of the United States.
This cannot have been an accident. A day earlier, in a sound bite from
your show, you said "this will play right into Obama's hands. He's
humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to burnish their, shall
we say, 'credibility' with the black community -- in the both light-
skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country. It's made-to-
order for them."
Setting aside your riff on Harry Reid, consider what you imply. Obama
will aid Haiti to please African-Americans. Haiti has lost untold
thousands of lives. One third of the population has lost its homes.
Countless people are still buried in the rubble. Every American
president would act quickly to help our neighbor. You are so cynical
and heartless as to explain Obama's action in a way that unpleasantly
suggests how your mind works.
You have a sizable listening audience. You apparently know how to
please them. Anybody given a $400 million contract must know what he
is doing.
That's what offends me. You know exactly what you're doing.
Tom
WTF are you talking about?
Limbaugh calling our President a thief and making racist slurs has
nothing to do with the use or misuse of the gas tax in Canada. Unless
you think President Obama is going to steal your gas tax revenue.
Perhaps *you* have gas and it's affecting your thought processes.
BTW, you're an idiot.
Tom
moviePig
You can see here what makes Ebert generally enjoyable to read: he's at
least as devoted to clarity as to cleverness.
The depressing, scary reminder here is that Limbaugh *does* have a
'sizeable listening audience'. It's not just a few thousand Haitians
who are hopelessly buried beneath rubble, is it...
trotsky
> X-No-Archive:
>
> Here's a few headlines I've read recently:
>
> �Gangs Armed With Machetes Loot Port-Au-Prince�
>
> �Angry Haitians set up roadblocks with corpses in Port-au-Prince to
> protest at the delay in emergency aid reaching them ��
>
> �Looters Hit UN Food Warehouse�
>
> Gosh, I guess Rush LImbaugh was right! These Haitians don't deserve a
> damn thing from anyone.
...said the anonymouse.
Unfortunately, st...@steve.com, all you represent is feeble-minded,
anonymous chickenhawking. You think Haiti's fucked up? We've been
selling this country to the Chinese for the last 20 years. Got any
explanation for that?
nick
> X-No-Archive:
>
> Here's a few headlines I've read recently:
>
>
> “Angry Haitians set up roadblocks with corpses in Port-au-Prince to
> protest at the delay in emergency aid reaching them …”
>
> “Looters Hit UN Food Warehouse”
>
> Gosh, I guess Rush LImbaugh was right! These Haitians don't deserve a
> damn thing from anyone.
>
be a special place in hell for people who put their ideology above
humanity.
trotsky
Rich prefers to see such things in all caps:
"BTW, you're an IDIOT."
Tom
> X-No-Archive:
>
> Here's a few headlines I've read recently:
>
> “Gangs Armed With Machetes Loot Port-Au-Prince”
>
> “Angry Haitians set up roadblocks with corpses in Port-au-Prince to
> protest at the delay in emergency aid reaching them …”
>
> “Looters Hit UN Food Warehouse”
And that makes them different from any other people in the world how?
I'd wager if you were in the same situation, not having eaten in days,
no drinking water available and not knowing if or when you were ever
going to see food or water before you starve to death, you'd find a
machete, too.
It doesn't take a person, any person, to become a savage in a savage
environment.
>
> Gosh, I guess Rush LImbaugh was right! These Haitians don't deserve a
> damn thing from anyone.
If Limbaugh knew anything, he would be advocating for private
investment in Haiti, rather than just advocating for starving thses
people to death.
>
> But that's okay. Go ahead and waste your money. I understand you all
> need emotional satisfaction and good standing among your peers. Never
> mind that before the earthquake there were 10,000 voluntary relief
> organizations diligently working in Haiti, and they STILL couldn't
> pull Haiti out of the hole it's in. So, what could be done to improve
> Haiti's situation? Ooo, look! An earthquake. Now is a good time to
> give Haiti more freebies! Maybe THAT will make a difference! Yeah,
> sure...
How I choose to donate my money is my business. It's not a waste.
Tom
Stone me
"Tom" <drs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fa539958-e383-443d...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 17, 8:10 am, stevetv <libkl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive:
>
> Here's a few headlines I've read recently:
>
>
> �Angry Haitians set up roadblocks with corpses in Port-au-Prince to
> protest at the delay in emergency aid reaching them ��
>
> �Looters Hit UN Food Warehouse�
And that makes them different from any other people in the world how?
I'd wager if you were in the same situation, not having eaten in days,
no drinking water available and not knowing if or when you were ever
going to see food or water before you starve to death, you'd find a
machete, too.
It doesn't take a person, any person, to become a savage in a savage
environment.
>
> Gosh, I guess Rush LImbaugh was right! These Haitians don't deserve a
> damn thing from anyone.
If Limbaugh knew anything, he would be advocating for private
investment in Haiti, rather than just advocating for starving thses
people to death.
>
> But that's okay. Go ahead and waste your money. I understand you all
> need emotional satisfaction and good standing among your peers. Never
> mind that before the earthquake there were 10,000 voluntary relief
> organizations diligently working in Haiti, and they STILL couldn't
> pull Haiti out of the hole it's in. So, what could be done to improve
> Haiti's situation? Ooo, look! An earthquake. Now is a good time to
> give Haiti more freebies! Maybe THAT will make a difference! Yeah,
> sure...
How I choose to donate my money is my business. It's not a waste.
Tom
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regarding the minor outbreaks of anarchy:
I heard a news report that the local jail had been damaged and all the
inmates had escaped.
The job of news reporting today is to compete to get the most sensational
items. Explaining that in a large city, these incidents are sparse if not
rare,
is a waste of air-space for nearly all sources of news today.
I Agree with all you say.
Stone me.
Tom
> "Tom" <drso...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fa539958-e383-443d...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 17, 8:10 am, stevetv <libkl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > X-No-Archive:
>
> > Here's a few headlines I've read recently:
>
>
> > “Angry Haitians set up roadblocks with corpses in Port-au-Prince to
> > protest at the delay in emergency aid reaching them …”
>
> > “Looters Hit UN Food Warehouse”
>
Thanks.
As much as I'm heartened by the charity, I'd really like to see
American business commit to building factories there. It would have to
cheaper to make and ship an item from Haiti to the U.S.than from
China.
Tom
Anim8rFSK
<ffdd5485-f3dc-4600...@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Tom <drs...@aol.com> wrote:
> But let me be sure I have this right. You and Justin agree that Obama
> might steal money intended for the Red Cross to help the wretched of
> Haiti.
I'm absolutely certain the Red Cross is capable of stealing my donation;
they stole my 9/11 donation, and I'll never give to them again.
--
As Adam West as Bruce Wayne as Batman said in "Smack in the Middle"
the second half of the 1966 BATMAN series pilot when Jill St. John
as Molly as Robin as Molly fell into the Batmobile's atomic pile:
"What a way to go-go"
Anim8rFSK
<92c00a5e-a133-47dc...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Tom <drs...@aol.com> wrote:
> As much as I'm heartened by the charity, I'd really like to see
> American business commit to building factories there. It would have to
> cheaper to make and ship an item from Haiti to the U.S.than from
> China.
I swear, shipping to Asia must be cheaper than free. We have a company
in Arizona that grows shrimp (yes, in the desert) and then ships them to
Thailand to be made into shrimp tempura, and then ships them BACK to
Arizona where I buy the tasty buggers on sale at Safeway. How can this
*possibly* be cheaper than setting up a tempura making business here in
town?
trotsky
> In article
> <ffdd5485-f3dc-4600...@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Tom <drs...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> But let me be sure I have this right. You and Justin agree that Obama
>> might steal money intended for the Red Cross to help the wretched of
>> Haiti.
>
> I'm absolutely certain the Red Cross is capable of stealing my donation;
> they stole my 9/11 donation, and I'll never give to them again.
>
Did they steal those extra IQ points you had, too?
Tom
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article
> > <ffdd5485-f3dc-4600-9ae8-6f683f34f...@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> But let me be sure I have this right. You and Justin agree that Obama
> >> might steal money intended for the Red Cross to help the wretched of
> >> Haiti.
>
> > I'm absolutely certain the Red Cross is capable of stealing my donation;
> > they stole my 9/11 donation, and I'll never give to them again.
>
> Did they steal those extra IQ points you had, too?
I wonder what they did with his donation. Did they take his donation
specifically and order pizza or go to a casino? I don't understand why
some people think a charity or government takes only their money only
and does something unscrupulous with it. What about the rest of the
money they get?
Tom
Tom
> In article
> <92c00a5e-a133-47dc-9736-5b5abf381...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> > As much as I'm heartened by the charity, I'd really like to see
> > American business commit to building factories there. It would have to
> > cheaper to make and ship an item from Haiti to the U.S.than from
> > China.
>
> I swear, shipping to Asia must be cheaper than free. We have a company
> in Arizona that grows shrimp (yes, in the desert) and then ships them to
> Thailand to be made into shrimp tempura, and then ships them BACK to
> Arizona where I buy the tasty buggers on sale at Safeway. How can this
> *possibly* be cheaper than setting up a tempura making business here in
> town?
It can't in any logical sense. I'm sure it appears cheaper on the
balance sheet thru accounting tricks.
Tom
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>I swear, shipping to Asia must be cheaper than free. We have a company
>in Arizona that grows shrimp (yes, in the desert) and then ships them to
>Thailand to be made into shrimp tempura, and then ships them BACK to
>Arizona where I buy the tasty buggers on sale at Safeway. How can this
>*possibly* be cheaper than setting up a tempura making business here in
>town?
Didn't they ship laundry from California in the 19th century to get
done in China?
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
AZ Nomad
>> As much as I'm heartened by the charity, I'd really like to see
>> American business commit to building factories there. It would have to
>> cheaper to make and ship an item from Haiti to the U.S.than from
>> China.
>I swear, shipping to Asia must be cheaper than free. We have a company
>in Arizona that grows shrimp (yes, in the desert) and then ships them to
>Thailand to be made into shrimp tempura, and then ships them BACK to
>Arizona where I buy the tasty buggers on sale at Safeway. How can this
>*possibly* be cheaper than setting up a tempura making business here in
>town?
It's not just that. It is that the labor is dirt cheap. no such thing as
OSHA. Worker gets injured, fuckem get a replacement. No SS, no
enviromental laws; use the cheapest process and jump the leftovers in
the river or the back property. Dirt cheap electricity using coal
plants with no scrubbers. In large quantities, cargo ships are
also dirt cheap.
trotsky
My hunch is they managed to liquefy it, drink it, and then "piss it
away." Alternately, Anim8r might have been swayed by "RichA's"
impassioned treatises and actually assumed the money went straight to
crime bosses and warlords. And really, if you think about it, how do we
know it didn't just go toward buying voodoo supplies?
Anim8rFSK
<2df5fa80-17b7-4576...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Tom <drs...@aol.com> wrote:
There were Congressional hearings on the Red Cross misappropriation of
the 9/11 funds. It's hardly a secret. But, hey, you're so stupid you
feed Trotsky? Eat shit and die. And, plonk.
Tom
>
>
>
> Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 24, 2:13 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> > > Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <ffdd5485-f3dc-4600-9ae8-6f683f34f...@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> But let me be sure I have this right. You and Justin agree that Obama
> > > >> might steal money intended for the Red Cross to help the wretched of
> > > >> Haiti.
>
> > > > I'm absolutely certain the Red Cross is capable of stealing my donation;
> > > > they stole my 9/11 donation, and I'll never give to them again.
>
> > > Did they steal those extra IQ points you had, too?
>
> > I wonder what they did with his donation. Did they take his donation
> > specifically and order pizza or go to a casino? I don't understand why
> > some people think a charity or government takes only their money only
> > and does something unscrupulous with it. What about the rest of the
> > money they get?
>
> > Tom
>
> There were Congressional hearings on the Red Cross misappropriation of
> the 9/11 funds. It's hardly a secret. But, hey, you're so stupid you
> feed Trotsky? Eat shit and die. And, plonk.
>
Yawn.
Tom
trotsky
> In article
> <2df5fa80-17b7-4576...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> Tom <drs...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 24, 2:13 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <ffdd5485-f3dc-4600-9ae8-6f683f34f...@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> But let me be sure I have this right. You and Justin agree that Obama
>>>>> might steal money intended for the Red Cross to help the wretched of
>>>>> Haiti.
>>>> I'm absolutely certain the Red Cross is capable of stealing my donation;
>>>> they stole my 9/11 donation, and I'll never give to them again.
>>> Did they steal those extra IQ points you had, too?
>> I wonder what they did with his donation. Did they take his donation
>> specifically and order pizza or go to a casino? I don't understand why
>> some people think a charity or government takes only their money only
>> and does something unscrupulous with it. What about the rest of the
>> money they get?
>>
>> Tom
>
> There were Congressional hearings on the Red Cross misappropriation of
> the 9/11 funds. It's hardly a secret. But, hey, you're so stupid you
> feed Trotsky? Eat shit and die. And, plonk.
>
Uh oh, somebody got an owie.
Obveeus
"AZ Nomad" <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
So, basically, what you are saying is that Arizona has failed to properly
utilize all those illegal aliens they've been collecting?
Not Sure
That's a great question you just asked yourself, Greg.
>
> Tom
CliffB
>
Years ago Ebert likely would have competed impressively, but these
days, in a pie eating contest, Limbaugh wins going away.
trotsky
The odd thing about Limbaugh, of course, is that he eats chocolate cream
pies and he regurgitates cow pies.
Tom
Who's Greg, Omarenoefeloniousnotsurediuchebag?
Tom
Anim8rFSK
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:45:23 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I swear, shipping to Asia must be cheaper than free. We have a company
> >in Arizona that grows shrimp (yes, in the desert) and then ships them to
> >Thailand to be made into shrimp tempura, and then ships them BACK to
> >Arizona where I buy the tasty buggers on sale at Safeway. How can this
> >*possibly* be cheaper than setting up a tempura making business here in
> >town?
>
> Didn't they ship laundry from California in the 19th century to get
> done in China?
ack
Anim8rFSK
AZ Nomad <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
Good points all. I just have trouble wrapping my mind around shipping
shrimp, frozen, back and forth to Asia, even if they promised to do the
entire job for free (which is what they've been doing with animation and
special effects).
If you can't tempuraize them in Arizona, can't you grow the shrimp in
Asia?
Obveeus
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> If you can't tempuraize them in Arizona, can't you grow the shrimp in
> Asia?
If scientists cal make GloFish, why can't they make 'tempurized fish'?
Mark Nobles
> In article
> <2df5fa80-17b7-4576...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> Tom <drs...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 24, 2:13ÔøΩpm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> > > Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <ffdd5485-f3dc-4600-9ae8-6f683f34f...@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > ÔøΩTom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> But let me be sure I have this right. You and Justin agree that Obama
> > > >> might steal money intended for the Red Cross to help the wretched of
> > > >> Haiti.
> > >
> > > > I'm absolutely certain the Red Cross is capable of stealing my donation;
> > > > they stole my 9/11 donation, and I'll never give to them again.
> > >
> > > Did they steal those extra IQ points you had, too?
> >
> > I wonder what they did with his donation. Did they take his donation
> > specifically and order pizza or go to a casino? I don't understand why
> > some people think a charity or government takes only their money only
> > and does something unscrupulous with it. What about the rest of the
> > money they get?
> >
> > Tom
>
> There were Congressional hearings on the Red Cross misappropriation of
> the 9/11 funds. It's hardly a secret. But, hey, you're so stupid you
> feed Trotsky? Eat shit and die. And, plonk.
Misappropriation means they saved some of the $100 million they got
after 9/11 and, after covering their outlays in the emergency and
paying some pretty big jackpots to survivors, put it away for the next
summer when there would be hurricanes in places like New Orleans and
Houston and Miami, or earthquakes in LA and SF, or volcanoes in
Washington, or microtremors in New York?
Notice that now they are not saying that donations now are all going to
Haiti. They've sent the supplies they already had and will spend the
money coming in to prepare for the next disaster. They wouldn't do much
good if they sat with empty trucks waiting for checks to come in before
they could buy supplies for an emergency. They have to be there to set
up evacuation shelters before a storm hits or while the ground is still
shaking so people have a place to sleep and something to eat after they
just lost their houses and everything in 'em.
Anim8rFSK
Mark Nobles <cmn-n...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <2df5fa80-17b7-4576...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Tom <drs...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 24, 2:13�pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> > > > Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <ffdd5485-f3dc-4600-9ae8-6f683f34f...@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > �Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> But let me be sure I have this right. You and Justin agree that
> > > > >> Obama
> > > > >> might steal money intended for the Red Cross to help the wretched of
> > > > >> Haiti.
> > > >
> > > > > I'm absolutely certain the Red Cross is capable of stealing my
> > > > > donation;
> > > > > they stole my 9/11 donation, and I'll never give to them again.
> > > >
> > > > Did they steal those extra IQ points you had, too?
> > >
> > > I wonder what they did with his donation. Did they take his donation
> > > specifically and order pizza or go to a casino? I don't understand why
> > > some people think a charity or government takes only their money only
> > > and does something unscrupulous with it. What about the rest of the
> > > money they get?
> > >
> > > Tom
> >
> > There were Congressional hearings on the Red Cross misappropriation of
> > the 9/11 funds. It's hardly a secret. But, hey, you're so stupid you
> > feed Trotsky? Eat shit and die. And, plonk.
>
> Misappropriation means they saved some of the $100 million they got
> after 9/11 and, after covering their outlays in the emergency and
> paying some pretty big jackpots to survivors, put it away for the next
> summer when there would be hurricanes in places like New Orleans and
> Houston and Miami, or earthquakes in LA and SF, or volcanoes in
> Washington, or microtremors in New York?
No, it was fraud. They moved the money from the "100% goes to victims"
fund that I donated to to a general fund where they could just use the
money to pay themselves. They stole the money, plain and simple.
Misappropriation, fraud, embezzlement, theft. People should have gone
to prison.
>
> Notice that now they are not saying that donations now are all going to
> Haiti.
Because they're busy lining their own pockets; they're just more honest
about it now, 'cause they got busted.
--
As Adam West as Bruce Wayne as Batman said in "Smack in the Middle"
the second half of the 1966 BATMAN series pilot when Jill St. John
as Molly as Robin as Molly fell into the Batmobile's atomic pile:
"What a terrible way to go-go"
Sir Blob
> In article <080220100400502917%cmn-nos...@comcast.net>,
> Mark Nobles <cmn-nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <2df5fa80-17b7-4576-b375-93ed50420...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
embezzlement is a general thing, like enron, ponzi, copyright, its
when a particular is caught taking more than your salary. churches and
their congregations, for instance, have for thousands of years said
their charity is to aid the third world but both all involved know its
really to maintain the company's investments in those countries, like
churches or 'schools', but then again uve never been one for subtlety,
which doesnt take away that in the general scheme of things, today
you're right, if only u were talking in general, but u never are
Mark Nobles
> Mark Nobles <cmn-n...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > Tom <drs...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 24, 2:13ÔøΩpm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> > > > > Anim8rFSK wrote:
If I recall correctly, the problem arose because there was too much
money and too much pressure to spend it all. Of course with that much
money flowing around, congressmen are going to try to wet their beaks.
Had there been less pressure to pay it all out, more of it would have
gone to people who needed it and less to people who didn't.
Did some of it get stolen? Sure, there was major work for waste
management consultants. But tighter control would have meant that not
all the money would have been flushed down the toilet then and there,
and then you'd be mad about that.
> >
> > Notice that now they are not saying that donations now are all going to
> > Haiti.
>
> Because they're busy lining their own pockets; they're just more honest
> about it now, 'cause they got busted.
Cite, please. Who got busted for stealing 9/11 money?
Anim8rFSK
Mark Nobles <cmn-n...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Mark Nobles <cmn-n...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > Tom <drs...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 24, 2:13�pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Anim8rFSK wrote:
No, I'm mad about the Red Cross stealing donations to pad their own
pockets. I would not have donated to them if it hadn't been for the
"100% gets paid out" promise, and I will never donate through them again.
> > >
> > > Notice that now they are not saying that donations now are all going to
> > > Haiti.
> >
> > Because they're busy lining their own pockets; they're just more honest
> > about it now, 'cause they got busted.
>
> Cite, please. Who got busted for stealing 9/11 money?
You don't recall they dragged the boss before Congress because the Red
Cross stole the money?
Mark Nobles
> Mark Nobles <cmn-n...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > Mark Nobles <cmn-n...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > > Tom <drs...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jan 24, 2:13ÔøΩpm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Anim8rFSK wrote:
I've searched, ok, I googled '"red cross" congress "9/11"' and I don't
see anything suggesting that the Red Cross or its workers stole any
money into their own pockets. Only that the organization was keeping
some of it so they could be ready in case a hurricane hit New Orleans a
couple of years later.
Even the Socialist Worker's site only complains that the Red Cross held
back more than half of the money for other Red Cross needs.
<http://socialistworker.org/2005-2/562/562_04_RedCross.shtml>
Which is the same thing the Red Cross site says
<http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.d229a5f06620c6052b1ecfb
f43181aa0/?vgnextoid=d8b0f0454556e110VgnVCM10000089f0870aRCRD&vgnextchan
nel=477859f392ce8110VgnVCM10000030f3870aRCRD>
or
<http://tinyurl.com/redcrossmyths>
> > > >
> > > > Notice that now they are not saying that donations now are all going to
> > > > Haiti.
> > >
> > > Because they're busy lining their own pockets; they're just more honest
> > > about it now, 'cause they got busted.
> >
> > Cite, please. Who got busted for stealing 9/11 money?
>
> You don't recall they dragged the boss before Congress because the Red
> Cross stole the money?
There was no 9/11 nor Katrina money stolen.
Anim8rFSK
Mark Nobles <cmn-n...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Mark Nobles <cmn-n...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > Mark Nobles <cmn-n...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Tom <drs...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Jan 24, 2:13�pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Anim8rFSK wrote:
Yes, there was. The 9/11 funds, solicited as going only to 9/11
victims, were put into the general fund from which the Red Cross runs
their organization. They stole the money, plain and simple.
I have no idea about Katrina, since I never donated through the Red
Cross again, nor will I.
Juan Anonly
> I have no idea about Katrina, since I never donated through the Red
> Cross again, nor will I.
That'll show them! I hope the dying and distraught have learned their
lesson regarding aid from disaster-relief organizations! Perhaps we can
start an organization to shut down all charitable organizations--you
think the others haven't mismanaged resources occasionaly? Get serious!
If you can't help people reclaim their lives the fiduciarily
responsible and/or politically correct way, then let them suffer and
die in their own filth!
--
-- Beware the delicate, tiny, very talented celebrity starlets.
Obveeus
"Juan Anonly" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:2010021107585675249-nobody@nowherecom...
> On 2010-02-10 21:03:38 -0800, Anim8rFSK said:
>
>> I have no idea about Katrina, since I never donated through the Red
>> Cross again, nor will I.
>
> That'll show them! I hope the dying and distraught have learned their
> lesson regarding aid from disaster-relief organizations!
Just to be clear, he did not say that all charity was bad or that all
disaster relief was bad. What he did say is that the Red Cross took in
donations for a specific purpose and then used those donations for different
purposes. What the Red Cross did was clearly wrong. The problem is, the
9/11 donations became HUGE (and that didn't even include
government/insurance payouts) while most 'disasters that the Red Cross deals
with get very little attention. The average person that dies in this
country doesn't end up with $1,000,000+ in payouts, you know? So, the Red
Cross tried to redirect the charitable donations designated for 9/11 victims
to 'more worthy' causes. I understand why they did it, but it does not
change the fact that what they did was blatantly WRONG, just as Anim8rFSK
has explained.
Juan Anonly
> "Juan Anonly" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:2010021107585675249-nobody@nowherecom...
>> On 2010-02-10 21:03:38 -0800, Anim8rFSK said:
>>
>>> I have no idea about Katrina, since I never donated through the Red
>>> Cross again, nor will I.
>>
>> That'll show them! I hope the dying and distraught have learned their >
>> lesson regarding aid from disaster-relief organizations!
>
> Just to be clear, he did not say that all charity was bad or that all
> disaster relief was bad.
Just to be clear, I didn't say or imply he did.
> What he did say is that the Red Cross took in donations for a specific
> purpose and then used those donations for different purposes. What the
> Red Cross did was clearly wrong.
We must be reading the same posts: Did you read the part where he said
he would no longer provide any contributions to them. Good, I did too.
Did you notice where it seems to be due to their fiduciary activities
and/or political correctness? Good! Me too.
So if you strip out all the other organizations that don't have every
scrap of their money-flow investigated, then you can't be sure they
aren't twice as bad. And if you do investigate them you're likely to
find all kinds of mismanagement and/or political-driven decisions,
small or large. Likely some of them are really bad because they are
funneling service contracts to cronies, others even worse because they
wanted to keep other people from death and mayhem. Did you read where I
said that?
> The problem is, the 9/11 donations became HUGE (and that didn't even
> include government/insurance payouts) while most 'disasters that the
> Red Cross deals with get very little attention. The average person
> that dies in this country doesn't end up with $1,000,000+ in payouts,
> you know? So, the Red Cross tried to redirect the charitable donations
> designated for 9/11 victims to 'more worthy' causes. I understand why
> they did it, but it does not change the fact that what they did was
> blatantly WRONG, just as Anim8rFSK has explained.
Excellent: We are definitely both reading the same thread. That's a relief!
So now we need to look for other organizations that did wrong just
because they were trying to help people. Before you can be allowed to
save other people from death and misery, you need to have flawlessly
perfect books, be lawyered up enough to face congress, Glenn Beck,
FoxNews, the whole of shriek radio, ambush-media "activists", etc.
I think the basic point is that someone wanted to contribute to one
politically-sacred event (the Saudi bombing of the Twin Towers) but
wanted to ensure it not help in any another politically-maligned
situation. For instance: Ethnically "lazy" people in "Democrat" New
Orleans whose real intent was to embarass President Bush. Just for
instance.
In the same way, shouldn't people be able to give blood but ensure that
it not be used to save Democrats, illegal immigrants, New Yorkers, gay
people or any of a vast stripe of various ethnically "lazy" people?
Charitable giving, like godless humanism, is just another socialist
trick to turn our babies homosexuals! Our babies! Our babies!
--
Helping others to help themselves.
Obveeus
"Juan Anonly" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 2010-02-11 12:53:25 -0800, Obveeus said:
>
>> What he did say is that the Red Cross took in donations for a specific
>> purpose and then used those donations for different purposes. What the
>> Red Cross did was clearly wrong.
>
> We must be reading the same posts: Did you read the part where he said he
> would no longer provide any contributions to them.
Yes, he said that he would never again giv eto the Red Cross since they
steal from the contributions. That still leaves a bazillion other charities
that he can donate to when he wants to help out the less fortunate.
> Good, I did too.
When you read, did you understand that pointing out that the Red Cross
steals isn't advocating that charity of all kinds should be abandnoned?
> Did you notice where it seems to be due to their fiduciary activities
> and/or political correctness? Good! Me too.
By 'fiduciary activities', I assume you mean 'the Red Cross took money
donated specifically for 9/11 victims'. Yes, I noticed that.
> So if you strip out all the other organizations that don't have every
> scrap of their money-flow investigated,
He isn't objecting to charities having overhead. He is objecting to
charities raking in money for one cause and then reallocating it to the
cause of their choice.
> then you can't be sure they aren't twice as bad. And if you do investigate
> them you're likely to find all kinds of mismanagement and/or
> political-driven decisions, small or large. Likely some of them are really
> bad because they are funneling service contracts to cronies, others even
> worse because they wanted to keep other people from death and mayhem.
Yes, lots of these 'charities' are scams to pull on people's heart strings.
It seems to me that he was complaining specifically about being cheated by
The Red Cross (which everyone that donated to them for 9/11 was) and so he
is choosing not to donate to them in the future. What part of that do you
think is *wrong* of him?
>> The problem is, the 9/11 donations became HUGE (and that didn't even
>> include government/insurance payouts) while most 'disasters that the Red
>> Cross deals with get very little attention. The average person that dies
>> in this country doesn't end up with $1,000,000+ in payouts, you know?
>> So, the Red Cross tried to redirect the charitable donations designated
>> for 9/11 victims to 'more worthy' causes. I understand why they did it,
>> but it does not change the fact that what they did was blatantly WRONG,
>> just as Anim8rFSK has explained.
>
> Excellent: We are definitely both reading the same thread. That's a
> relief!
>
> So now we need to look for other organizations that did wrong just because
> they were trying to help people. Before you can be allowed to save other
> people from death and misery, you need to have flawlessly perfect books,
> be lawyered up enough to face congress, Glenn Beck, FoxNews, the whole of
> shriek radio, ambush-media "activists", etc.
None of your silly conclusions above are a requirement for donating. People
are free to donate wherever/however they want. And, if they feel cheated
afterwards, they are free to avoid making that same mistake with that same
charitable entity in the future.
> I think the basic point is that someone wanted to contribute to one
> politically-sacred event (the Saudi bombing of the Twin Towers) but wanted
> to ensure it not help in any another politically-maligned situation.
Or maybe he just felt his donation should go where it was promised? If he
donated to starving children in Africa and found out that the money actually
went to fund tuition scholarships for a private church school in New England
I'd imagine he would still be annoyed. Anim8r may be a right wing nut, but
that doesn't negate his right to donate his money where he chooses.
> For instance: Ethnically "lazy" people in "Democrat" New Orleans whose
> real intent was to embarass President Bush. Just for instance.
Would you feel differently about this if you found out that your Katrina
fund donation went to a church in Alaska to fund their new anti-abortion
campaign? Would it still be ok for money to be redirected by the charity
then or would it suddenly become a political matter?
You want to make this a political issue, but it really isn't. It is an
issue of 'false advertising'.
> In the same way, shouldn't people be able to give blood but ensure that it
> not be used to save Democrats, illegal immigrants, New Yorkers, gay people
> or any of a vast stripe of various ethnically "lazy" people?
If you make a blood donation with a specific recipient in mind (sick uncle
Sam going in for heart surgery), you have every right to be annoyed if that
blood is taken from that person and given to someone else (aunt Flo needed a
refill after her liposuction surgery).
> Charitable giving, like godless humanism, is just another socialist trick
> to turn our babies homosexuals! Our babies! Our babies!
Well, at least you don't come off as a total nut case. ;-)
Juan Anonly
On 2010-02-11 15:01:07 -0800, Obveeus said:
"Juan Anonly" <nob...@nowhere.com wrote:
On 2010-02-11 12:53:25 -0800, Obveeus said:
What he did say is that the Red Cross took in donations for a specific > purpose and then used those donations for different purposes. What the > Red Cross did was clearly wrong.
We must be reading the same posts: Did you read the part where he said he would no longer provide any contributions to them.
Yes, he said that he would never again giv eto the Red Cross since they steal from the contributions. That still leaves a bazillion other charities that he can donate to when he wants to help out the less fortunate.
How do you know they aren't "stealing from contributions" the way the Red Cross did? You don't. In fact since the Red Cross was caught appropriating funds to other--oops, I mean STEALING money, you figure they'd have processes in place to ensure they don't do it any more. Whereas those whose thefts haven't yet come to light could be running prostitution rings on the side! Well, shoot, we don't know what kind of porn and crack operations they really are, do we?
I mean sure, it's better to give our money directly to the Republican party or other operations we are certain aren't thieves so they can make sure it gets used real good. But outside of that (and the Red Cross of course), it would be a crap shoot!
Good, I did too.
When you read, did you understand that pointing out that the Red Cross steals isn't advocating that charity of all kinds should be abandnoned?
Yes I did, that's why I'm pointing out the slippery slope it exposes so that you can understand that if the Red Cross is exposed as being thieves, we are only one investigation from finding out about the rest of these theft, porn and heroin "fronts". Having said that about eight times, I'm unsure why you haven't yet read that part. Maybe you're on a Mac or something.
Did you notice where it seems to be due to their fiduciary activities and/or political correctness? Good! Me too.
By 'fiduciary activities', I assume you mean 'the Red Cross took money donated specifically for 9/11 victims'. Yes, I noticed that.
Took?!? They STOLE it in the dead of night. By the way, I wonder if they documented their theft? Wasn't that stupid of them!
So if you strip out all the other organizations that don't have every scrap of their money-flow investigated,
He isn't objecting to charities having overhead.
Yeah, I found that out when I read the part where he didn't say that.
He is objecting to charities raking in money for one cause and then reallocating it to the cause of their choice.
Raking in--Oh! You mean STEALING. Yeah I read it, I read you telling me that he wrote it, and have verified my reading both of his statement and your repetition of it. Did you read my acknowledgement of having read that and acknowledging having read it?
None of your silly conclusions above are a requirement for donating.
Neither are they protection enough from thieves, whores and crack-heads!� In any case, I don't appreciate you're referring to them as "silly". I can't imagine anyone has been better investigated and more likely to follow the paramount needs of the contributors over the mission of the organization than the Red Cross. My entire point is that it's now all the OTHER thieves, whores and stealth abortion-providers that are the biggest fear now.
People are free to donate wherever/however they want. And, if they feel cheated afterwards, they are free to avoid making that same mistake with that same charitable entity in the future.
Sure, it's a "free country" as people use to say. (They also use to say, "Hey--Who wears the pants in your family." I don't know what happened to that one.) Anyhow we're free to do almost anything accept re-allocate funds to save lives and misery without appropriate paperwork (aka STEALING). How many people went to jail during the criminal trial on that one, I wonder...
I think the basic point is that someone wanted to contribute to one politically-sacred event (the Saudi bombing of the Twin Towers) but wanted to ensure it not help in any another politically-maligned situation.
Or maybe he just felt his donation should go where it was promised? If he donated to starving children in Africa and found out that the money actually went to fund tuition scholarships for a private church school in New England I'd imagine he would still be annoyed. Anim8r may be a right wing nut, but that doesn't negate his right to donate his money where he chooses.
Sure, see my "free country" statement above. Did you think I was trying to twist his arm into giving money to the Red Cross? Certainly not. I'm underscoring the logic operative: All organizations of this kind are capable of "stealing" money and allocating it without our personal approval. And we won't know that they've even done it unless they are fully investigated on a continuing basis.� I think most of the contributions should be stolen to investigate the organization itself.� A dollar for a tent for the displaced, and five dollars to find out if it was stolen correctly or not.
For instance: Ethnically "lazy" people in "Democrat" New Orleans whose real intent was to embarass President Bush. Just for instance.
Would you feel differently about this if you found out that your Katrina fund donation went to a church in Alaska to fund their new anti-abortion campaign? Would it still be ok for money to be redirected by the charity then or would it suddenly become a political matter?
I read that when it was "starving people in Africa" above. See my response there.� And by the way--I beat you to "abortion" a paragraph back!
You want to make this a political issue, but it really isn't. It is an issue of 'false advertising'.
In the same way, shouldn't people be able to give blood but ensure that it not be used to save Democrats, illegal immigrants, New Yorkers, gay people or any of a vast stripe of various ethnically "lazy" people?
If you make a blood donation with a specific recipient in mind (sick uncle Sam going in for heart surgery), you have every right to be annoyed if that blood is taken from that person and given to someone else (aunt Flo needed a refill after her liposuction surgery).
Rights, freedoms, stealing, rights, freedom--we're on the same page! I say you should give donations only to those you trust, and then only with the appropriate paperwork to ensure it helps those you want helped and denies aid to others. A great selling point for me would be to have a quarterly statement finding out the names, dates and locations of where my 20 bucks used. And then to have another document from Price-Waterhouse verifying that their quarterly statement regarding my twenty bucks wasn't a forgery or fraud.
Charitable giving, like godless humanism, is just another socialist trick to turn our babies homosexuals! Our babies! Our babies!
Well, at least you don't come off as a total nut case. ;-)
Certainly not--I think we're pretty much in total agreement on liberty, freedoms, and charitable contributions as weapons to reflect our daily changes in political brainlock.
Anim8rFSK
Juan Anonly <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 2010-02-10 21:03:38 -0800, Anim8rFSK said:
>
> > I have no idea about Katrina, since I never donated through the Red
> > Cross again, nor will I.
>
> That'll show them! I hope the dying and distraught have learned their
> lesson regarding aid from disaster-relief organizations! Perhaps we can
> start an organization to shut down all charitable organizations--you
> think the others haven't mismanaged resources occasionaly? Get serious!
>
> If you can't help people reclaim their lives the fiduciarily
> responsible and/or politically correct way, then let them suffer and
> die in their own filth!
Jackass. I didn't say I don't donate; I don't donate through the Red
Cross, who stole my last donation. I donate through people who are more
concerned about getting the money to those who need it than lining their
own pockets. My Haiti money went to Doctors Without Borders.
Bill Anderson
> In article <2010021107585675249-nobody@nowherecom>,
> Juan Anonly <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-02-10 21:03:38 -0800, Anim8rFSK said:
>>
>>> I have no idea about Katrina, since I never donated through the Red
>>> Cross again, nor will I.
>> That'll show them! I hope the dying and distraught have learned their
>> lesson regarding aid from disaster-relief organizations! Perhaps we can
>> start an organization to shut down all charitable organizations--you
>> think the others haven't mismanaged resources occasionaly? Get serious!
>>
>> If you can't help people reclaim their lives the fiduciarily
>> responsible and/or politically correct way, then let them suffer and
>> die in their own filth!
>
> Jackass. I didn't say I don't donate; I don't donate through the Red
> Cross, who stole my last donation. I donate through people who are more
> concerned about getting the money to those who need it than lining their
> own pockets. My Haiti money went to Doctors Without Borders.
>
Have you compared what the Better Business Bureau says about the
American Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders?
http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/
The BBB has 20 standards for charity accountability. They say the Red
Cross meets all 20 and Doctors Without Borders meets 18. Not saying
your judgment of the Red Cross is right or wrong -- just providing a
source of info.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
Juan Anonly
> In article <2010021107585675249-nobody@nowherecom>,
> Juan Anonly <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-02-10 21:03:38 -0800, Anim8rFSK said:
>>
>>> I have no idea about Katrina, since I never donated through the Red
>>> Cross again, nor will I.
>>
>> That'll show them! I hope the dying and distraught have learned their
>> lesson regarding aid from disaster-relief organizations! Perhaps we can
>> start an organization to shut down all charitable organizations--you
>> think the others haven't mismanaged resources occasionaly? Get serious!
>>
>> If you can't help people reclaim their lives the fiduciarily
>> responsible and/or politically correct way, then let them suffer and
>> die in their own filth!
>
> Jackass. I didn't say I don't donate; I don't donate through the Red
> Cross, who stole my last donation.
"Stealing" money usually winds up putting people in jail. Here you
mean they allocated relief funds to something you hadn't requested.
Their "theft" was related to you wanting relief to go to one
specialized activity, and they handle so many that they felt it
necessary to divert those funds: otherwise known as malevolent
corruption and malfeasance, right?
> I donate through people who are more
> concerned about getting the money to those who need it than lining their
> own pockets. My Haiti money went to Doctors Without Borders.
I didn't say you don't donate. Stay on point! What the hell--does
nobody ready my insight filled comments?!
How the heck do you know that Doctors Without Borders isn't lining
their pockets? You don't. How do you know they are spending money on
the countries you demand? Have you placed demands on how the they
allocate their funds? Or do you reserve that for the Red Cross alone?
If so, then by definition no one else is capable of this "THEFT!", just
the Red Cross.
If you're outraged you should spread your suspicions and distrust my equitably.
Anim8rFSK
Juan Anonly <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 2010-02-11 19:24:16 -0800, Anim8rFSK said:
>
> > In article <2010021107585675249-nobody@nowherecom>,
> > Juan Anonly <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2010-02-10 21:03:38 -0800, Anim8rFSK said:
> >>
> >>> I have no idea about Katrina, since I never donated through the Red
> >>> Cross again, nor will I.
> >>
> >> That'll show them! I hope the dying and distraught have learned their
> >> lesson regarding aid from disaster-relief organizations! Perhaps we can
> >> start an organization to shut down all charitable organizations--you
> >> think the others haven't mismanaged resources occasionaly? Get serious!
> >>
> >> If you can't help people reclaim their lives the fiduciarily
> >> responsible and/or politically correct way, then let them suffer and
> >> die in their own filth!
> >
> > Jackass. I didn't say I don't donate; I don't donate through the Red
> > Cross, who stole my last donation.
>
> "Stealing" money usually winds up putting people in jail. Here you
> mean they allocated relief funds to something you hadn't requested.
> Their "theft" was related to you wanting relief to go to one
> specialized activity, and they handle so many that they felt it
> necessary to divert those funds: otherwise known as malevolent
> corruption and malfeasance, right?
Wrong. The theft and fraud is on two fronts. They specifically
solicited donations not only for a particular problem, but also claimed
they wouldn't pocket any of the money. They then said 'what the hell,
we're just going to take this money for ourselves'
>
> > I donate through people who are more
> > concerned about getting the money to those who need it than lining their
> > own pockets. My Haiti money went to Doctors Without Borders.
>
> I didn't say you don't donate. Stay on point! What the hell--does
> nobody ready my insight filled comments?!
If you made one, maybe we would.
>
> How the heck do you know that Doctors Without Borders isn't lining
> their pockets? You don't. How do you know they are spending money on
> the countries you demand? Have you placed demands on how the they
> allocate their funds? Or do you reserve that for the Red Cross alone?
> If so, then by definition no one else is capable of this "THEFT!", just
> the Red Cross.
>
> If you're outraged you should spread your suspicions and distrust my
> equitably.
I know for a fact Red Cross stole the money and the people in charge
should be in prison. Granted I don't know that one way or the others
about other charities, although obviously I don't donate through the
U.N., which made it a bitch to donate to Tsunami relief.
Anim8rFSK
Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Fair enough, and appreciated. I didn't do much research into DWB; a
good chance to donate just came up through something a friend arranged.
Juan Anonly
>> "Stealing" money usually winds up putting people in jail. Here you
>> mean they allocated relief funds to something you hadn't requested.
>> Their "theft" was related to you wanting relief to go to one
>> specialized activity, and they handle so many that they felt it
>> necessary to divert those funds: otherwise known as malevolent
>> corruption and malfeasance, right?
>
> Wrong. The theft and fraud is on two fronts. They specifically
> solicited donations not only for a particular problem, but also claimed
> they wouldn't pocket any of the money. They then said 'what the hell,
> we're just going to take this money for ourselves'
Lying about stealing--is that as bad as stealing? You're typifying the
diversion of funds to other projects as "stealing" done by "thieves" to
"line their pockets". But you're really lying, right? This diversion
was not done for personal gain, the usual meaning of the phrase "lining
one's pockets". Was anyone tried and found guilty of theft? Or are you
just "opinioning" the facts, FoxNews-style, to turn a pimple into
cancer?
>>> I donate through people who are more concerned about getting the money
>>> to those who need it than lining their
>>> own pockets. My Haiti money went to Doctors Without Borders.
>>
>> I didn't say you don't donate. Stay on point! What the hell--does
>> nobody ready my insight filled comments?!
>
> If you made one, maybe we would.
Oooo! You're brain is bigger than I thought. I'll have to recalculate
my meandering exit...
> I know for a fact Red Cross stole the money and the people in charge
> should be in prison. Granted I don't know that one way or the others
> about other charities, although obviously I don't donate through the
> U.N., which made it a bitch to donate to Tsunami relief.
Right, well every Democrat should be in prison for not being a
Republican. In the meantime "should be in prison" and your horseshit
about stealing all appears to be just political noise. What a shock.
Juan Anonly
> I didn't do much research...
Keep up the good work!
Mark Nobles
> If you make a blood donation with a specific recipient in mind (sick uncle
> Sam going in for heart surgery), you have every right to be annoyed if that
> blood is taken from that person and given to someone else (aunt Flo needed a
> refill after her liposuction surgery).
Have you been robbed if you give blood for Uncle Sam, but it turns out
you were the 10th person to give blood and he only needed 8 units. Now
what do you want them to do with that blood? Force in into him, flush
it down the drain, give it to a vampire? How about giving it to someone
in Haiti who had their house fall on them? You'd bitch that you'd been
robbed?
(Never mind that this isn't how donating blood for someone works.
Usually the blood you give goes into the pool and older blood is given
to the patient. That's the way money donations work too.
And this wasn't Fred's first claim that Red Cross people were, and I
quote, "busy lining their own pockets." That's very different from
saving some money within the organization to prepare for the next
disaster - which is neither "stealing" nor embezzling.
Obveeus
"Mark Nobles" <cmn-n...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> If you make a blood donation with a specific recipient in mind (sick
>> uncle
>> Sam going in for heart surgery), you have every right to be annoyed if
>> that
>> blood is taken from that person and given to someone else (aunt Flo
>> needed a
>> refill after her liposuction surgery).
>
> Have you been robbed if you give blood for Uncle Sam, but it turns out
> you were the 10th person to give blood and he only needed 8 units. Now
> what do you want them to do with that blood?
If they don't plan to use it as they claimed they would, then they should
logically return it to you...or at least return to you the authorization for
how it gets used.
> Force in into him, flush
> it down the drain, give it to a vampire?
Giving it to a vampire is a very good idea since that will cut down on
vampire related crime (caused by the vampire having to go out and get his
own).
> How about giving it to someone in Haiti who had their house fall on them?
What if it was given to keep that nutbag that shot upFort Hood alive during
surgery?
> You'd bitch that you'd been robbed?
No, I wouldn't call it 'robbery'. I'd call it false advertising, though.
> (Never mind that this isn't how donating blood for someone works.
> Usually the blood you give goes into the pool and older blood is given
> to the patient. That's the way money donations work too.
Money donations are supposed to go to the place where the donation was
designated. If you texted in the last few weeks for the Haiti disaster
relief, how would you feel if you found out that the money actually got sent
to help some Cuban farmers get a new well up and running to water their
tobacco plants?
> And this wasn't Fred's first claim that Red Cross people were, and I
> quote, "busy lining their own pockets." That's very different from
> saving some money within the organization to prepare for the next
> disaster - which is neither "stealing" nor embezzling.
If they claimed that they wouldn't take any percentage off the top for
overhead and that every penny would go directly to victim's families, then
yes, deciding later to take some of the money is misappropriation of funds.
If you donate money to the local school (because they solicited funds for
their build a new library project) so that they can build a new library, how
would you feel if you found out that the money actually went to hire a
secretary for the principal and to build a new weight room for the football
team? Either way, the school used the money. Why would you have any
reason to complain or to avoid giving them money the next time they asked
for funds to help build a new library?
Yes, I know that the Red Cross was put in a difficult place because American
put forth a ridiculous amount of generosity toward 9/11 victims/family (each
of which was already in line for huge compensation from insurance/airline
lawsuits/government/etc...). Still, if people donate for that cause/group,
the funds should go to that cause/group.
Jim Gysin
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> sent the following on Thu, 11 Feb 2010
20:24:16 -0700:
> In article <2010021107585675249-nobody@nowherecom>,
> Juan Anonly <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2010-02-10 21:03:38 -0800, Anim8rFSK said:
> >
> > > I have no idea about Katrina, since I never donated through the Red
> > > Cross again, nor will I.
> >
> > That'll show them! I hope the dying and distraught have learned their
> > lesson regarding aid from disaster-relief organizations! Perhaps we can
> > start an organization to shut down all charitable organizations--you
> > think the others haven't mismanaged resources occasionaly? Get serious!
> >
> > If you can't help people reclaim their lives the fiduciarily
> > responsible and/or politically correct way, then let them suffer and
> > die in their own filth!
>
> Jackass. I didn't say I don't donate; I don't donate through the Red
> Cross, who stole my last donation. I donate through people who are more
> concerned about getting the money to those who need it than lining their
> own pockets. My Haiti money went to Doctors Without Borders.
I'm not sure why anyone is struggling to understand what you're saying
here. And I agree with you with regard to the Red Cross. When a link
says something like "Click here to donate to Haiti," then the money
should all go to Haiti. Otherwise, create a link that says "Click here
to donate to Haiti or to whomever else we decide to give the cash to
after we sit on it for an indefinite period of time."
Me, I always look for Catholic Relief Services, but I'm biased. But I
know that they don't just fly in to play hero while cameras are rolling
and then fly back out and go back to "managing" their fund balances.
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
Anim8rFSK
Jim Gysin <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> sent the following on Thu, 11 Feb 2010
> 20:24:16 -0700:
>
> > In article <2010021107585675249-nobody@nowherecom>,
> > Juan Anonly <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2010-02-10 21:03:38 -0800, Anim8rFSK said:
> > >
> > > > I have no idea about Katrina, since I never donated through the Red
> > > > Cross again, nor will I.
> > >
> > > That'll show them! I hope the dying and distraught have learned their
> > > lesson regarding aid from disaster-relief organizations! Perhaps we can
> > > start an organization to shut down all charitable organizations--you
> > > think the others haven't mismanaged resources occasionaly? Get serious!
> > >
> > > If you can't help people reclaim their lives the fiduciarily
> > > responsible and/or politically correct way, then let them suffer and
> > > die in their own filth!
> >
> > Jackass. I didn't say I don't donate; I don't donate through the Red
> > Cross, who stole my last donation. I donate through people who are more
> > concerned about getting the money to those who need it than lining their
> > own pockets. My Haiti money went to Doctors Without Borders.
>
> I'm not sure why anyone is struggling to understand what you're saying
Thank you!
> here. And I agree with you with regard to the Red Cross. When a link
> says something like "Click here to donate to Haiti," then the money
> should all go to Haiti. Otherwise, create a link that says "Click here
> to donate to Haiti or to whomever else we decide to give the cash to
> after we sit on it for an indefinite period of time."
Yep. Same reason I vote against our propositions, that are worded:
BIG TYPE
$4 MILLION FOR A RESCUE HELICOPTER
tiny type
or any other reason we see fit
Uh, no. I'd vote yes for the copter, but not cart blanche.
>
> Me, I always look for Catholic Relief Services, but I'm biased. But I
> know that they don't just fly in to play hero while cameras are rolling
> and then fly back out and go back to "managing" their fund balances.
--
Juan Anonly
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> sent the following on Thu, 11 Feb 2010
> 20:24:16 -0700:
>
>> In article <2010021107585675249-nobody@nowherecom>,
>> Juan Anonly <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-02-10 21:03:38 -0800, Anim8rFSK said:
>>>
>>>> I have no idea about Katrina, since I never donated through the Red
>>>> Cross again, nor will I.
>>>
>>> That'll show them! I hope the dying and distraught have learned their
>>> lesson regarding aid from disaster-relief organizations! Perhaps we can
>>> start an organization to shut down all charitable organizations--you
>>> think the others haven't mismanaged resources occasionaly? Get serious!
>>>
>>> If you can't help people reclaim their lives the fiduciarily
>>> responsible and/or politically correct way, then let them suffer and
>>> die in their own filth!
>>
>> Jackass. I didn't say I don't donate; I don't donate through the Red
>> Cross, who stole my last donation. I donate through people who are more
>> concerned about getting the money to those who need it than lining their
>> own pockets. My Haiti money went to Doctors Without Borders.
>
> I'm not sure why anyone is struggling to understand what you're saying
> here.
Me neither. I too understand it perfectly: With words like "stealing",
"thieves" and "lining their pockets", it's just lies and spin directed
to politicizing charitable giving.
> And I agree with you with regard to the Red Cross. When a link
> says something like "Click here to donate to Haiti," then the money
> should all go to Haiti.
And not one penny for administration or, say website maintenance? When
I see a link that says something like "Click here to donate to Haiti",
I assume I am giving money directly to the government of Haiti to do
with as they please. Isn't it obvious?
One really shouldn't pivot legalese on web-buttons. It may seem obvious
what the button means, but in and of itself it has no meaning whatever.
> Otherwise, create a link that says "Click here
> to donate to Haiti or to whomever else we decide to give the cash to
> after we sit on it for an indefinite period of time."
That doesn't sound as snappy. I guess you could say "Click here if
you're an idiot stupid enough to click here." That too, would probably
not accomplish the intended goal.
> Me, I always look for Catholic Relief Services, but I'm biased. But I
> know that they don't just fly in to play hero while cameras are rolling
> and then fly back out and go back to "managing" their fund balances.
And that describes the Red Cross? They're a PR agency? Okay, I'll
play: That's exactly what the Catholic Relief Services do and would be
obvious if you weren't biased as you confess. On the other hand the Red
Cross is staffed by non-Papist Christians and they would only serve our
Lord, Jesus Christ, and not the miserly edicts of every micro-managing
"generous contributor" and serving their rapidly changing "needs".
For an interesting perspective check out "The Problem with Human
Compassion" by Shankar Vedantam in "The Week" magazine:
<http://www.theweek.com/article/index/106310/The_last_word_The_problem_with_human_compassion>
Jim Gysin
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> sent the following on Sun, 14 Feb 2010
13:49:35 -0700:
> In article <g9lgn5pjvemrspifv...@4ax.com>,
> Jim Gysin <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> sent the following on Thu, 11 Feb 2010
> > 20:24:16 -0700:
> >
> > > In article <2010021107585675249-nobody@nowherecom>,
> > > Juan Anonly <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2010-02-10 21:03:38 -0800, Anim8rFSK said:
> > > >
> > > > > I have no idea about Katrina, since I never donated through the Red
> > > > > Cross again, nor will I.
> > > >
> > > > That'll show them! I hope the dying and distraught have learned their
> > > > lesson regarding aid from disaster-relief organizations! Perhaps we can
> > > > start an organization to shut down all charitable organizations--you
> > > > think the others haven't mismanaged resources occasionaly? Get serious!
> > > >
> > > > If you can't help people reclaim their lives the fiduciarily
> > > > responsible and/or politically correct way, then let them suffer and
> > > > die in their own filth!
> > >
> > > Jackass. I didn't say I don't donate; I don't donate through the Red
> > > Cross, who stole my last donation. I donate through people who are more
> > > concerned about getting the money to those who need it than lining their
> > > own pockets. My Haiti money went to Doctors Without Borders.
> >
> > I'm not sure why anyone is struggling to understand what you're saying
>
> Thank you!
You're welcome. But there seems to be at least one troll hanging around
who's intent on humping a leg, so I'll offer yours. :)
> > here. And I agree with you with regard to the Red Cross. When a link
> > says something like "Click here to donate to Haiti," then the money
> > should all go to Haiti. Otherwise, create a link that says "Click here
> > to donate to Haiti or to whomever else we decide to give the cash to
> > after we sit on it for an indefinite period of time."
>
> Yep. Same reason I vote against our propositions, that are worded:
>
> BIG TYPE
> $4 MILLION FOR A RESCUE HELICOPTER
> tiny type
> or any other reason we see fit
>
> Uh, no. I'd vote yes for the copter, but not cart blanche.
That reminds me of the "and other duties as assigned" catch-all that's
added to many job descriptions. "Yeah, I know that you're the network
administrator, but the toilet in the employee bathroom is backing up, so
I'm assigning you a plunger."
Obveeus
"Jim Gysin" <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> That reminds me of the "and other duties as assigned" catch-all that's
> added to many job descriptions. "Yeah, I know that you're the network
> administrator, but the toilet in the employee bathroom is backing up, so
> I'm assigning you a plunger."
That's what you get for always talking about how you can get more through
the pipeline if you tweak it.
At least they gave you a plunger.
Anim8rFSK
Jim Gysin <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
They tried to pull that on my office lease one year; a clause after page
of 'rules for the building' that said 'any rule the landlord sees fit to
add automatically becomes part of this lease' and I'm like, uh, nooooooo.