Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MrLucky who wrote (12389)	2/16/2006 11:40:43 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 541982

Should the administration receive any human rights credit for the funds already provided and yet to be provided to Pakistan,(earthquake) Dafur, Sudan, Africa and the Tsunami victims? Of course not, but don't forget the offer to Iran after its earthquake. Which was rejected. You see, the Administration, i.e., the GOP, is bad, bad, bad.........

To: MrLucky who wrote (12389)	2/16/2006 11:53:54 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Respond to of 541982

What according to you is humanitarian aid then if you consider the aid to earthquake and tsunami victims as aid to balance out the human rights abuses. Hey look. like many others I am extremely mad at the WTC bombings. I am extremely mad that people would take advantage of our hospitality and our freedoms to cause death and physical harm to our own folks who opened out their hearts and welcome them. I would like to go after these bastards and fry their balls. But in no way, would I support my tax dollars to cause grief and agony to innocent lives in US or in other countries. The innocent lives in Iraq is as precious as the innocent life in the US. It is that which distinguishes us from many other nations including other nations in Europe. We do not have to compete for barbarity with Osama and his folks.

To: MrLucky who wrote (12389)	2/17/2006 12:08:31 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541982

Somehow, "Thus the end result record for Bush's own stated aims is very mixed" became "(not) receive any human rights credit"....this is the same problem I see over and over. I say the results of a policy are mixed due to flaws along the way, and the rebuttal is that I have taken an absolutist position giving no credit, or wanting to do nothing about terrorism, or some other straw man that doesn't address the qualification I made in my argument. Which part of "result is mixed" equates with "no credit"? Sorry but I am not partisan enough to grasp the underlying logic here. No wonder modern American discourse strikes me as so illogical. Here I thought one was meant to go from A to B to C and I find out that A is actually H and means Q. My bad. Perhaps my argument was that much of the good we do is undermined and besmirched by the bad that has also been done. Maybe that's what "mixed" means, yeah, maybe it's a combination of good and bad inherent in the term. Maybe the end result is not the pure positive initially posited in Bush's rhetoric due to his subsequent mixed record of actions. (I won't even go into how taking a qualified criticism and turning it into a distorted absolutist attack is a rhetorical trick designed to shut off actual debate and demonize any critic of the current policy, thus elevating that policy to some sacred level beyond question. An obvious trick at that.)

To: MrLucky who wrote (12389)	2/17/2006 1:27:10 AM
From: Proud Deplorable	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541982

Isn't it simply amazing how the good is undone by the criminals in government? Don't forget that there is good in govt and bad as in all people but the balance is being shifted towards evil in America and UK and Israel. Please read this whole story: counterpunch.org counterpunch.org

To: MrLucky who wrote (12389)	2/17/2006 7:32:35 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 541982

Should the administration receive any human rights credit for the funds already provided and yet to be provided to Pakistan,(earthquake) Dafur, Sudan, Africa and the Tsunami victims? How is humanitarian aid a subset of human rights? Is any of that action credible as contributory to human rights? No, I don't think so. Humanitarian aid is very nice and I'm proud that we're so johny-on-the-spot. But I don't see kindness to victims, particularly victims of natural events, as contributing to rights. Even kindness to political victims doesn't gain them any rights.

To: MrLucky who wrote (12389)	2/17/2006 11:45:42 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 541982

How about this? Should the administration receive any human rights credit for the funds already provided and yet to be provided to Pakistan,(earthquake) Dafur, Sudan, Africa and the Tsunami victims? Is any of that action credible as contributory to human rights? If so, it would be nice to see that weighed against the real and imagined human rights offences claimed at Abu Gahraib (sic), Gitmo etc. Couple of comments. This is apples and oranges. You seem to be thinking of humanitarian aid rather than human rights assistance. Unless one of those country references involves something other than humanitarian assistance. Second, Dale said, quite clearly, that it was a "mixed" bag. He chose to emphasize the one side. Why not step forward with the other side as in the Bush administration did x, y, and/or z. That would reinforce the "mixed" bag argument.