In your humble opinions, who is lower?

D

DRM

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2002
Messages
513
The recent Katrina relief scams really have my blood boiling, as my church donated considerably to the relief effort.

As a Christian, I accept by faith that "...all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

Yet, my humanity thinks people who take advantage of others' desperation are one of the lowest forms of scum on earth.

In your humble opinions, who is lower than that?
 
LOL. Hard to top Bruise's reply (as usual). Seriously, I agree with you DRM. Those kind of scum are VERY low.
 
DRM said:
Yet, my humanity thinks people who take advantage of others' desperation are one of the lowest forms of scum on earth
Click to expand...

Bruise is spot on and the UN fits right in with your description sad to say.
The UN should'a let the Salvation Army handled it then everyone would'a been better off.
 
In my experience working with the Salvation Army during the Katrina Relief Operation, they caused more problems than they helped solved. But that is only the account of one local operation, I didn't work with any of their higher level operations.
 
While the UN is a pretty ineffective body, I wouldnt go so far as to call them the lowest form of scum. Ultimatly the UN is almost 200 nations looking out for thier own interests and is thusly made next to useless, especialy when dealing with military confrontation (witness over 1,000,000 deal in rwanda). To thoes who disagree I would say as some kid in africa who is being inoculated by UNICEF if the nurse holding that vacine is the scum of the earth. I do believe that an international orginization is needed but one with some teeth not at the mercy of veto powers. In Rwanda the head of the UN observation, Brig. Gen. Romeo Delarie mission warned the world that a massacre was about to take place and asked for more troops so he could do somthing about it, he was vetoed, he then asked to have his mission changed so that he could use what he had to try and stop it, he was vetoed. Now a Million people are dead and many more mutilated by one of the most brutal genocides the world has seen. In the end this was not the fault of an international orginization that is disigned to promote freedom and equality, it is the fault of the nation that chose to use its veto power because acting to prevent a genocide was not in its interests.

As to the salvation army, while they do do much good work I cannot bring myself to support their politics, a freind of mine once went to a SalyAnn Degaying Camp, where they attepted to cure her of her homosexuality as if it were a disease or as if she had a choice about it.
 
The French? Like 'The Americans'? I'm glad that you are able to distuinguish between politics and people:rolleyes:

Keep in mind that likely a fair percentage of your ancestors are 'The French'.


Keno
 
richardallen said:
The French? Like 'The Americans'? I'm glad that you are able to distuinguish between politics and people:rolleyes:

Keep in mind that likely a fair percentage of your ancestors are 'The French'.


Keno
Click to expand...

Aww, come on, Keno. :)We all KNOW that the French are rude and cowardly and smoke 17.3 packs a day. Just like all Americans are blow hards that are both ignorant and uncaring to other countries and their problems. THey also eat nothing but beef and cheese and wash it down with yellow water they call "premium" beer. Likewise, it's a common fact that the Brits are all overly polite as well as foppish pushovers. Bad teeth are also a mark of good social standing. Heck, the Italians practically LIVE in their Catholic churches...unless they have ties to organized crime. Then they still come back after thier hits to confess then go eat at a dimmly light pasta eatery. The Irish are no better. It's just plain scientific fact that their national past times include: Drinking, fighting, the random jig, more drinking, searching for "little people", breaking out into another fist fight, going to church..and meaning it, drinking during the service while the priest's back is turned (whose back was turned to sneak a nip of the Communial wine), then getting into a fight as they go to kiss the Blarny Stone.

It's all in good fun, guys. I don't mean to offend. I'm a mutt amongst men. English, Irish, German, French, and a good splash of Cherokee is all it takes to make a Steely.

Jake
 
Heh, when I first saw this thread I was going to put the French. But PETA and the ELF piss me off more cause they are more local.
 
Grob said:
While the UN is a pretty ineffective body, I wouldnt go so far as to call them the lowest form of scum. Ultimatly the UN is almost 200 nations looking out for thier own interests and is thusly made next to useless, especialy when dealing with military confrontation (witness over 1,000,000 deal in rwanda). To thoes who disagree I would say as some kid in africa who is being inoculated by UNICEF if the nurse holding that vacine is the scum of the earth. I do believe that an international orginization is needed but one with some teeth not at the mercy of veto powers. In Rwanda the head of the UN observation, Brig. Gen. Romeo Delarie mission warned the world that a massacre was about to take place and asked for more troops so he could do somthing about it, he was vetoed, he then asked to have his mission changed so that he could use what he had to try and stop it, he was vetoed. Now a Million people are dead and many more mutilated by one of the most brutal genocides the world has seen. In the end this was not the fault of an international orginization that is disigned to promote freedom and equality, it is the fault of the nation that chose to use its veto power because acting to prevent a genocide was not in its interests.

As to the salvation army, while they do do much good work I cannot bring myself to support their politics, a freind of mine once went to a SalyAnn Degaying Camp, where they attepted to cure her of her homosexuality as if it were a disease or as if she had a choice about it.
Click to expand...

IIRC, there were no such "vetoes." The issues did not come before the Security Council, where a veto may be exercised by one of the five Permanent Members. Member countries send troops voluntarily, and no one would send the necessary troops.

Be careful of giving "teeth" to the UN. You may discover that their values are not the same as yours. The majority of UN members, for example, oppose freedom of the press (or any other media) and private ownership of firearms. The UN does not exist to promote equaltiy or freedom as much as "peace and security."

The UN has worked fairly well as a world health organization, and hardly worked at all as a peace-keeper or promoter of democracy.
 
there's nothing wrong with france, or its people, its the french government that stinks. my ancestors kept trying to change that in 1870, ww1 & 2, worked in 1870 but then the yanks & brits stopped them in ww1&2. maybe they'll do better now that france has bent the knee to brussels, tho they seem to feel they don't have to obey the laws or rulings from brussels unless they agree with them.

of course, the french government is a reflection of the collective history and will of the french people, so they are not 100% blameless collectively, tho as individuals they are mostly OK. Most are very polite and helpful. parisians excepted - they're the rude ones. they are mostly rude to other frenchman who are not parisians, 'provincials' from outside paris are one step below foreignors like us.

i'd think we should avoid criticism of other nations or races, and concentrate on specifics, i still think our mutual detestation of ambulance chasers (lawyers, solicitors, politicians) should be top (or bottom?) of the list, as even france serves it's people, lawyers are a boil on the backside of humanity, one of the few groups deliberately designed to be self perpetuating by writing laws in legalese sufficiently unintelligable that a lawyer must be hired at great expense by both sides in an arguement to argue the inconsistancies deliberately introduced into the laws - by the lawyers. one of the arguements used against the campaign for clear speach in lawmaking is that it would allow the common citizen to dispense with lawyers, and none of them want that. remember, judges, and politicians are mostly ex-lawyers too. the terror continues.

if any of the forumites are lawyers, i'm glad their personal life here is in general tempered by the convivial atmosphere and uncle bill's rules, i may dislike what they do for a living, but as long as they don't intrude it on the forum, that's ok by me.
 
"He who is willing to sacrifice a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security deserves niether and will loose both"
 
kronckew said:
[L]awyers are a boil on the backside of humanity, one of the few groups deliberately designed to be self perpetuating by writing laws in legalese sufficiently unintelligable that a lawyer must be hired at great expense by both sides in an arguement to argue the inconsistancies deliberately introduced into the laws - by the lawyers. one of the arguements used against the campaign for clear speach in lawmaking is that it would allow the common citizen to dispense with lawyers, and none of them want that. remember, judges, and politicians are mostly ex-lawyers too. the terror continues.

if any of the forumites are lawyers, i'm glad their personal life here is in general tempered by the convivial atmosphere and uncle bill's rules, i may dislike what they do for a living, but as long as they don't intrude it on the forum, that's ok by me.
Click to expand...

May I say, as a career defender of those sued (and one who believes there are too many lawyers with too much political power), that it's damned decent of you to allow me to be a member here.

All ______________________________ are ___________________________.

Fill in the blanks. Prejudice so adds to the civility of discourse.
 
Who is lower???

well, George Bush of course....him and the evil Republican conspirators who created and sent that awful hurricane down there in the first place.

There sure is alot of negativity regarding Katrina. It's a given that disasters bring out the very best and the worst in people. So far with Katrina all we ever seem to hear about is the worst.:(
 
Tom, you rank among a very select group of good, decent lawyers. I for one am glad you're here (as long as you keep bringing those cool swords to the Khukuri Conventions that is). :D :p
 
Yep, gotta agree that people bashing of any nationality is uncouth.:thumbdn: :(

And it's almost always the nation's government that is at fault as the people all over the world generally want the same things.
Most folks just want to be able to make a decent living, raise their kids in a happy environment, put aside a little something for when they get old and generally live their lives in peace without any interference from anyone.

When anyone has been on the short side of prejudice like I have being an ndn it doesn't take long to learn that we are all human beings with the same feelings.

And as far as a trade or profession goes there are always good and bad in any of them.
Berk is a good guy and a member here that is a lawyer.
Remember that when you point a finger at someone else there are four pointing back at you.:(
 
Grob said:
"He who is willing to sacrifice a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security deserves niether and will loose both"
Click to expand...

Interesting misquote, that. The quote attributed to Franklin is:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." (Bartlett's, 1919, p. 226; ephasis added)

To form any state is to surrender certain liberties to the state and/or its government. In time of war, liberties are typically curtailed. (Think of rationing, travel bans, and the draft for starters.) Franklin helped draft the Constitution, by which some liberties are curtailed just as others are recognized or created.

The question remains, "What is too much?" or "What liberties are 'essential?'"

During the Clinton Presidency and in the aftermath of the first bombing of the WTC, the Government set up the Echelon Program. Under this program, NSA does a computer screening of all electrical communications in the U.S. and, to the extent possible, elsewhere, looking for certain "key words" linked to terrorism. (The New York Times has recently "discovered" this program and attributed it solely to the Bush Adminstration [Gee, how could that happen?]. Echelon expanded on earlier activities along the same lines.)

Did and does "Echelon" cause a loss of essential liberty? Some thought so to the extent that they began a campaign in the last months of the Clinton Presidency to sabotage the electronic search by deliberately using what they thought were the "key words" on every possible telephone occasion so as to overwelm the NSA personnel who examine the communications identified by the computers (as bearing the "key words").

That action may effectuate a judgment on the part of the actors that it is so important to "liberty" to prevent the detection of terrorists in this way that the detection efforts should be sabotaged and the terrorists be undetected. Or it could simply reflect an habitual opposition to the Government.

The judgment of the families of the next batch of victims killed by terrorism in this nation (It's "when?" not "if.") may differ.

And it obviously isn't just "Islamic" terrorists we need to worry about. We have our own, home-grown, terrorists (e.g. Oklahoma City and the ELF).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top