Is France "stingy"?

Walter, you do credit to yourself to acknowledge that you don't read Ayn Rand. Don't waste your time.

0 Replies

Classic Bully/clicque behavior, akin to "Hazing"... the head thugs select the victim, then all the goons and minions line up to take potshots.
Scapegoating.
It's the Darkside of "groupthink"... and the thugs find it immensely entertaining.

As the hostilities escalate, the perpetrators attempt to plead innocence... When called to task for their predations, the criminal elements engage in the classic "HE started it" ploy. "We were just kidding" and "things just got out of hand"...
what a load of horsepuckey.

0 Replies

Is someone pulling the rug out from under you, Bill that your argumentation becomes more and more a wish-wash sweeping blow?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
You, Deb, PDiddie etc. empathize with these sentiments even while you continue to use this disaster as a staging ground for attacks against the leadership of the United States. This is utter hypocrisy and your refusal to admit the obvious really is quite... well, obvious.

That is a flagrant slur of Miss Olga. Do you have any direct quotes from Miss Olga or Dlowan to support you claim that they "use this disaster as a staging ground for attacks against the leadership of the United States," or are you up to your old tactic which assumes that repeating a lie often enough will make it true? Quite frankly, i haven't read enough of PDiddie's posts to answer that charge against him, and suspect it may be true, because he revels in such attacks on the Shrub--i can't really blame him, although i quickly tire of it myself, at least relative to the enthusiasm which he displays for the exercise. You have no business leveling such an accusation against Miss Olga and Our Dear Bunny--i just despise you the more for nastiness such as this.

I leveled no such accusations at Ms Olga, Set. Btw, our exchange can be read earlier in this thread. You and the Dear Bunny are guilty as charged.

0 Replies

Touche', Mr. Boosh:

Quote:

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has announced his nation would offer $500 million in grant aid for the tsunami-stricken regions of southern Asia.

Saturday's announcement makes Japan the single largest contributor in the relief efforts.

Japan had previously pledged $30 million.

The decision to raise Japan's funding level comes one day after the United States increased its aid to the region from $35 million to $350 million, which at the time was the largest contribution by a nation.

The increase followed criticism that the initial amount was far from enough.

More than $1.5 billion has now been pledged by the international community.

CNN

0 Replies

How much has "Reverend" Falwell pledged, I wonder?
(Of his OWN funds, that is... not from the pockets of others... )

0 Replies

I think that everyone is getting very confused. There's really nothing to this. It goes like this.

The US announces it will renege on some promised world aid.
Jan whats-his-nuts says that western nations (which would include the US, but didn't name us specifically) are stingy.
Tsunami disaster hits.
Someone misreports or misinterprets the amount of money pledged by France.
Those who felt stung by Jan's comments use this opportunity to jump on France, who would also have been included in Jan's comments, for being stingy.

That's really all there is to it. Those who accuse some of us of defending France while bashing the US are missing a few points. One, the accusations against France are, in fact, incorrect and two, most Americans don't care if Jan what's-his-nuts thinks we are stingy, so we don't feel the need to defend ourselves against his remarks. Some of us also actually bothered to find out what he said, which helps.

Can we all just get over ouselves now?

0 Replies

Really, I think it's just typically pathetic that the Bush administration is criticized (today's news just happens to concern its paltry initial response to the Indonesian crisis), and the response from the conservatives and Bush sycophants on this board is to personally attack those who criticize the administration.

And that includes everyone from the French to li'l ol' me.

Wouldn't anyone care to defend the administration's efforts? Or would you rather post cartoons lampooning the French (or worse yet, ad hominem against members of the forum)?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Actually, Bill, I don't feel guilty at all.

And even more: I have more than doubts that you can prove that, but it definately wrong to call me guilty.

You've misunderstood. I explained that in the very next paragraph by thanking you... and Tico both. Both are equally guilty which by my estimation is not at all.

By typing disgust at one politically-motivated post as if it somehow takes away from the grievance, only to come back and concur with another politically-motivated post when it coincides with your own political leanings is a double standard, however. Set can fuss and call names all he wants, but that will remain true.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Is someone pulling the rug out from under you, Bill that your argumentation becomes more and more a wish-wash sweeping blow?

Nope. That's what Setanta does when he is proven wrong. He writes increasingly longer tirades of hot air in hopes of increasing the burden on his opponent. My point was simple and pre-dated his arrival here. He's now resorting to name calling and increasingly more offensive BS because I won't indulge him by accepting any additional burdens that weren't part of my original point. Tough luck.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

Really, I think it's just typically pathetic that the Bush administration is criticized (today's news just happens to concern its paltry initial response to the Indonesian crisis), and the response from the conservatives and Bush sycophants on this board is to personally attack those who criticize the administration.

And that includes everyone from the French to li'l ol' me.

Wouldn't anyone care to defend the administration's efforts? Or would you rather post cartoons lampooning the French (or worse yet, ad hominem against members of the forum)?

You are misunderstanding too, thanks to Setanta's giant hot-air balloon. I've drawn parallels between two opposing political positions continuing to push their agendas despite the tragedy of the Tsunami. Neither is guiltier than the other. My point continues to merely draw parallels between the two, not to condemn one side or the other, like the more hypocritical among us continue to do.

0 Replies

You're getting more and more pathetic, O'Bill. I quoted you in a post in which you quoted Miss Olga. Here is the entirety of your post, after your sad attempt to insult me, while avoiding a reply (because you have no reply--you're in over your head):

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Msolga wrote:

It does bother me. And I'm certain I'm not alone in this. I just wish some US posters had the same sensitivity for others as they have for their own.
Perhaps it's because the the disaster is so close to Oz, I don't know. But the human suffering affects us deeply. They are our neighbours. We are distressed for them. It is impossible for us to be silly about their plight. I repeat - this is NOT about the US for most of us here. Not everything is about the US.

You, Deb, PDiddie etc. empathize with these sentiments even while you continue to use this disaster as a staging ground for attacks against the leadership of the United States. This is utter hypocrisy and your refusal to admit the obvious really is quite... well, obvious.

So once again, with your ludicrous attempt at debate collapsing in a shambles around you, you resort to lieing. You state that Miss Lowan and I are guilty as charged--guilty of what, O'Bill. What are your charges and specifications? That i have criticized this administration (i will not deign to refer to them as the "leadership" of this country, the Shrub does not provide leadership, he just bulls ahead with the agenda his handlers tell him he has)? Certainly i have, and that is not the equivalent of slandering France because of a distorted statement of what the government of that nation will provide in relief to southeast Asia, which is what this thread is about. You deny that you identify America with your political sentiments, posting phoney denials that you support the Shrub--and yet you continue to assert that criticism of the government is the same as criticism of America and Americans. It is not; you are wrong, you have no case, you lack to ability to argue a case if you had one, and you resort to demonstrable lies when it goes to pieces on you. You apparantly also have no shame, as the above example shows.

Edit: Gus started a thread in which he used the disaster as a "staging ground" to attack the administration--which is why i have said that i considered the source, and moved on. The people whom you slur here simply replied to that portion of his thread. That does not make them responsible for Gus' idiocy.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Set can fuss and call names all he wants, but that will remain true.

This is a lie. It will remain a lie unless and until you provide proof that i have indulged in slurs against the American people, or supported or condoned such action. You continue to provide no proof, because there is none. So long as you continue to accuse me of something for which you provide no evidence, you display yourself as a liar, and a slanderer.

Quote:

Nope. That's what Setanta does when he is proven wrong. He writes increasingly longer tirades of hot air in hopes of increasing the burden on his opponent. My point was simple and pre-dated his arrival here. He's now resorting to name calling and increasingly more offensive BS because I won't indulge him by accepting any additional burdens that weren't part of my original point. Tough luck.

You have accused me of indulging in a double standard. You have provided no evidence of this. On that basis, which is a lie, i am calling your a liar. When you lie, you get called a liar. Tough luck.

0 Replies

Set, I couldn't possibly be any clearer. I've drawn parallels between two opposing political positions continuing to push their agendas despite the tragedy of the Tsunami. Neither is guiltier than the other for doing so. Failure to recognize this is evidence of a double standard. By condemning one while ignoring the other and then refusing to admit the obvious similarity, you've helped perpetuate the double standard. Cry until the cows come home, or continue to send your Ad-Hominem-laden Hot-Air balloons my way until your heart's content. The facts will remain the same.

0 Replies

The silliness seems to be in little danger of decline

0 Replies

IDIOT'S GUIDE TO A SENSE OF HUMOUR

Chapter One: Get over yourself.

0 Replies

Lash, for the fun see this link :

Bashing the french

0 Replies

Lash

... don't ever stop posting here on A2K! You are much appreciated!!!!!!!!

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Got a bit of a problem with some of your constituency here yet, Tico???? Lol....

Not really. I'll tell you what though ... it is interesting to see the folks who are quick to defend France, equally quick to bash the US. The Bush bashing by PDiddie is obvious. He is clearly a charter member of the "Hate America/Blame America First" club.

Setanta wrote:

...

Remember, criticizing the administration does not constitute criticisim of Americans--just some of the more venal ones.

Oh, okay. For the record, if anyone thinks I was being critical of France in this thread, I was only being critical of the French Administration. Rolling Eyes

Setanta wrote:

...
You have written: "Are there any Francophiles out there who can explain this?" That is tendentious language, and constitues a gage thrown down to all those whom you would characterize as "francophiles."

I would similarly refer to someone who is a fan of or someone who has studied Britain as an "Anglophile." I would use either of these words (Anglophile/Francophile) without any built-in malice. This is another example where you speak without wisdom. (I'm also not sure what you mean by a "gage.")

Setanta wrote:

In your opening remarks, you have written: "Just looking at the pending tsunami disaster in Asia, the US has already pledged $35,000,000 in "preliminary aid" to the region. UK, Japan ($30 mil), Australia ($27 mil), Saudi Arabia ($10 mil), Germany ($2.7 mil), and Canada, have all pledged large sums. France has pledged $135,000." Not only is this a patently false statement on your part (Walter's link demonstrates that France had already pledged 5.6 million Euros to the EU aid package for southeast Asia), but what you provide as evidence is no evidence at all. The article you have reproduced clearly relates to French aid offered in the search for the 14 missing French citizens in Thailand. The article does not state, nor is it reasonable to construe that this is all the aid France was prepared to provide.

You can say it was "patently false statement," but the fact is it was as true a statement as I knew at the time. Why attribute its "falseness" to me? Do you, like Craven, suspect I suffer from "reading comprehension" problems? I understand what Walter's link shows. Do you understand it was written in French? I don't read French newspapers. And the article I quoted does not "clearly" relate the aid only to the 14 missing Frenchies. If that were the case, I would have pointed that out, because that would have been utterly reprehensible if they were only providing resources to rescue their own. I also did not claim that was all of the aid France was willing to provide, just as I did not believe the $35 million was all of the aid the US was willing to provide.

You've intimated several times in your remarks to O'Bill that I've failed to "prove my case" that France was stingy. I wasn't TRYING to prove any such case. I pointed out the facts as I knew them to be, and solicited a response from someone like Walter who could answer my question.

Setanta wrote:

And, i refer you to the point i made to O'Bill. When both O'Bill and Lash objected that others were bashing America for its aid package, as though that justified bashing France, I pointed out that these are unrelated. Lash quoted Jan Egelund, and you have vilified this individual--who is described as Norwegian-born. So how does that justify going after the French? Why was France in particular your target, after having slurred Mr. Egelund for his remarks. If you have no particular prejudice against the French, why have you not investigated Norway in response to the comments of Mr. Egelund?

The thread resulted from the conflux of Egelund's remark and the "then" low pledged amount from France. It had nothing to do with the nationality of Mr. Egelund. He made the comment in his official capacity as a UN muckety-muck, but I didn't know his nationality, nor did I care.

Setanta wrote:

You are absolutely correct, i do not know you--and am uninterested in making your acquaintance, having read many of your posts. You are absolutely wrong, i have not made accusations about you, my remarks were about the attitude of conservative Americans toward France and the French. Of course, if the shoe fits . . .

I appreciate your opinion that you would not care to meet me because you do not agree with my political views. With that attitude, I'm certain I would not want to meet you either. I would, however, be pleased to meet a great many of the posters on A2K with differing political views than mine. I find your attitude poor.

Setanta wrote:

...
If that ended it as far as you are concerned, what are you doing back here?

I find this to be a tad idiotic. Are you serious?

Setanta wrote:

...As for the use of the term "Frog-bashing," i was simply repeating the term most popular among conservatives in the area in which i live. Yes, it is derogatory, which is why those conservatives use it.

So it's okay to use a derogatory term because conservatives where you live use it in reference to the French? Bizarre.

Sentena wrote:

You don't convince me at all with your protestations of innocence. If you were innocent of antipathy toward the French, you would not have used the article you posted, which clearly does not refer to overall aid, but simply the amount allocated to support efforts to rescue the missing citizens in Thailand. Either that, or your reading skills are so poor that you couldn't figure that out.

I'm not "innocent of antipathy toward the French" as a general rule. I'm not a lover of France, the French government, most things French, or of any of the French people I've personally met -- Our friend Francis notwithstanding, whom I do not find rude, but on the contrary, quite endearing. But the purpose of this thread was to question the amount of money that had been reportedly pledged by the French government.

And you are wrong that the article I posted "clearly " refers to only this amount to rescue 14 citizens. The article represented that was the amount pledged by France. It did not qualify it as only for any particular purpose. If you want to prove your abilities in reading comprehension, and my inadequacy in same, please prove your case.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

But the purpose of this thread was to question the amount of money that had been reportedly pledged by the French government.

Okay, that's clear now.

Money from the government, not from privates and/or charities.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Set, I couldn't possibly be any clearer. I've drawn parallels between two opposing political positions continuing to push their agendas despite the tragedy of the Tsunami. Neither is guiltier than the other for doing so.

No, you haven't been clear at all. All you do is provide a link, which is not specific to anyone's written remarks, and then start sneering at anyone who fails to take your obscure meaning. I came to this thread because it was another blatant case of France-bashing. I said as much. You accused me of having a double-standard, but you have never provided a shred of evidence that while condemning the practice of bashing France, i indulge in, support or condone the bashing of America. To say that i am perpetuating such a double standard without providing any evidence of it is lying. That is why i feel completely comfortable in calling you a liar so long as you continue to accuse me of perpetuating a double standard without providing the proof.

Quote:

Failure to recognize this is evidence of a double standard.

This is sheer nonsense. For someone to "recognize this," they would first be obliged to do as you do, and conflate criticism of the current administration with bashing America. The current administration is comprised of a few hundred individuals. The population of the United States is nearly 300,000,000. Criticism or condemnation of those few hundred individuals is by no stretch of the imagination the equivalent of slurring hundreds of millions of Americans. What you call a failure to recognize is in fact a case of people being bright enough not to confuse criticism of the current administration with slurring the entire nation.

Quote:

By condemning one while ignoring the other and then refusing to admit the obvious similarity, you've helped perpetuate the double standard.

This is horseshit as well. This thread is entitled "Is France stingy?" It is not entitled "Is the French government stingy?" and it is not entitled "Is Jacques Chirac stingy?"--so criticizing this thread for slurring a nation of almost 60,000,000 is not in the least equivalent to slurring the Shrub's administration. You can cry until the cows come home--but it won't change the fact that my objection, which you jumped all over, was to the slurring of all the French--especially as it was based on information which was either misunderstood by Tico, or willfully used in an attempt to make it seem that the the French government (which is not the same thing as France) was cheapskating the disaster victims. You have not demonstrated a double standard, not in my case, certainly. You are either unable or unwilling to make the distinction between criticizing a handful of American politicians who run the executive branch and slurring an entire nation. Either way, your argument doesn't work, and when this is shown to you, you resort to things like this:

Quote:

. . . or continue to send your Ad-Hominem-laden Hot-Air balloons my way until your heart's content. The facts will remain the same.

In one part, you are completely correct--the fact remains that i have not slurred America, nor supported, nor condoned such slurs, and am entitled to condemn the slurring of France with integrity and a clear conscience. By the way, an ad hominem is an attack on the person rather than the person's ideas--i have attacked your ideas in detail, and, unable to effectively respond, you brand it "hot air." I have attacked your ability to sustain a debate for precisely that reason. If you want to take that personally, help yourself. I have become sufficiently disgusted with your self-righteousness over the last year to fervently hope that almost everything i write is interpreted as an insult by you. You disgust me just as much as the France-bashers do.

0 Replies

Is France "stingy"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know