The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3088772.stm
$87bn needed.
Can't help thinking that you could solve pretty much the entire world's food shortages, homelessness and disease with that.
Yet we can muster it to kill.
*shakes head*
$87bn needed.
Can't help thinking that you could solve pretty much the entire world's food shortages, homelessness and disease with that.
Yet we can muster it to kill.
*shakes head*
Page:
Perhaps it wasn't all for Aids then, but it was a rescue package by US that is somewhere in that value range.
"An analysis by the Global Aids Alliance suggests that the billions are to be phased in gradually, with just over $2 billion made available in 2004, rising to $3.8 billion in 2008."
"While the new law allows for up to $15 billion over the five year period, it does not bind the administration to this amount - the administration could trim the programme in future years if it wished."
It'a going to take a hell of a long time to reach hundreds of billions at that rate.
"While the new law allows for up to $15 billion over the five year period, it does not bind the administration to this amount - the administration could trim the programme in future years if it wished."
It'a going to take a hell of a long time to reach hundreds of billions at that rate.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Bush pledged something like £260+ billion over several years. It
> won't come all in one lump.
If it comes at all. That's not so much cynicism directed solely at Dubya; it's the sadly ubiquitous cynicism that greets any announcement by a politician. Bearing in mind Afghanistan has yet to receive a single cent...
Plus, he doesn't have long left in office. So it needs to come sooner rather than later.
> Bush pledged something like £260+ billion over several years. It
> won't come all in one lump.
If it comes at all. That's not so much cynicism directed solely at Dubya; it's the sadly ubiquitous cynicism that greets any announcement by a politician. Bearing in mind Afghanistan has yet to receive a single cent...
Plus, he doesn't have long left in office. So it needs to come sooner rather than later.
Bush pledged something like £260+ billion over several years. It won't come all in one lump.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Goatboy: $87billion, we could heal the world with that
>
> No you can't. Not even close. As I said, the evil has pledged several
> times more to cracking AIDS in Africa that reportedly isn't enough to
> do so. The money will go partly on medication, partly on prevention
> and education and partly into reseach. But at the end of the day,
> those hundreds of billions will not end that one single problem.
I heard about Bush's AIDS plan and for first time in my life thought "well done, dubya", but I didn't know any specific figures. I just looked now because your figures seemed extremely generous. As far as I can tell Bush pledged $15 billion, not hundreds of billions.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3044624.stm
http://www.oxfamamerica.org/advocacy/art5635.html
I don't know who's right. But if it's me then $87 billion is hardly a drop in the ocean. Maybe even enough to heal a whole continent, which would have been a better use of the cash than blowing the hell out of Iraq.
> Goatboy: $87billion, we could heal the world with that
>
> No you can't. Not even close. As I said, the evil has pledged several
> times more to cracking AIDS in Africa that reportedly isn't enough to
> do so. The money will go partly on medication, partly on prevention
> and education and partly into reseach. But at the end of the day,
> those hundreds of billions will not end that one single problem.
I heard about Bush's AIDS plan and for first time in my life thought "well done, dubya", but I didn't know any specific figures. I just looked now because your figures seemed extremely generous. As far as I can tell Bush pledged $15 billion, not hundreds of billions.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3044624.stm
http://www.oxfamamerica.org/advocacy/art5635.html
I don't know who's right. But if it's me then $87 billion is hardly a drop in the ocean. Maybe even enough to heal a whole continent, which would have been a better use of the cash than blowing the hell out of Iraq.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> I don't doubt that our priorities are laughable. But the idea that a
> relatively (on a global scale) small sum could solve the world's
> problems seemed to belittle those problems and showed a lack of
> understanding of how deep and fundamental many of those problems
> are.
It couldn't, no. But neither will it help solve the worlds problems by pumping it into a land grab.
>
> I would love the world to take a step back and realise that there are
> more important issues than what Simon Cowell has to say on Pop Idol,
> but I'm not holding my breath. I would be sponsoring kids in Africa
> myself were it not for a very firm belief that right now wildlife
> preservation needs more attention. Because if we ignore nature's
> issues until we've sorted ourselves out, there may then be nothing
> left to save.
Here here. I can't stand when people think that humanity can be viewed in isolation from the entire worlds ecosystem. I wish more would realise that to save the natural world is to take a big step toward saving ourselves.
> I don't doubt that our priorities are laughable. But the idea that a
> relatively (on a global scale) small sum could solve the world's
> problems seemed to belittle those problems and showed a lack of
> understanding of how deep and fundamental many of those problems
> are.
It couldn't, no. But neither will it help solve the worlds problems by pumping it into a land grab.
>
> I would love the world to take a step back and realise that there are
> more important issues than what Simon Cowell has to say on Pop Idol,
> but I'm not holding my breath. I would be sponsoring kids in Africa
> myself were it not for a very firm belief that right now wildlife
> preservation needs more attention. Because if we ignore nature's
> issues until we've sorted ourselves out, there may then be nothing
> left to save.
Here here. I can't stand when people think that humanity can be viewed in isolation from the entire worlds ecosystem. I wish more would realise that to save the natural world is to take a big step toward saving ourselves.
Goatboy wrote:
> Because goose-stepping behing a government does not, will not, and
> cannot be the way forward.
Something occurs to me; the word Heretic.
Heretic means "one who questions". It was applied as a derogatory term by the Catholic Church, who were very uncomfortable with having their beliefs questioned. Instead of responding to them with dialect and with didactic reasoning, they responded with blanket condemnation and vitriol.
There is a lot of that blinkered, fundamentalist mindset in Bell, right down to his wailing upset at being questioned. Doubtless Bell wants to destroy the heretics (as he sees them) as well.
Does anyone else see the irony in his supposed Defender of Freedom stance relying heavily on no-one exercising their freedom of expression?
> Because goose-stepping behing a government does not, will not, and
> cannot be the way forward.
Something occurs to me; the word Heretic.
Heretic means "one who questions". It was applied as a derogatory term by the Catholic Church, who were very uncomfortable with having their beliefs questioned. Instead of responding to them with dialect and with didactic reasoning, they responded with blanket condemnation and vitriol.
There is a lot of that blinkered, fundamentalist mindset in Bell, right down to his wailing upset at being questioned. Doubtless Bell wants to destroy the heretics (as he sees them) as well.
Does anyone else see the irony in his supposed Defender of Freedom stance relying heavily on no-one exercising their freedom of expression?
I don't doubt that our priorities are laughable. But the idea that a relatively (on a global scale) small sum could solve the world's problems seemed to belittle those problems and showed a lack of understanding of how deep and fundamental many of those problems are.
I would love the world to take a step back and realise that there are more important issues than what Simon Cowell has to say on Pop Idol, but I'm not holding my breath. I would be sponsoring kids in Africa myself were it not for a very firm belief that right now wildlife preservation needs more attention. Because if we ignore nature's issues until we've sorted ourselves out, there may then be nothing left to save.
I would love the world to take a step back and realise that there are more important issues than what Simon Cowell has to say on Pop Idol, but I'm not holding my breath. I would be sponsoring kids in Africa myself were it not for a very firm belief that right now wildlife preservation needs more attention. Because if we ignore nature's issues until we've sorted ourselves out, there may then be nothing left to save.
Practical Magic wrote:
> He started s**t, perfectly normal topic and he goes off on one.
>
>
> How the feck so many of you presume to know so much about users you
> barely know I'll never know, but hey s**t keeps you lot happy.
What, you mean in the same way you presumed to know all about goatboy a few posts down? About his smoking/band/job? Wow...from self-righteous anger to blistering hypocrisy in a few posts.
>
> And I will not back down, I am sick of him ranting like he knows s**t
> all when he doesn't, nobody here does or else we wouldn't be p*ssing
> around on here in the first place.
No-one is asking you too. You're being asked to explain the reasons behind your views, and to defend them. It seems that you are incapable of doing this. I suspect s**t's because you don't actually HAVE any views of your own; you simply adopt whatever has been said by the Whs**te House as your opinion. Which is extremely lims**ting because s**t means you are unable to defend s**t. In fact, people like you do the Pro-US camp no good at all due to your ignorance and intolerance of disagreement.
>
> I really don't care anymore, Asher's right, this isn't a nice place
> anymore and I'm not surprised if people have left or never joined.
Heh. And you're really filling the place ws**th love ws**th that foaming rant, yeah?
>
> Since when did someone have to be personally involved in something to
> give s*s**t about s**t eh ? I wil not have anyone telling me I cannot
> talk about something just because I was not personally involved. Are
> any of you personally involved ws**th any of these starving/homeless ?
> No, well STFU then. Jesus Christ, the day anyone can think a person
> can watch as people plummet from a building and then 3000 lives are
> snuffed out in an instant and not care is pretty bleeding pathetic,
> how dare anyone suggest people who did not lose anyone that day
> cannot be allowed to care ?
You don't. But don't you see that by shouting someone down and trying to say that their loss of loved ones is irrelevant, you're just making s**t look like you don't care about the supposed reasons for Afghanistan and Iraq. After all, both conflicts occurred on the back of that tragedy. Your bels**ttling of the loss of others simply marks you out as someone who wants war for the sake of war, not because of any loss of innocent life. THAT is why s**t is suggested you don't care.
>
> An extreme reply in contrast ot my normal posts ? Yes, but I am truly
> sick of some self proclaimed know s**t alls on here, if I get banned so
> be s**t, I've got more accounts, and if I don't then s**t just goes to
> show some people can get away ws**th anything here whilst others
> can't.
Bwah ha ha haaa! You mean you're sick of people disagreeing ws**th you? Bell, I don't think I'm on firm ground if I tried to deny coming across as a know-s**t-all. I do come across that way; I wish I didn't, and I try not to, but there you go.
Interesting hint of paranoia there too; how is s**t that YOU are the only one who 'can't get away ws**th anything'? Have a look at yourself Bell, and your total lack of anything resembling strength of beliefs; did s**t occur to you that s**t's not everyone else at fault, s**t's you?
You get picked on because you do no more than parrot what has been said by the Whs**te House. Other pro-war posters, such as Gerrid or Skarra or IB (who isn't exactly pro-war, and is certainly INFURIATING at times, but one can't accuse him of not explaining the rationale behind his beliefs), have explained the rationale behind their beliefs. And yes, I for one have disagreed ws**th them and attempted to defeat their arguments. I'd expect nothing less from them in return. It's called debate, and s**t's a concept you seem to have difficulty ws**th.
Let me put in simple terms; you know in Maths and Science GCSE's when they say "Always show your working out, because that way you will show the examiners that you at least understand the question and the issues, even if you get the answer wrong". Well, you don't put your working out. And what is more, when asked to do so, you get defensive. Which, to me at least, shows you don't understand the question and the issues.
>
> I really don't care anymore.
You care so ls**ttle that you felt moved to post a lengthy explanation of why you don't care? Bell, if you explained the reasoning behind your views, you wouldn't be in this pos**tion. As long as you're happy to blindly and blandly restate an opinion that you don't even understand, you'll find yourself in this pos**tion over and over again.
> He started s**t, perfectly normal topic and he goes off on one.
>
>
> How the feck so many of you presume to know so much about users you
> barely know I'll never know, but hey s**t keeps you lot happy.
What, you mean in the same way you presumed to know all about goatboy a few posts down? About his smoking/band/job? Wow...from self-righteous anger to blistering hypocrisy in a few posts.
>
> And I will not back down, I am sick of him ranting like he knows s**t
> all when he doesn't, nobody here does or else we wouldn't be p*ssing
> around on here in the first place.
No-one is asking you too. You're being asked to explain the reasons behind your views, and to defend them. It seems that you are incapable of doing this. I suspect s**t's because you don't actually HAVE any views of your own; you simply adopt whatever has been said by the Whs**te House as your opinion. Which is extremely lims**ting because s**t means you are unable to defend s**t. In fact, people like you do the Pro-US camp no good at all due to your ignorance and intolerance of disagreement.
>
> I really don't care anymore, Asher's right, this isn't a nice place
> anymore and I'm not surprised if people have left or never joined.
Heh. And you're really filling the place ws**th love ws**th that foaming rant, yeah?
>
> Since when did someone have to be personally involved in something to
> give s*s**t about s**t eh ? I wil not have anyone telling me I cannot
> talk about something just because I was not personally involved. Are
> any of you personally involved ws**th any of these starving/homeless ?
> No, well STFU then. Jesus Christ, the day anyone can think a person
> can watch as people plummet from a building and then 3000 lives are
> snuffed out in an instant and not care is pretty bleeding pathetic,
> how dare anyone suggest people who did not lose anyone that day
> cannot be allowed to care ?
You don't. But don't you see that by shouting someone down and trying to say that their loss of loved ones is irrelevant, you're just making s**t look like you don't care about the supposed reasons for Afghanistan and Iraq. After all, both conflicts occurred on the back of that tragedy. Your bels**ttling of the loss of others simply marks you out as someone who wants war for the sake of war, not because of any loss of innocent life. THAT is why s**t is suggested you don't care.
>
> An extreme reply in contrast ot my normal posts ? Yes, but I am truly
> sick of some self proclaimed know s**t alls on here, if I get banned so
> be s**t, I've got more accounts, and if I don't then s**t just goes to
> show some people can get away ws**th anything here whilst others
> can't.
Bwah ha ha haaa! You mean you're sick of people disagreeing ws**th you? Bell, I don't think I'm on firm ground if I tried to deny coming across as a know-s**t-all. I do come across that way; I wish I didn't, and I try not to, but there you go.
Interesting hint of paranoia there too; how is s**t that YOU are the only one who 'can't get away ws**th anything'? Have a look at yourself Bell, and your total lack of anything resembling strength of beliefs; did s**t occur to you that s**t's not everyone else at fault, s**t's you?
You get picked on because you do no more than parrot what has been said by the Whs**te House. Other pro-war posters, such as Gerrid or Skarra or IB (who isn't exactly pro-war, and is certainly INFURIATING at times, but one can't accuse him of not explaining the rationale behind his beliefs), have explained the rationale behind their beliefs. And yes, I for one have disagreed ws**th them and attempted to defeat their arguments. I'd expect nothing less from them in return. It's called debate, and s**t's a concept you seem to have difficulty ws**th.
Let me put in simple terms; you know in Maths and Science GCSE's when they say "Always show your working out, because that way you will show the examiners that you at least understand the question and the issues, even if you get the answer wrong". Well, you don't put your working out. And what is more, when asked to do so, you get defensive. Which, to me at least, shows you don't understand the question and the issues.
>
> I really don't care anymore.
You care so ls**ttle that you felt moved to post a lengthy explanation of why you don't care? Bell, if you explained the reasoning behind your views, you wouldn't be in this pos**tion. As long as you're happy to blindly and blandly restate an opinion that you don't even understand, you'll find yourself in this pos**tion over and over again.
I know it may not solve everything, but I see $87 billion and think what it could do instead of keeping troops in a place a lot of them dont want to be, for reasons that dont justify it (I'm talking about the reasons we were given for this phony "war")
What can I say, I'm an idealist. Is that a fault? Maybe, but I won't apologise for wanting to see people's immediate concern be for saving lives instead of killing.
Which is why it galls me that things like the NSPCC are charity funded when they shouldn't be.
How can we spend millions upon millions on congestion charging, yet groups like Shelter are reduced to harassing passers-by in an attempt to help those less fortunate?
This whole stupid planet angers me, our priorities are wrong, our intentions are wrong.
It just...I dont know, I get overwhelmed by our stupidity and hatred and intolerance, and I get angry at people that unthinkingly accept that which they are told.
Because goose-stepping behing a government does not, will not, and cannot be the way forward.
What can I say, I'm an idealist. Is that a fault? Maybe, but I won't apologise for wanting to see people's immediate concern be for saving lives instead of killing.
Which is why it galls me that things like the NSPCC are charity funded when they shouldn't be.
How can we spend millions upon millions on congestion charging, yet groups like Shelter are reduced to harassing passers-by in an attempt to help those less fortunate?
This whole stupid planet angers me, our priorities are wrong, our intentions are wrong.
It just...I dont know, I get overwhelmed by our stupidity and hatred and intolerance, and I get angry at people that unthinkingly accept that which they are told.
Because goose-stepping behing a government does not, will not, and cannot be the way forward.
Page: