|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Dec 12th, 2003 05:00 PM | ||
| Perndog | No, YOU'RE a butt-plug to wiggle. | |
| Dec 12th, 2003 04:38 PM | ||
| kellychaos | I'll just chalk it up to another butt-plug to wiggle. | |
| Dec 12th, 2003 04:26 PM | ||
| Bennett | don't fret, just chalk it up to another plane of comedy onto which your jokes can fail | |
| Dec 12th, 2003 04:21 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
|
| Dec 12th, 2003 12:40 AM | ||
| Perndog |
PETER MOON, KEITH TOWNSHEND. 
|
|
| Dec 12th, 2003 12:25 AM | ||
| JenMacca | KEITH MOON!!!! *NOT* PETER MOON!!!!! Peter Townshend, Keith Moon.....not too hard to remember.....okay sorry I'm touchy when people screw up things like that about my fave bands...heh.... | |
| Dec 11th, 2003 05:21 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
|
| Dec 11th, 2003 05:13 PM | ||
| El Blanco |
Re: World Health Org. Refuses To Cure Diseases In Third Worl Quote:
|
|
| Dec 11th, 2003 04:14 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
Re: World Health Org. Refuses To Cure Diseases In Third Worl Quote:
The WHO is a manipulative organization that will not admit it tortures the numbers to get a good turnout. You people think corporations are bad, but they are nothing compared to this mockery. |
|
| Dec 11th, 2003 11:23 AM | ||
| Zhukov |
In your face one and only! In your fucking face! Let's sing a song Comrade! I supose that I had better point out that I would still dislike the WHO. |
|
| Dec 11th, 2003 11:05 AM | ||
| camacazio |
Quote:
|
|
| Dec 11th, 2003 10:54 AM | ||
| mburbank |
"If the WHO switched to stoping diseases, would you hate them still OAO?" A little, but if they really want to make his good books, they'd need to find a way to make a significant profit stopping diseases. |
|
| Dec 11th, 2003 09:31 AM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Re: World Health Org. Refuses To Cure Diseases In Third Worl Quote:
|
|
| Dec 10th, 2003 07:55 PM | ||
| JenMacca | Not that it has anything to do with this thread at all really, but I hate it when I do a search for The Who (the band), and get all kinds of sites about the World Health Organization. Couldn't the WHO have been more original than stealing The Who's name? Bastards. :-p | |
| Dec 8th, 2003 04:07 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
No. I think foreign aid could be used tactically, but the way we hand it out now really doesn't help much. |
|
| Dec 8th, 2003 09:43 AM | ||
| Zhukov |
I cry myself to sleep over the miss-allocation of the worlds resources. If the WHO switched to stoping diseases, would you hate them still OAO? |
|
| Dec 8th, 2003 09:34 AM | ||
| mburbank | See, I thought it was DR. Who you hated, and I couldn't see why, | |
| Dec 7th, 2003 10:15 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
The only problem with this is that we solve the problem of disease in a third world county and they end up suicide bombing americans left and right. They aren't really particularly "Thankful" for it, and alot of countries would hate us for it, as if by solving their problem of disease we eternally indebted themselves to us and thus own their souls for slavery. Their county should start spending money to solve the problems instead of lavishing themselves with big houses and the largest limosein in the known world. Fuckers. |
|
| Dec 7th, 2003 08:02 PM | ||
| camacazio | I don't think it should be their job to campaign the importance of seatbelts. You have to be stupid to be in a car without wearing one. I also don't think that the "modern" world should get involved at all in developing countries--too much "giving" makes a country incapable of doing much but recieve. I don't know what that money would go to, then, but since it's easier and less expensive to deal with campaining for idiots than to cure exotic diseases in countries the organization has no direct involvement with, they pick the path of least resistance to still say they made a difference. | |
| Dec 7th, 2003 07:36 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
Surely you see what is more important. |
|
| Dec 7th, 2003 06:06 PM | ||
| AChimp | Has it occurred to you that their budget is probably already devoted to other things, hmm? | |
| Dec 7th, 2003 04:47 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
World Health Org. Refuses To Cure Diseases In Third World!!! I'm sure you all remember my abhorrancy of the WHO. Remember the article I posted talking about the WHO's questionable methods of analysis and blind fervor attacking a free-market in health care? Maybe, maybe not. In any case, I will explain why I hate the WHO with a passion that goes far beyond their opinion on the market. The WHO claims that "six diseases - malaria, tuberculosis, and so on - together account for 90 percent of all deaths from infectious diseases among people under 44. Every year 11 million people die unnecessarily of these diseases." Now, I'm going to assume that is credible. They futher claim that "it would cost between $4 million and $220 million to prevent these deaths." Again, I'll assume they are correct. That's pocket change in terms of politics, so it would obviously be well worth the effort. Of course, the WHO itself takes in $1 billion annually from the taxpayers. So why is it not devoting its resources to saving these lives? I don't know. Apparently, solving these lives is not nearly as important as "exclusive conferences and... campaigning for the use of seatbelts and against smoking." Sound somewhat hypocritical? It should. Because for all the moaning in the WHO about the plight of the poor in the developing nations in the world, they will not even devote between 0.4 and 22% of their budget to helping them. This is why I hate government. (All quotes taken from In Defence of Global Capitalism; an excellent read, BTW.) |
|
