Science > Abortion > Re: Japan contibutes more tsunami aid than stingy Bush
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
04 Jan 2005 02:22:12 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Japan contibutes more tsunami aid than stingy Bush |
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:c30jt0d08b13u4okkjtrlapg47diib2s1i@4ax.com:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050102/asp/frontpage/story_4202849.asp
Sunday, January 02, 2005
Koizumi kayoes Bush’s millions
Japan pledges $500 m in relief, a day after US hikes amount to $350 m
K.P. NAYAR
Washington
The Bush administration’s lead yesterday in raising tsunami relief
assistance tenfold became short-lived when Japan’s Prime Minister
Junichiro Koizumi today pledged $500 million in aid, leaving every
other country way behind.
The White House, which has been severely criticised all week within
the US and abroad for what critics called its "stinginess" in
providing tsunami relief assistance, yesterday took the bull by its
horns and decided to lead every other country and international
organisation by increasing its aid 10 times to $350 million.
_________________________________________________________
Your turn, Georgie.
Foreign aid is unconstitutional.
.
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Japan contibutes more tsunami aid than stingy Bush |
04 Jan 2005 02:37:55 PM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:c30jt0d08b13u4okkjtrlapg47diib2s1i@4ax.com:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050102/asp/frontpage/story_4202849.asp
Sunday, January 02, 2005
Koizumi kayoes Bush’s millions
Japan pledges $500 m in relief, a day after US hikes amount to $350 m
K.P. NAYAR
Washington
The Bush administration’s lead yesterday in raising tsunami relief
assistance tenfold became short-lived when Japan’s Prime Minister
Junichiro Koizumi today pledged $500 million in aid, leaving every
other country way behind.
The White House, which has been severely criticised all week within
the US and abroad for what critics called its "stinginess" in
providing tsunami relief assistance, yesterday took the bull by its
horns and decided to lead every other country and international
organisation by increasing its aid 10 times to $350 million.
_________________________________________________________
Your turn, Georgie.
Foreign aid is unconstitutional.
Good. Are you ready to stop wasting money on Iraq then?
And what specific act made us invade them in the first place? Ready to
tell me yet?
--
--sexkitten--
In Loving Memory of Jim Addison
9/18/71 - 12/30/04
Seeing you lie there,
no movement, no life, no soul
broke my heart and
pushed me to the ground.
I began to cry and reached for love
but the one i loved had gone away
leaving me alone
to face the ever trying day
My head knew you were gone for ever,
but my heart held onto the hope you were just sleeping
for the all moments I saw you alive,
was a treasured moment worth keeping.
Now I need to let go for good,
but it is the hardest thing to do,
to let something go you love,
to have nothing there and nothing to do.
I had never loved something so dear
and for days i let my tears flow
until the realization hit me,
I had to let you go.
- Jessica Millar
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Curly Surmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: Japan contibutes more tsunami aid than stingy Bush |
04 Jan 2005 07:15:55 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:22:12 +0000, Gactimus wrote:
-------------snip--------------
Your turn, Georgie.
Foreign aid is unconstitutional.
Article I, Section 8 explicitly defined the powers of Congress for which
they are permitted to lawfully appropriate money from the Treasury.
Giving to charity is not one of those powers. In fact the matter of
charity has come up before Congress previously.
During the term of Senator David Crockett, a bill came before the House of
Representatives to appropriate money for the benefit of a widow of a
distinguished naval officer. Senator Crockett had this to say on the
matter:
------------begin-----------
"Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and
as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be,
as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead
or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of
injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to
prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of
charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as
individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in
charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a
dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us
upon the ground that it is a debt duet he deceased. Mr. Speaker, the
deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the
day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in
arrears to him.
Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the
grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have
not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I
have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I
am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will
give one week's pay to the object, and, if every member of Congress will do
the same, it will ammount to more than the bill asks."
----------end-------------
-- Regards, Curly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.curlysurmudgeon.com http://www.curlysurmudgoen.com/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Japan contibutes more tsunami aid than stingy Bush |
05 Jan 2005 08:06:31 AM |
|
|
Curly Surmudgeon <curly@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in
news:pan.2005.01.05.01.15.53.264015@curlysurmudgeon.com:
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:22:12 +0000, Gactimus wrote:
-------------snip--------------
Your turn, Georgie.
Foreign aid is unconstitutional.
Article I, Section 8 explicitly defined the powers of Congress for which
they are permitted to lawfully appropriate money from the Treasury.
Giving to charity is not one of those powers. In fact the matter of
charity has come up before Congress previously.
During the term of Senator David Crockett, a bill came before the House
of Representatives to appropriate money for the benefit of a widow of a
distinguished naval officer. Senator Crockett had this to say on the
matter:
------------begin-----------
"Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased,
and
as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there
be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the
dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of
injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument
to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act
of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as
individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in
charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a
dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us
upon the ground that it is a debt duet he deceased. Mr. Speaker, the
deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the
day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in
arrears to him.
Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the
grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We
have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr.
Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own
as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this
bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and, if every member
of Congress will do the same, it will ammount to more than the bill
asks."
Great stuff! I'm saving this for future use.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
