what green dots?
Posts: 3,157 
June 10th, 2007, 07:07 AM
If weren't for the work of the likes of Bono and Geuldof the chances of the G8 even discussing Africa would be pretty damn slim. Of couse it wasn't an obligation but choosing not to meet with individuals who have effectively become representatives of civil society doesn't necessarily work in one's favour no matter how much the rhetorical protectors of official power protest.
Quoting Unforgiven
good point. not to pick on you...
A good leader looks beyond the messenger to see the message.
If weren't for the work of the likes of Bono and Geuldof the chances of the G8 even discussing Africa would be pretty damn slim. Of couse it wasn't an obligation but choosing not to meet with individuals who have effectively become representatives of civil society doesn't necessarily work in one's favour no matter how much the rhetorical protectors of official power protest.
House Member
Posts: 4,475
Location: Saint John N.B.
Location: Saint John N.B.
June 10th, 2007, 07:50 AM
Bono has his own little charitable foundation , but has never taken any money out of it for needy nations or persons, Plus, he has never even paid any Irish income tax! I suspect his band must have another collection of tunes about to go on sale.
Bono has his own little charitable foundation , but has never taken any money out of it for needy nations or persons, Plus, he has never even paid any Irish income tax! I suspect his band must have another collection of tunes about to go on sale.
House Member
Posts: 2,821 
Location: California
Location: California
June 10th, 2007, 07:55 AM
Quoting sanctus
For the third time on this thread: I agree with that! Can I be any clearer on that point? He doesn't HAVE to do anything he doesn't want to. I DO care about the reason Bono wanted to meet with him though. I DO think that matters. I DO care about that issue. I DO want to know why he is pledging less money than was promised before. He isn't going to exlpain it directly to me even though I am a Canadian citizen, so I'm fine getting that message through a meeting with anyone (even an Irish rock star- gasp!).
You keep inserting other points into what I am suggesting. It's quite cut and dried Tracy The leader of a country is NOT required to rush into the arms of any celebrity who desires a meeting with him. Period.(
Satelitte Radio Addict
Posts: 869
Location: Toronto, ON
Location: Toronto, ON
June 10th, 2007, 08:01 AM
As for your concerns, perhaps you could write him a letter (or your MP). This particular meeting ain't happening.
Quoting tracy
If you agree with the point, what are you arguing about?
For the third time on this thread: I agree with that! Can I be any clearer on that point? He doesn't HAVE to do anything he doesn't want to. I DO care about the reason Bono wanted to meet with him though. I DO think that matters. I DO care about that issue. I DO want to know why he is pledging less money than was promised before. He isn't going to exlpain it directly to me even though I am a Canadian citizen, so I'm fine getting that message through a meeting with anyone (even an Irish rock star- gasp!).
As for your concerns, perhaps you could write him a letter (or your MP). This particular meeting ain't happening.
House Member
Posts: 2,821
Location: California
Location: California
June 10th, 2007, 08:01 AM
Quoting #juan
He has to explain it to me. No one is telling us how much we should give, we promised that amount. I think people do have a right to question why we don't live up to our international commitments but I wasn't invited to the G8 summit, so I'd take that message through an activist if that's who he wants to do it through or a press conference or a plain old speech or whatever. The messenger isn't what's important to me. Sanctus feels that's the main point of this thread and he may be right. I just think it's a distraction from the real issue. We can focus on Bono and rock stars and celebrities and how annoying they are with their stupid causes, but I still care more about the actual cause than the guy trying to bring attention to it.
Why does the Canadian PM have to explain anything to this twit. The Prime minister of Canada is the only one who can say what Canada can or can't afford at any given time. It is up to Canada, not some loud mouthed rock star how much we give, and when we give it.
what green dots?
Posts: 3,157
June 10th, 2007, 08:02 AM
Quoting IdRatherBeSkiing
no sh!t Sherlock
If you agree with the point, what are you arguing about?
As for your concerns, perhaps you could write him a letter (or your MP). This particular meeting ain't happening.
As for your concerns, perhaps you could write him a letter (or your MP). This particular meeting ain't happening.
House Member
Posts: 2,821
Location: California
Location: California
June 10th, 2007, 08:05 AM
Quoting IdRatherBeSkiing
I'm arguing that Harper should explain why he's scaled back our commitment to aid and that it doesn't matter if he does that to Bono or someone else. I'm arguing that Bono isn't the point.
If you agree with the point, what are you arguing about?
As for your concerns, perhaps you could write him a letter (or your MP). This particular meeting ain't happening.
As for your concerns, perhaps you could write him a letter (or your MP). This particular meeting ain't happening.
Time Out
Posts: 3,867
Videos: 1
Location: Honour our Fallen
Videos: 1
Location: Honour our Fallen
June 10th, 2007, 10:45 AM
But Tracy, Harper is prolly useing the Bono thing in the media to hide behind not addressing your point which a lot of people want to see him do. Look at how people here think "ya why should he meet Bono". It's cheap political tactics
Quoting tracy
Yeah i saw that....why badger her sanctus by ignoring her angle on the thing just to keep makeing your point...
I'm arguing that Harper should explain why he's scaled back our commitment to aid and that it doesn't matter if he does that to Bono or someone else. I'm arguing that Bono isn't the point.
But Tracy, Harper is prolly useing the Bono thing in the media to hide behind not addressing your point which a lot of people want to see him do. Look at how people here think "ya why should he meet Bono". It's cheap political tactics
Executive Member
Posts: 9,531
June 10th, 2007, 11:35 AM
Quoting tracy
No. He doesn't have to explain it to you or anyone else. He might have a better chance of getting a vote in some circles if he does come up with an explanation. On the other hand, nobody asked me or explained to me why we are throwing money at African poverty. This is a band aid solution at best, and the problem will just get worse as long as people, literally, without a pot to pi$$ in keep having more babies. These people are the victims of stupidity and the prisoners of ignorance. I have no doubt that some part of this aid money will be subverted to the purchase of arms. This time the commitment is $50 billion. The next time, it will be a $100 billion, and on it goes. Sooner or later it will dawn on somebody that we should be buying these people tractors, and plows, and seed, and teaching them how to raise their own food. The cruelest thing we have done it to make them dependent on foreign food.
He has to explain it to me. No one is telling us how much we should give, we promised that amount. I think people do have a right to question why we don't live up to our international commitments but I wasn't invited to the G8 summit, so I'd take that message through an activist if that's who he wants to do it through or a press conference or a plain old speech or whatever. The messenger isn't what's important to me. Sanctus feels that's the main point of this thread and he may be right. I just think it's a distraction from the real issue. We can focus on Bono and rock stars and celebrities and how annoying they are with their stupid causes, but I still care more about the actual cause than the guy trying to bring attention to it.
House Member
Posts: 2,821
Location: California
Location: California
June 10th, 2007, 03:18 PM
BTW, how do you know that this money won't be going to things like farming or that it will be wasted? Maybe it will go to birth control so those Africans stop having babies they can't feed.
Quoting #juan
You may not think your leaders owe you any explanation for their choices, but I do.
No. He doesn't have to explain it to you or anyone else. He might have a better chance of getting a vote in some circles if he does come up with an explanation. On the other hand, nobody asked me or explained to me why we are throwing money at African poverty. This is a band aid solution at best, and the problem will just get worse as long as people, literally, without a pot to pi$$ in keep having more babies. These people are the victims of stupidity and the prisoners of ignorance. I have no doubt that some part of this aid money will be subverted to the purchase of arms. This time the commitment is $50 billion. The next time, it will be a $100 billion, and on it goes. Sooner or later it will dawn on somebody that we should be buying these people tractors, and plows, and seed, and teaching them how to raise their own food. The cruelest thing we have done it to make them dependent on foreign food.
BTW, how do you know that this money won't be going to things like farming or that it will be wasted? Maybe it will go to birth control so those Africans stop having babies they can't feed.
House Member
Posts: 2,821
Location: California
Location: California
June 10th, 2007, 03:23 PM
Quoting DocDred
That's what I believe. No one seems to care about the actual substance, it's all about the window dressing. Juan is the only one I really see commenting on the issue of aid. I disagree with some of his opinions, but I'm glad to hear something about them and not just about a rock star turned activist.
But Tracy, Harper is prolly useing the Bono thing in the media to hide behind not addressing your point which a lot of people want to see him do. Look at how people here think "ya why should he meet Bono". It's cheap political tactics
Executive Member
Posts: 9,531
June 10th, 2007, 03:52 PM
Quoting tracy
I didn't say that all of the money would be wasted. Whenever we give money to the tribal chiefs who run a lot of African countries, a good part of it disappears. We should be retaining control of what this money is spent on. There should be strong programs to make these people responsible for their own welfare. We can't keep throwing money at these problems. The population of Africa since the original "Live Aid", has doubled but the problems are still there, and we are still paying.
You may not think your leaders owe you any explanation for their choices, but I do.
BTW, how do you know that this money won't be going to things like farming or that it will be wasted? Maybe it will go to birth control so those Africans stop having babies they can't feed.
BTW, how do you know that this money won't be going to things like farming or that it will be wasted? Maybe it will go to birth control so those Africans stop having babies they can't feed.
House Member
Posts: 2,821
Location: California
Location: California
June 10th, 2007, 04:53 PM
Quoting #juan
I'm in complete agreement that the money given needs to be accounted for. I'm sure everybody agrees with that, even that dumb Irish rock star. The solution to that is monitoring where it's spent, not cutting off funding. We have the same problems in Canada with some government programs unfortunately, but we try to work through them.
I didn't say that all of the money would be wasted. Whenever we give money to the tribal chiefs who run a lot of African countries, a good part of it disappears. We should be retaining control of what this money is spent on. There should be strong programs to make these people responsible for their own welfare. We can't keep throwing money at these problems. The population of Africa since the original "Live Aid", has doubled but the problems are still there, and we are still paying.
Satelitte Radio Addict
Posts: 869
Location: Toronto, ON
Location: Toronto, ON
June 10th, 2007, 08:24 PM
Quoting tracy
Where in our system of government does it say that? They can say nothing if they so choose. You don't have to vote for them in the next election if you so choose. Whatever the government (this one or past ones) says to you between elections is simply damage control or electioneering.
You may not think your leaders owe you any explanation for their choices, but I do.
Council Member
Posts: 1,790
June 10th, 2007, 08:56 PM
Quoting #juan
You could substitute "Canada's First Nations" for African in the above quote and it would also ring true.
I didn't say that all of the money would be wasted. Whenever we give money to the tribal chiefs who run a lot of African countries, a good part of it disappears. We should be retaining control of what this money is spent on. There should be strong programs to make these people responsible for their own welfare. We can't keep throwing money at these problems. The population of Africa since the original "Live Aid", has doubled but the problems are still there, and we are still paying.
just special
Posts: 1,226
Location: not in Kansas anymore
Location: not in Kansas anymore
June 10th, 2007, 09:08 PM
Another thing that bothers me about these digs regarding the gov't not living up to its commitments,WTF,they were made by the libarats in 2005, why should the current gov't be pilloried for whatever those thieves and liars promised? Chances are that they had no intention of fulfilling thier promises at all. That is why they put all thier promises 4 or 5 years down the road. Of course,I could be wrong,the libs would never lie or steal to get votes,now would they?
Another thing that bothers me about these digs regarding the gov't not living up to its commitments,WTF,they were made by the libarats in 2005, why should the current gov't be pilloried for whatever those thieves and liars promised? Chances are that they had no intention of fulfilling thier promises at all. That is why they put all thier promises 4 or 5 years down the road. Of course,I could be wrong,the libs would never lie or steal to get votes,now would they?
Genius
Posts: 931
June 10th, 2007, 10:25 PM
), so who is to say they won't be in power 4 or 5 years down the road from when they made the promise?
Quoting wallyj
I've agreed with you up until now...but if the Government of Canada makes a promise, then the Government of Canada should be expected to live up to it regardless of which party happened to be in charge at the time. This isn't the Liberal Party of Canada making a promise, it's the Government of Canada. Besides, we all know the Liberal Party is the natural governing party of Canada (
Another thing that bothers me about these digs regarding the gov't not living up to its commitments,WTF,they were made by the libarats in 2005, why should the current gov't be pilloried for whatever those thieves and liars promised? Chances are that they had no intention of fulfilling thier promises at all. That is why they put all thier promises 4 or 5 years down the road. Of course,I could be wrong,the libs would never lie or steal to get votes,now would they?
), so who is to say they won't be in power 4 or 5 years down the road from when they made the promise?
Satelitte Radio Addict
Posts: 869
Location: Toronto, ON
Location: Toronto, ON
June 10th, 2007, 10:52 PM
Quoting gc
We could always leave it until then for the promise to be kept.
I've agreed with you up until now...but if the Government of Canada makes a promise, then the Government of Canada should be expected to live up to it regardless of which party happened to be in charge at the time. This isn't the Liberal Party of Canada making a promise, it's the Government of Canada. Besides, we all know the Liberal Party is the natural governing party of Canada (), so who is to say they won't be in power 4 or 5 years down the road from when they made the promise?
), so who is to say they won't be in power 4 or 5 years down the road from when they made the promise?
