Originally posted by chancremechanicLOL, chanc you do my head in sometimes but i have to say, your the best 😀
If your mouth(keyboard) was your a$$, your previous post was was complete diarrhea...I never said America was perfect. So, you like Michael Moore and Al-Jazeera?...you probably have bin-Laden on your pillow case, eh "enlightened one"...does NZ even have an Army?...or do you depend on Australia to do your bidding..TimTim doesn't represent the U.S A ...[text shortened]... u love terrorists? 🙄..oh, by the way what the hell is a Pez Lollie?...is it something you suck?
Originally posted by chancremechanicI know people don't deliberately fire at each other, they are trained much better than that, I am sure. In some circumstances (which I am sure applies to a country that is always at war) shooting an unidentified target may be the best and most beneficial decision at that time. That's not the problem, the problem is not identifying the target.
You think the American Army has a monopoly on "friendly fire"? Do you think our soldiers just blindly fire their weapons and hope the bullets kill the enemy instead of friendlies? Do you think the dregs of American society join the military, espacially the Army? If so, you are very naive, indeed. Friendly fire is a terrible reality of war for any ...[text shortened]... it....I apologize for any rudeness on my part and for "misinterpreting" what you said...peace
Yes, prioritising is always done subjectively, but one always has reasons behind his subjective mind.
No apology necessary, you were only defending your view 🙂.
Am I right about lolly?
Originally posted by DreamlaXi don't know about that. of course, we all want as many of our charity dollars to go to actually helping people as possible. i've discussed this with some charities, and their take is that the net effect of promotion/advertising, if handled right, is positive. That is, it generates more in donations than it costs...
Any charity that has good looking advertising spends too much on advertising and not enough on the actual charity.
the net effect of promotion/advertising, if handled right, is positive. That is, it generates more in donations than it costsAdvertising by charities is a thony issure. It's true that advertising increases donations by more than the advertising cost (otherwise where's the point). However there is an argument that there is a certain pool of money that the public will give and that advertising simply shifts the flow from one charity to another (eg. when the national lottery started in the UK charitable donations to other organisations decreased.)
Anyway, my list who get my time and/or money:
RSPCC (Royal society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children)
Barnardos (UK charity working with orphaned and disadvantaged/abused children)
SightSavers (50p to cure river blindness!! Bargin!)
Samaritans (UK charity, but worldwide through the web, helping those who are despairing and/or suicidal)
Amnesty International
a list no better or worse than any other, but I think we pick who we help by those we can relate to best or those whom we think need the help most, and this is very subjective.
1 edit
Originally posted by DreamlaXwhat makes birds more important then the millions that are starving around the world?
What makes American war veterans more important than the millions that are starving around the world?
and btw-CoSBoSR is the "church of scotland board of social responsabilities"-and we don't just do old people! 😉
