Look up the word douchebag in the dictionary. I can guarantee you that Donald Trump's fugly mug is right there beside the word.
Why do they call 'em soap operas anyway? Those things are FILTHY!-Fred Sanford

I thought douche bag is two words.

I hear you, bush is a patriot and he devoted his life to serve our country, he became president because he loves our country, i'm not so sure about obama with that, like it's with a lot of democrats, because all they do is complaining how bad we republicans are, and i hate that democrats just can't accept it, if successfull people who work hard, just don't want to have to pay for someone elses medical bills, to just name an example. We republicans stand up, we fight, this is why we are successfull. Obama doesn't have that, he doesn't seem strong enough, the fact that he's always apologizing to some stupid foreign country doesn't help either. Though he does have some good ideas, although those ideas aren't new and people are saying this for years, but at least he wants to get manufacturing back in the us.

I wonder why board administrators deleted MorometeI's comments. How does that work? Now my responses make no sense with all the censored posts in between.

From the fact that English is not my first language (as I stated above), you should have concluded I'm not an American. Instead, you chose to attack me on the basis of (your incorrect assumption about) my nationality instead of countering the merit of my argument. I'd explain to you what "ad hominem" means, but it's probably beyond your comprehension capabilities.

"Do you mention Aristotle and Hume when talking to other people? Do other people think you are normal?"
I am going to use that some time.
Goddamn these electric sex pants.

This message has been deleted.

In fact I'm curios
Do you mean "curious" or is this another word that tough people who can survive the tough environment of the streets use?
Do you mention Aristotle and Hume when talking to other people? Do other people think you are normal?
Yes, I do. Yes, they do. Then again, I tend to engage with people who are educated and smart. With you, I'm making an exception and hoping that my attempt to communicate at your level will be accepted as a charitable donation next time I file taxes. If I engage someone as permanently and deliberately obtuse as you, I should be able to get a deduction out of it.
English is not my first language
It's not mine either, but I wouldn't use that as an excuse for obvious mediocrity.
And ridiculing others arguments because of spelling mistakes doesn't mean you are right.
Every other response to your original post indicating that
all
charities are scams (for which you still have to provide any evidence) already proved I'm right. Now I'm just trying to do you a favor, because you are either too stupid or too lazy to spell properly.
You are just a grammar nazi.
And you are a living, breathing indication that your country will have to continue relying on charities for a long time. If you are representative of the brain power of its citizens, it's only chance of ever developing is turning people like you into organ banks.

This message has been deleted.

What you are doing with this whole "logical" reasoning is called "mental masturbation" or "intellectual onanism".
I'll make sure I let Aristotle, Hume and others know that you don't think their contributions to disciplined thought are valid. I'm sure they'll be distraught.
You t16d0alk from books and theories,
Theories are subject to confirmation. That's why I referred to verifiable facts in my posts.
I talk from the lessons life
teached
(sic) me.
It would be better (albeit only slightly so) if you talked from the lessons life
taught
you. Seemingly those lessons didn't include spelling or proper conjugation of irregular verbs. Admittedly, it was my fault to assume you could understand logic as it's taught at a high-school level when you can't even write at a primary school level. My apologies.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.

This message has been deleted.

Nice try, but you'll admit that coping out of the argument is no substitute for providing evidence or demonstrating logical consistency.

This message has been deleted.

Even if they give the money to the afghans or pakistanis there is much corruption in those countries that very few funds will reach the poor people. Dirty politicians from those countries will embezzle the funds and that's pretty much it
You are moving the goal posts. Your first post in this thread accused charities themselves of being the scammers, now you accuse local politicians in the countries that receive aid from charities.
In my country
all the charities and nonprofit organization are simply scams,money-laundering schemes or made to avoid various taxes
And now you're generalizing from a biased sample. Just like I couldn't conclude that all cities have waterways instead of streets after only looking at Venice, you can't conclude that all charities are scams after only assessing the situation in your particular country.
I hope this makes it easier for you to understand my objections.

This message has been deleted.

Actually, charities are audited quite regularly and effectively ranked on the basis of the percentage of money collected by them that actually goes to the targeted beneficiaries.
When embezzlement and/or malfeasance are discovered (e.g. the recent publication by Jon Krakauer about Eric Mortenson's "Central Asia Institute" misusing funds intended for Afghan and Pakistani beneficiaries) they are investigated like any other crime.
Your skepticism is healthy, but assuming that all charities are cons instead of finding out which ones help people and which ones just pocket the money is kinda lazy.

This message has been deleted.

MorometeI:
From:
People have collected billions of dollars claiming to help my country.But no one from here ever saw a single cent from those money.
You conclude:
You do realize that
all
donations are just scams?
I hope you won't mind my pointing out the flaw in your inductive reasoning. You may want to look up "hasty generalization" and "biased sampling", among other common logical fallacies that make it quite easy to invalidate statements like yours.
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.

This message has been deleted.

1. Seinfeld still donated to St. Judes Hospical and Trump's son's foundation
2. That's great logic you have there All non-Republicans do as Jerry Seinfeld does? And that makes Republicans better somehow?
   WTF??

Seindfled still made a large donation to St. Jude's sowhy does it matter?
Trump is the real tool here. How does he expect to run for President when he acts like a baby all the time

That's why Republicans are better. You don't see them backing out of charitable commitments just because someone in attendance disagrees with them. Republicans have backbone.
I know several Republicans that stopped donating to Child Fund International when they changed their name from "Christian Children's Fund". The only reason the name was changed was that people wouldn't think the organization was proselytizing. But these republicans were so mad at the dropping of "Christian" from the name that they decided to punish starving children by withholding their donations.
Real backbone there.

A) Jerry Seinfeld made a 16d0sizable donation to the same charity after cancelling his appearance at the benefit, which he did for the perfectly valid reason of not wanting to be associated with a birther like Trump in any way.
B) The idea that the Royal Family is unanimously loved in the UK is ridiculous. Smart and educated Brits are either completely indifferent about the fate of these parasites or actively want to get rid of them, thus becoming a republic. The only people excited about this wedding (and other non-events involving the winners of an atavistic genetic lottery) are shallow losers with no life of their own and below-average IQs.

LOl, I guess Jerry brought a supply of koolaid with him.