Bhutto refresher

Intelinvestor · Dec 30, 2007

I suggest Nobel Peace Prize to Kim Jong Il
for not waging wars against South Korea for 50 years. Seriously.

Quote from toc:

Even at 75B value of Gates foundation at 10% annual returns and 3% further reduction for inflation, the roughly figure of $5B a year with principal intact does give lots of hopes of eradication, education and curing research on lots of health and medical challenges that face the humanity.

One thing that has to be pointed out is any aid given to third world nations is horribly misued, but that is government to government. Hoepfully private foundation based aid programs are more efficiently and privately operated.

Again, Gates, Buffet and Hilton for Nobel Prize each.

TorontoTrader2 · Dec 30, 2007

arealpissedgoy · Dec 30, 2007

Quote from TorontoTrader2:

Interesting post. Where ever these machines end up, the voting results seem to end in 51% to 49% for the winner. Happened in US election, Mexico election, and the most recent Venezuelan referendum. Also all the 51% / 49% exit polling results were off by many factors. Democracy, just another control tool.

HOBO · Dec 30, 2007

Bhuttoâs son has just finished his first term at Oxford University. He must wait 6 years before he can rule. Meanwhile Zardari will coach him, on how to "run" the country.

Is not it strange, that a nation of 160 million, cannot find a more qualified person, than a 19-year old lad?

clacy · Dec 30, 2007

Quote from TorontoTrader2:

If you knew anything about American politics, you would know that the vast majority of voter fraud takes place in Democratic areas.

Capablanca · Dec 31, 2007

Quote from HOBO:

Bhuttoâs son has just finished his first term at Oxford University. He must wait 6 years before he can rule. Meanwhile Zardari will coach him, on how to "run" the country.

Is not it strange, that a nation of 160 million, cannot find a more qualified person, than a 19-year old lad?

Americans do not understand democracy as practiced in many poor nations. If they did they wouldn't be so dismissive of the advantages of an autocracy.

Regarding the corruption accusations against Bhutto, the numbers seem to be pretty big, but do you know how much politicians officially make? Do you know the culture of patronage politics that is endemic and inherent in the system? I wouldn't be surprised if most of the money they purportedly stole simply went back to their political followers, the oil greasing the machine, a spoils system like that of an Andrew Jackson. More money probably sloshes around in Washington wielded by lobbyists.

Benazir died in Pakistan. She didn't have to go back. She faced death threats. Any prudent person who simply wanted to be rich through theft could have simply enjoyed their cozy exile.

saxon22 · Dec 31, 2007

Maybe she wanted more,maybe he sniffed an opportunity to get back into the saddle. Maybe she wanted not only money but also power.

maybe she was genuine.

11Blade · Dec 31, 2007

Quote from Hydroblunt:

Really? So why is it that things only get worse in the third world, and the disparity between rich & poor only grows wider. [text deleted for brevity...] so that they can keep paying themselves salaries? Could it be that they function similiar to IMF & World Bank? Marinade on that one for a little while.

For all the charities in the U.S. aiming to help minorities and the poor, I have yet to see any real results. Cities that were affected by the offshoring of the industrial/manufacturing base are still dying, the prisons are growing, number of people living below poverty is still rising.

Oh, all those wonderful charities. With all that money pouring into them, I'm just scratching my head as to why matters only get worse.

Here is a clue. People like Buffett, Gates, Hilton, etc., have enough money to revitalize whole cities & nations. So if they really care, why don't they do so. The equation is VERY simple. Create jobs, decent paying jobs and stop milking everybody & everything for profit. Preach & practice sustainable business & self sustaining communities. I have yet to see anyone besides Marbury do anything of the sort. Let alone any charity.

P.S. Whenever a rich person donates to a University, they have input regarding their cirriculums & programs. Rockefeller used to do this a lot. Also, when the Gates donation gives free software to organizations, they quote it in dollar amounts based on retail price. He has been giving cash lately, I will give you that, but most of his "philanthropy" is nothing more than business.

If nobody is making a difference - why does the IMF, United Way, World Bank even try? to fatten the coffer's of the bureaucrats?

Your cynicsm is well received. I donate my time and money to charities because I have been there and needed the help.

There are some amazing changes occurring out there but do not come to the forefront because its not sexy news. I would certainly not lump every charity organization as useless.

The Gates Foundation has a different mission than Microsoft Corp and Steve Ballmer do. I do not disagree that *many* charities bureaucraticaly overweight and the same for the UN

Have some faith Hydro, there are a few people in the world who aim to make a difference, in the inner cities of the US and also in the third world.

I agree with your comment "Preach & practice sustainable business & self sustaining communities."

11Blade

toc · Dec 31, 2007

'Preach & practice sustainable business & self sustaining communities.'

You mean business which breaks even and makes a ONE PENNY profit...........stop this commie agenda Maaaaaaan!

Better to make money with profit motive and give to causes in return. A business enterprise run without profit motive will soon become a loss factory of the USSSSSSSSSSSR.

In the US and most western economies there are enough job for those who want to work and that is why sooooooo many illegal immigrants are able to find work and send funds home.

But for Iraq war, US would have been in fairly excellent shape as Clinton had left a balanced budget and surplus forecast for all the social programs.

toc · Dec 31, 2007

It is sad to see Bhutto declaring her 19 year old son as the next chief of her party. This shows the gross cruel and inhumane irresponsibility the leaders of the Third World nations employ to govern with. This also confirms that she wanted to maintain a family hand in power so that 100s of millions that she looted from kickbacks and corruption are not snatched away as a result of investigation.

Idiot woman wanted to pop her MASCULINE head out of the SUV without wearing any helmet or even having a specially built bullet proof glass cube on SUV top to help her with gazing at the poor, hungry and hopeless folks that she wanted the votes from. Wonder miserly use of 100s of millions looted came back to hurt her and her country.