cartoon

















IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.





Lost Password?
No account yet? Register
King of Hits
Home arrow Forums
Messageboards
Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register.    Lost Password?
Your Views Messageboard
Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"
Name:
Subject:
Boardcode:
B I U S Sub Sup Size Color Spoiler Hide ul ol li left center right Quote Code Img URL  
Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons
B) :( :) :laugh:
:cheer: ;) :P :angry:
:unsure: :ohmy: :huh: :dry:
:lol: :silly: :blink: :blush:
:kiss: :woohoo: :side: :S
More Smilies
 Enter code here   

Topic History of: World Health Organisation
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
Author Message
Al Gershwin Wyot wrote:
Al Gershwin wrote:
Trump makes sense sometimes - particularly regarding the WHO - to which the US (population 385m) paid $500m a year.

Compared to China - who paid $39m (population 1.4B). All US aid/subsidies are being closely analysed; many countries will feel the pinch.


It "makes sense" only if you believe that if X donates £50 a month to a charity but Y (who earns about the same or more) only donates £5 a month this means X should stop donating.

In other words, the "sense" is derived from believing that helping the vulnerable is not a matter of morality (I'm hopelessly old fashioned I know!) but accountancy.

This epitomises Trump.

And illustrates why his woeful character is of central importance regarding his suitability for high office.



Totally unable to follow that 'logic'...

cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/33800.jpeg
Wyot Al Gershwin wrote:
Trump makes sense sometimes - particularly regarding the WHO - to which the US (population 385m) paid $500m a year.

Compared to China - who paid $39m (population 1.4B). All US aid/subsidies are being closely analysed; many countries will feel the pinch.


It "makes sense" only if you believe that if X donates £50 a month to a charity but Y (who earns about the same or more) only donates £5 a month this means X should stop donating.

In other words, the "sense" is derived from believing that helping the vulnerable is not a matter of morality (I'm hopelessly old fashioned I know!) but accountancy.

This epitomises Trump.

And illustrates why his woeful character is of central importance regarding his suitability for high office.
Al Gershwin Trump makes sense sometimes - particularly regarding the WHO - to which the US (population 385m) paid $500m a year.

Compared to China - who paid $39m (population 1.4B). All US aid/subsidies are being closely analysed; many countries will feel the pinch.