Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They do, they give to people other poor countries, they are globalist. What people don't understand is that even our poor are better off than people in other countries. So when liberals talk about giving to the poor, they don't mean you, they are referring to people in other countries.
Rich American philanthropist are like Robin Hood, they take from the rich (Americans) and give to the poor (other than Americans) and keep a little for themselves .
Your reading comprehension needs some work. They are only saying that their wealth gives them more opportunities and access to powerful people while an ordinary person doesn’t have those opportunities.
I think they have it backwards : powerful people open doors to them because they want their patronage or attention. If those people didn’t want something or have narcissistic tendencies that cause them to have fame crushes they would not give them the time of day.
Rich American philanthropist are like Robin Hood, they take from the rich (Americans) and give to the poor (other than Americans) and keep a little for themselves .
Exactly. The poor in America live a high standard of living compared to poor in other countries. So when a globalist says take from the rich to give to the poor, they don't are not referring to "American poor". If they can't take more from us they continue to support flooding our borders to allow poor people to come here.
Exactly. The poor in America live a high standard of living compared to poor in other countries. So when a globalist says take from the rich to give to the poor, they don't are not referring to "American poor". If they can't take more from us they continue to support flooding our borders to allow poor people to come here.
Yep by taking from the "rich" the globalist don't mean themselves. They mean every "white privileged" American average Joe even if he lives in a shack or under a bridge . And by poor they don't mean American poor unless it's occasionally some American without "white privilege". And flooding our borders is their other ace up their sleeve to take more from us Americans.
Aside from the program being an abject failure, nothing.
The foundation gives grants and the districts use the money to hire "consultants" and "policy experts" to clean up the schools.
Only problem is that every district on that list was and still is a nightmare. I picked Ohio because I'm a native and have several friends teaching in those districts.
SOOOO??? Good god, man. They give money to foundations to at least TRY to improve schools. This is a bad thing? The claim was made that they "bought off" foundations. I asked what that meant, and this is what you come back with?
It's not Linda and Bill's fault the foundation failed. They vet the institutions they fund and had reason to believe the foundation would do good work. Now I don't know you and I don't know the veracity of your claims that the programs didn't work out. However, that's irrelevant to this discussion. And I might remind you that when a program fails, you get experience from it to make wiser decisions in the future. Mistakes is how you learn. Better to try and fail then to never have tried at all.
If they feel guilty for being so rich they can give it all away. Not a difficult problem to solve if being poor would make them happier.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.