dhinojosa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-19-05 11:31 AM
Original message |
Why is it called BushClintonKatrinaFund.org? |
|
Why is Bush the first name? He's not a bad ass like Clinton is. WTF? In fact it should be called ClintonIsAFuckingBadAssKatrinaFund.org. Even more so, they should have a LiberalKatrinaFund.org and a ConservativeKatrinaFund.org and have those two try to outgive one another. That would raise so much money it would kick ass!
|
wtmusic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-19-05 11:35 AM
Response to Original message |
1. You mean why does Bush get to be on top? |
|
Have to ask the Big Dog that one.
|
TwilightZone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-19-05 11:36 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Alphabetical order?
Presidential order?
Age before beauty?
Who cares why Bush is first.
|
wtmusic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-19-05 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
something tells me the decision was not a coin toss
|
TwilightZone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-19-05 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
The name of the fund seems utterly inconsequential compared to the reason it was created in the first place.
There are so many other more-important things to deal with out there that nitpicking the name of a charitable organization seems ridiculous.
|
wtmusic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-19-05 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
OP isn't suggesting it's more important than the cause itself.
It's a 100% intentional, subtle PR move. Though to us it may not matter, I bet the GOP wouldn't budge an inch on it.
|
TwilightZone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-19-05 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
10. Yeah, well. Consider the alternative below. |
|
Props to Village Idiot for pointing out what should have been obvious.
|
daninthemoon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-19-05 11:37 AM
Response to Original message |
3. Yeah! How many donate for Bill vs how many for ghwb? |
Village Idiot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-19-05 11:55 AM
Response to Original message |
7. If they called it "ClintonBush..." |
|
People would think Hillary was involved?
|
TwilightZone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-19-05 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
Very good point. The jokes would never end. :)
|
Shipwack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-19-05 11:58 AM
Response to Original message |
|
If it was called "ClintonKatrinaBush Fund", the Christian Coalition would complain about that name being broadcast during primetime...
|
hopein08
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-19-05 12:29 PM
Response to Original message |
11. Wasn't the tsunami one in reverse order? |
|
i.e. wasn't it the Clinton Bush tsunami whatever? Maybe I'm wrong but I think I remember reading that.
My question is, what exactly are they doing with the money that is collected by that fund? Who's in charge? Who decides where it goes?
And, in seeing the somewhat joking nature of this thread, I think I'll share a joke that my very left-leaning history professor told me when I had him for American history. It may be ever so slightly right-leaning but it's true and came from a man who detested Republicans. So, I hope I don't offend anyone, I just thought I'd share.:pals::pals:
Q: "What will history call the Clinton years?"
A: "Sex between the Bushes."
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 18th 2024, 05:33 PM
Response to Original message |