Some of his pals agree with him:
Robert is absolutely right with this post.
There are 2 kinds of poverty. There is relative poverty, which is faced by the people of new orleans, and abolute poverty, which is faced by the people of Africa. Absolute poverty means that people have NOTHING. NO food, NO drink, NO shelter, NO clothing. Relative poverty is when you’re getting money, but not enough compared with the guys around you.
If you want to make the world a better place, you give to the absolute poor of africa, becuase, they DEFINITELY need it more.
If you still decide to give to the disaster effort, fine, go ahead, but you’re not really making a difference at all.
Oh? The next time OCAP takes to the streets to demand bigger welfare cheques, will "Moe" here remind John Clarke and company that his constituents don't need the help because they're getting along much better compared to people in Sudan?
Fortunately, others of Robert's left-leaning ilk all calling him to task for his comments.
Personally, Robert, I think you have gone too far with this post. Given the suffering of some very poor people in Louisana and Mississippi, this post is in really poor taste. Your analogy of Joe Rich and Joe poor completely misses the mark. Why on earth would any compassionate person turn a blind eye to the suffering of the now homeless thousands in New Orleans? Becasue there are other people in the world worse off? Because you don’t like Dubya? Because the country overall is generally wealthy? Geeze that is some heartless argument you make.
You know what, if the tables were turned and it was Richmond, BC (below sea level) that was flooded and thousands homeless without shelter, clean water and food, the US would be there for us in a heartbeat. That is a point worth considering.
I guess right whingers and the rubes who support them aren't the only ones who can be heartless in the face of tragedy, eh, Robert?