What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, “Time for Miracles” view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
1064 Comments
- Gemfinder, on 12/21/2008, -151/+754When I saw this headline, I thought, "Gee, lemme guess...the one 'agin' country was US, right?"
Right :(
Please accept my personal apologies, World. We're trying, we really are. - DavidGX, on 12/21/2008, -57/+459America.. ***** YEAH
- yaosio, on 12/21/2008, -21/+385US should have voted yes and then do nothing, just like all the other nations.
- ichbinladen, on 12/21/2008, -44/+337America says, "Food is for pussies!"
- brodskie, on 12/21/2008, -26/+280This is because the resolution calls on the US to invoke laws that would run contrary to our constitution. The UN also passed a resolution against the glorification of Nazism that the US also voted against due to the fact that the resolution contradicted the first amendment.
Besides, these are just words. Compare the amount of hungry people in the US to the number in Rwanda (which voted for the resolution). - siszam, on 12/21/2008, -127/+343The U.S. won't provide health for it's on citizens. Of course it doesn't care about people dieing of hunger. I'm so ashamed of my country.
- zacharytelschow, on 12/21/2008, -45/+216So this representative voted against our obligation to provide for everyone everywhere. The last thing we need is to extend entitlement beyond our borders to a global problem. Good. We can't afford our own entitlement programs as it is.
- Beveridge89, on 12/21/2008, -3/+168I believe that was for a different resolution. The US response to the right to food:
"Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of the United States said that, while agreeing with the sentiment expressed in the resolution, his delegation could not support the text as drafted. The United States felt that the attainment of the “right to adequate food” or the “right to be free from hunger” was a goal that should be realized progressively. The current resolution contained numerous objectionable provisions, including inaccurate textual descriptions of underlying rights. The United States was the largest food donor in the world of international humanitarian food aid and it would continue to work towards providing food security to all. In the future, he expressed hope that the co-sponsors would work to address his delegation’s concerns, so the United States could join other countries in adopting the draft. " - oldhick, on 12/21/2008, -42/+186What a bunch of crap... You should read the resolution. Lots of countries that voted FOR it did it with grave reservations. At issue is national sovereignty. As a country do you want to give over the means of control to the UN? Do you wish to allow them to ultimately use what ever measures they see fit to take control your resources in the name of hunger???
This is just a chance for you all to vent your self loathing. - shig, on 12/21/2008, -6/+132More people starve, not because they lack UN resolutions and "food rights", but because they lack any rights at all.
- nasalspray, on 12/21/2008, -23/+143Maybe my reading skills don't quite match up to your ability to introduce a complete non sequitur into the equationas some sort of def(l)ective defense but...
(and correct me, if I'm wrong, of course)
I don't see one word about religion in A/C.3/63/L.42/Rev.1, the draft resolution on the right to food - http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N08/607/03/ ...
I find it hard to believe that 180 representatives could be "missing the boat" here.
It's absolutely pitiful. - zgoos, on 12/21/2008, -20/+116Yes, just assume we Americans are heartless bastards. Don't anybody bother looking at the actual numbers of food aid delivered by various countries.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/hunger/tables/ ... - Warptera, on 12/21/2008, -23/+111It's crazy that people are jumping on the US for this when it consistently donates the largest amount in food and money to global humanitarian causes. The US pays for a huge amount of the UN's projects already.
- Dewhead, on 12/21/2008, -81/+157The US is right. But all of you US citizens who feel that food is a right, feel free to donate your money to make it happen. No one is stopping you.
- wayback09, on 12/21/2008, -37/+112Good, some other countries can step up to the plate and donate billions of dollars in food and aid.
- normlsparky, on 12/21/2008, -25/+94This is a crappy attitude to present to the world. However, we should be working with countries to assist them with feeding their population themselves, not just sending them food. Many of the countries on the African continent could grow much of their own food if they would stop fighting with each other and work with the nations that were willing to help them.
- galeninjapan, on 12/21/2008, -10/+76You're more than welcome to give your own money to help countries get food.
For christmas I bought myself a llama for a farmer in South America! - screamthenrun, on 12/21/2008, -12/+78crap...
Beveridge89, you're right. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.
I went through that document waaaay too quickly-- sorry guys.
Still, I don't think that people should discount this as the United States being cold-hearted. This is just political banter. It does not change the fact that the United States does recognize starvation as a HUGE issue. - KingGorilla, on 12/21/2008, -3/+65Hunger builds character
- redcolumbine, on 12/21/2008, -72/+133Unbelievable. No - I *wish* I couldn't believe it.
- Protonz, on 12/21/2008, -24/+84Is it a 'basic right' to have more kids than you can afford?
- merrickx, on 12/21/2008, -17/+72It's funny because in the area, described the U.S. does the most but voted no, whereas, everyone else voted yes, but do less.
- afflusso, on 12/21/2008, -26/+81Good. We need to get out of the UN. We're the ones who supply 95% of the effort, so we might as well do it ourselves. Does anyone actually believe that the US is "okay with hunger and starvation?" Of course not. So often votes in the House of Reps are somethings like 400-1, with the one being Ron Paul. Many of the times he's stood up alone have been for good reasons.
- Noliaboy75, on 12/21/2008, -4/+57coming to save the ***** day yeah!
- tehxen3, on 12/21/2008, -22/+74Right to food? As in right to tax the hell out of US to feed the 3rd world? Why don't they get their economies together and make their own food.
- AboveandBeyond, on 12/21/2008, -17/+69this is how america fights obesity
- Gemfinder, on 12/21/2008, -18/+68That's neither here nor there.
The resolution required no further action, it's simply a recognition of the human right to eat. So now we come across as the one stuck-up ***** who said "No." It sends a bad message.
I'm tired of my nation being the World Sociopath. - kds405, on 12/21/2008, -17/+66The United States is the most generous nation in the world with the UK in the second position. Don't act like this resolution means anything when it doesn't. Most of you haven't seen the resolution and don't really know the full scope of what it is all about.
- dotorg, on 12/21/2008, -58/+106I hate to say it, but I agree with this.
If you don't want to see your children die of starvation, don't have children. Breeding is the problem, not lack of food.
We guarantee food for people living in places where it can't be produced effectively, then those people will have even more children. In twenty years we've got 5x the problem. - angryfirelord, on 12/21/2008, -30/+77Once again, another crappy daily kos that's anti-US. We pay for a lot of the UN's crap and have a lot of private organizations that do a good chunk of handing out food. But that's not good enough for DailyCrap, we should give the United Nations MORE money instead. I'd like to see how much charitable work Guyana does in proportion to their income.
Remember, there's no such thing as a free lunch. - inactive, on 12/21/2008, -25/+66I think it is difficult to be political correct and realistic with this subject. The way nature stays balanced is that some creatures die from starvation and disease. Humans have been body blocking nature with medications and industry produced crops and creating a population that at some point in the future will be larger than what earth can sustain. Some people cry "global warming" but the more people there are on earth the more CO2 emissions there will be. We can't demand more out of earth than it can provide--at some point the system will fail and a lot of people will have a miserable death.
- hfactor, on 12/21/2008, -7/+46Protip: Hitler ended Nazi Germany when he decided to attack the Soviets. The Soviets ended themselves because their economic model didn't work.
- bdbr, on 12/21/2008, -1/+39It was posted above, but buried a bit:
"Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of the United States said that, while agreeing with the sentiment expressed in the resolution, his delegation could not support the text as drafted. The United States felt that the attainment of the “right to adequate food” or the “right to be free from hunger” was a goal that should be realized progressively. The current resolution contained numerous objectionable provisions, including inaccurate textual descriptions of underlying rights. The United States was the largest food donor in the world of international humanitarian food aid and it would continue to work towards providing food security to all. In the future, he expressed hope that the co-sponsors would work to address his delegation’s concerns, so the United States could join other countries in adopting the draft. " - inactive, on 12/21/2008, -17/+55it's only because they see the distribution of food as an income and not as a basic right.
- crapuccino, on 12/21/2008, -2/+38I agree in principle, but I di find it odd that they always seem to find money for AKs and ammo, but no money for food.
- Yazilliclick, on 12/22/2008, -9/+41Food should be a right but it shouldn't be something required to be provided by others to you. You have the right to food, you have the right to not be denied to eat but it doesn't mean people just have to hand it over for you. You're hungry, grow some food. Can't grow it then work and buy it. It's a simple thing that's worked for thousands of years. Africa really has no worthy excuse.
- twiztidsinz, on 12/21/2008, -2/+31I want a llama....
- Grummond, on 12/22/2008, -8/+36Foreign aid per capita:
Norway: 102 Euros
Denmark: 64 Euros
Sweden: 61 Euros
The Netherlands: 57 Euros
...
The US: 13 Euros - psychosatori, on 12/21/2008, -37/+65The US is the largest food donor in the world...are you friggin retarded?
- DavidGX, on 12/21/2008, -12/+40And donating to mccain wasn't a much BIGGER waste of money?
- Ma1achi, on 12/21/2008, -9/+35furthermore, stop treating socialism like its some kind of dirty word.
Sometimes I think the cold war made you guys so afraid of communism, that even the slightest bit of social responsibilities terrifies you, even if its as simple as offering bread to a hungry neighbor.
States is full of too many selfish *****. Its why most of you are fat, and why the economy is in the crapper. - elnerdo, on 12/21/2008, -17/+431. The US donates more food than any other country.
2. One main reason the US voted against it is because the UN's funding comes from the US. This vote was essentially all of the countries of the UN saying, " The US should pay for food for us ".
Summary: In this case, the rest of the voters were being the greedy ones, knowing that any 'right to food' would be paid for primarily by a country other than themselves (the US). - Perk, on 12/21/2008, -0/+26Agreed. The real problem isn't the lack of food, it's the lack of stable governments and the transportation infrastructure to distribute that food.
Unfortunatly this isn't one of those problems that has a "simple solution if only someone would just see it". So many tons of food and medicine are sent to Africa every year, only to be stolen by the warlords or rot on the docks for want of trucks and highways. Sure a powerful country could come in and kill the warlords and build roads... but we've seen how well that's worked in Iraq.
At some point, every culture and country has to pull itself up by the bootstraps. If you want to help, guarantee a right to unfiltered information, not to food.
- JRowe3388, on 12/21/2008, -10/+36Better yet, eat your children!
- hfactor, on 12/21/2008, -8/+33"We don't even pretend that right exists here in the U.S"
Maybe you should be ashamed of that instead of being proud of it. What in hell does it have to do with socialism to fight hunger? - inactive, on 12/21/2008, -29/+54Yeah, we sure are heartless for actually GIVING MORE FOOD THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, rather than just voting "yes" on a silly resolution that just wants to control how that food is distributed as THEY see fit.
Sure is heartless to actually give food IN PRACTICE, rather than on paper. - Ma1achi, on 12/21/2008, -16/+40The US also gets rich as ***** over exploitation of these poor and hungry nations, so I'd say its your ***** obligation to help out.
- inactive, on 12/21/2008, -9/+32Only loony right-wing logic would interpret "Right to Food" as sounding like right to invade and seize another countries resources.
- Alegoo92, on 12/21/2008, -27/+50Why should the government donate MORE money when the United States already donates more food than anyone through government and aid and enormous charitable organizations.
I'm so ashamed of my country's blind citizens. You know nothing of the bill or how it would affect America, which is already by a huge gap the world's largest philanderer. -
Show 51 - 100 of 1089 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is