Canadian town donates $10k to Tsunami, wants it back for firework display.

[Mister Sinister]

Hope this isnt a repost but I found this amusing.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/25/returned-tsunami-donation050125.html



Now was that 10k in Canadian dollars. :D

[tony3]

Selfish bas......

[Steelrat]

Thats great, they accidentally voted in favor of sending the money. I'm glad they were able to correct their mistake, that would have totally screwed up their fireworks finale.

[FragTek]

What a bunch of :tard: 's

[teufelhunden]

hahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahha ahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahaha

prepare for karma.

[Creative Mayhem]

I am ashamed to call myself Canadian after reading that.... :(

[Muzikman]

Fireworks rock!

http://jbeamphotos.com/albums/PH_Fireworks_03/content1020.sized.jpg

[Steelrat]

I wonder if I can get a refund on the cash I gave for the 9/11 victims...

[SlartyBartFast]

I wonder if I can get a refund on the cash I gave for the 9/11 victims...

Actually, I wish the Red Cross DID have that option.

When a tragic event becomes a giant dump of cash, I do think donations should be ether redirected or given back.

FOr the tsunami, Doctors Without Borders fif the upright thing and stopped taking donations for the tsunami because they had enough to cover all forseen expenses.

In the case of 9/11, as tragic as it was BILLIONS were raised for people who were otherwise insured and the payouts to families are disgusting to the point that the death of their loved-one became a financial windfall.

Or, the case of the Red Cross in California who got millions to help people after brush fires. Why should the money be given to people whose homes were insured or should have been insured? Once the homes and belongings are paid for, why should the 'victims' get any more? Some families sued the Red Cross for exactly that.

[Acer12]

Canada sucks. sorry any canadians but it does

[Blazestorm]

haha, my school raised 16k for the tsunami fund... raffles

[Steelrat]

Actually, I wish the Red Cross DID have that option.

When a tragic event becomes a giant dump of cash, I do think donations should be ether redirected or given back.

FOr the tsunami, Doctors Without Borders fif the upright thing and stopped taking donations for the tsunami because they had enough to cover all forseen expenses.

In the case of 9/11, as tragic as it was BILLIONS were raised for people who were otherwise insured and the payouts to families are disgusting to the point that the death of their loved-one became a financial windfall.

Or, the case of the Red Cross in California who got millions to help people after brush fires. Why should the money be given to people whose homes were insured or should have been insured? Once the homes and belongings are paid for, why should the 'victims' get any more? Some families sued the Red Cross for exactly that.

I cannot believe you even said that. If I lost any of my loved ones, there is NO amount that could possibly replace them. To state that the payouts were "disgusting" and a "financial windfall" is incredibly insensitive. I'm sure that, given the chance, those people would gladly give the money back if they could be with their loved ones again. I don't know about you, but when I donate money (and I do donate money, do you?) I don't set conditions on my dontation, other than making sure it goes to the victims.

And guess what? The town didn't state that they wanted it back because the funds didn't need any more donations, though I'm sure that is the actual reason. They said it was an administrative mistake, which is, frankly, a lame excuse.

Oh, one last news flash for you. Insurance doesn't cover 100% of your losses. Do you own a house? Read your policy sometime. How about a car? Do you think that, if your new car is totaled, you get 100% of what you owe on it?

[cris8762]

i hope all the fireworks stands fall over and shoot big flaming balls of hot chemicals into the crowd...

[Eric Cartman]

Canada sucks. sorry any canadians but it does


:rolleyes:
And this brilliant statement comes from a citizen of the country that is home to the Ozarks - Darwin's waiting room.

Thanks for comin' out champ! :tard:

[Acer12]

holy **** your canadian and you watch southpark thats awsome. we have one cool canadian here guys. Thats funny as **** that you watch southpark because they make so much fun of you guys. especially cartman

[PyRo]

If I lost any of my loved ones, there is NO amount that could possibly replace them. To state that the payouts were "disgusting" and a "financial windfall" is incredibly insensitive. I'm sure that, given the chance, those people would gladly give the money back if they could be with their loved ones again. I don't know about you, but when I donate money (and I do donate money, do you?) I don't set conditions on my dontation, other than making sure it goes to the victims.


He is saying that they are getting more money than they should, and you are saying that no amount of money could replace them. Now why should they get more money than they lost? If giving them a lot of money was going to bring back the ones they lost then pile it on. The truth though is that it won't, so why should they get more than they need when their are others getting less than what they need?
.
I think as far as this disaster goes their is more than enough money already raised to cover it. Didn't they estimate damage around a billion dollars? I bet the three biggest contributing countries have that and some covered no problem, add in the rest and you're way over what they need.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

That's a pretty bad story.

Meadow Lake is a rather small town (4,500), and $10,000 is probably a lot of money for them. I would find it excusable if they were making some significant sacrifice when they agreed to make the donation, but it was from their fireworks budget. :(

I've said it before, and this is the proof: to say that Canadians are "nice" is a national myth... we're not "nice", we're just polite. :rolleyes:

[Steelrat]

He is saying that they are getting more money than they should, and you are saying that no amount of money could replace them. Now why should they get more money than they lost? If giving them a lot of money was going to bring back the ones they lost then pile it on. The truth though is that it won't, so why should they get more than they need when their are others getting less than what they need?
.
I think as far as this disaster goes their is more than enough money already raised to cover it. Didn't they estimate damage around a billion dollars? I bet the three biggest contributing countries have that and some covered no problem, add in the rest and you're way over what they need.

If people donated the money, just give it to the victims or their families. Its irrelevant if its too much, its what people felt like donating. Its not a question of who needs what, its what people gave.

As for the tsunami, the aid agencies have said they don't need any more. I don't think that means that people should start asking for their donations back.

[PyRo]

As for the tsunami, the aid agencies have said they don't need any more. I don't think that means that people should start asking for their donations back.
If they said they already have enough money then why do I still see all this tsunami relief stuff going around?
I never said people should ask for their donations back. Maybie it would be a good idea however to tell people who want to donate to the tsunami relief that their is already more than enough money earmarked for the disaster and their are other people in need whom the money may better benifit.

[Steelrat]

If they said they already have enough money then why do I still see all this tsunami relief stuff going around?
I never said people should ask for their donations back, but maybie it would be a good idea to tell people when they want to donate to tell them that they have enough money earmarked for the disaster and their are other people in need that the money may be able to better benifit.

I belive that is exactly what the major charities are doing. Check with the big groups (red cross, doctors without border) they have all stated that they no longer need donations for the tsunami. There will always be a few groups continuing to solicit donations.

[1stdeadeye]

Bwahahahaha!

Look at the pretty colors, eh? :nono:

[Eric Cartman]

holy **** your canadian and you watch southpark thats awsome. we have one cool canadian here guys. Thats funny as **** that you watch southpark because they make so much fun of you guys. especially cartman

Of course I do. It's funny stuff. South Park is huge here, just like the Simpsons and every other American show that takes pot shots at us (which is pretty much all of 'em) :D

We can take a joke. We can dish 'em out too eh. Watch Rick Mercer go after Americans sometime ;) . We just don't have many good TV shows :( , so you're not seeing American jokes like we see Canadian jokes.


Back on topic, it's sad that a couple of tools on the town council screwed up. I'm sure if you asked the rest of the 5000 residents of that town, the majority would rather see the money go to the tsunami victims.

[Muzikman]

How about a car? Do you think that, if your new car is totaled, you get 100% of what you owe on it?


Actually...you do, or atleast in PA you do.

[edweird]

whats that in american? Like a buckfiddy?

[Jeffy-CanCon]

whats that in american? Like a buckfiddy?

$8,068

[Lohman446]

If people donated the money, just give it to the victims or their families. Its irrelevant if its too much, its what people felt like donating. Its not a question of who needs what, its what people gave.

As for the tsunami, the aid agencies have said they don't need any more. I don't think that means that people should start asking for their donations back.


The point to me is this - when a disaster occurs people rush to aid those victims. If you had called doctors without borders shortly after the tsunami they would have told you that they had raised all the money needed to help those in the tsunami, but they would gladly except your donation for funding or expenses in other ares - they just did not want you to think your money was going to the tsunami victims.

Why did the Red Cross, after 9/11 suddenly have enough money for a lavish remodeling of the director's office? When you donate to the Red Cross, or the United Way you are seldom making earmarked donations to a certain cause - only if the press is following exactly what went in and the Red Cross is being open with it. Let me give you this scenario, if the public and the media had no idea how much money had been taken in for 9/11 do you think the Red Cross would have given as much out to help the victims families? Would they have used this for other expenses? What if they told you this money might be funding there criticism of the war in Iraq? I'm not saying don't criticize or that this is wrong, but I think it would have hindered there donations. I'm not saying that using the funds for something other than the latest disastor is wrong. I realize there are other expenses and it is a good idea by these organizations to save money and be ready to rapidly respond to the next event... I just applaud groups like doctors without borders who tell you in the wake of a disastor what they are doing with your money, rather than telling you they are raising money for one thing and then, if you don't actually earmark your donation in a legal manner, possibly using it for something else.

[mcveighr]

Back on topic, it's sad that a couple of tools on the town council screwed up. I'm sure if you asked the rest of the 5000 residents of that town, the majority would rather see the money go to the tsunami victims.

Indeed, it seems like this was the actions of what? Three people that voted no?

Still a pretty terrible thing to do.

[Steelrat]

Indeed, it seems like this was the actions of what? Three people that voted no?

Still a pretty terrible thing to do.

Well, everyone blames the entire US for the actions of our govenrment. Thats the price of democracy, I guess.

[Muzikman]

whats that in american? Like a buckfiddy?


Oh man, and the joke is still going:)

[Muzikman]

Indeed, it seems like this was the actions of what? Three people that voted no?

Still a pretty terrible thing to do.


Again, fireworks rule. I would have been upset that my town could not have their 4th of July celebration because a few people decided to give away our money. But, I do dontate my money to causes that I know are worth while and where I know where my money is going.

[thump]

for the first time in my life i am ashamed to say im a Canadian. :(
i never thought that would be possible.

[smilestyler]

I am ashamed to call myself Canadian after reading that.... :(

I'm even more ashamed, Meadow Lake is only a couple hundred Km's from where I live.
It is pathetic for the town council to have handled this so poorly.

[SlartyBartFast]

If I lost any of my loved ones, there is NO amount that could possibly replace them. To state that the payouts were "disgusting" and a "financial windfall" is incredibly insensitive.

But that's not the issue. The question isn't how much money would you accept to lose your loved ones. The question is: "how much do you NEED to get back on your feet?"

If you lost the major bread winner in your family, I think the community should help support you and get you back on your feet. But you can do that with far less than a million. THe 9/11 victims families that are suing for tens of millions are money grubbing IMO.

Why is it that a firefighter or police officer that dies in an "ordinary" rescue gets their family the standard life insurance and for 9/11 the families get enough to guarantee the family never has to seek employment again?

That's not right.

And I DO own my own house. I also have a family.

[Python14]

Again, fireworks rule. I would have been upset that my town could not have their 4th of July celebration because a few people decided to give away our money.


That brings something up, What the hell do canadians need fireworks for? Don't they know that the only thing they are celebrating is the fact that we let them stay another year?

[thump]

That brings something up, What the hell do canadians need fireworks for? Don't they know that the only thing they are celebrating is the fact that we let them stay another year?


umm if you knew your history then you would know that every time the US invaded Canada they were defeated and had to retreat.granted that was a LONG tiem ago and things have changed :)

[SlartyBartFast]

That brings something up, What the hell do canadians need fireworks for? Don't they know that the only thing they are celebrating is the fact that we let them stay another year?

The only reason americans celebrate is because Canadians/British got bored after burning the White House. :D

[Python14]

Those were cute battles.

[magsRus]

i hope their town catches fire due to a firework miss firing and hitting a tree

[wyn1370]

Oh man, and the joke is still going:)
never gets old

[SlartyBartFast]

Oh, one last news flash for you. Insurance doesn't cover 100% of your losses. Do you own a house? Read your policy sometime. How about a car? Do you think that, if your new car is totaled, you get 100% of what you owe on it?

I've got a news flash for you. If you're too stupid to insure your belongings at a level you need to have them insured at that's your problem. Don't come crying to me.

Losing a house or car and having to pay a deductable just means you get a few thousand less than the value of the insurance. Big deal. If you can't afford the deductable, just means you buy a cheaper car or house next time.

Got no insurance? Tough luck. Those that live in North America and any other jurisdiction where insurance is available should know better. Sure you should get help so you don't starve or freeze to death, but I don't see why anyone should reward your lack of foresight by replacing your belongings for you or helping you dig yourself out from under your own uninsured debt.

It infuriates me every year when we're hit with the sob stories of people losing everything in an apartment fire. For the cost of a pack of cigarettes a month they could have been fully insured.

Then there's the idiots who move to an area where they can't get flood or fire insurance and then they expect US to pick up the tab...

Don't get me started...

[Acer12]

it appears you already have started

[SlartyBartFast]

it appears you already have started


:p

:shooting:

[Acer12]

I'm just messen man