If had the choice between saving Mahatma Gandi and George W Bush. But the thing is you can only save one, if you save bush he would money to help save 1000s of peoples live and if you save Gande he can't donate any moneys!
2006-08-18 05:05:45 · 32 answers · asked by quamig 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Mahatma Gandi, if he gave nothing but his honesty and wisdom would give more than the minuses we have received from George Bush.. Benefitting the world does not start with money. Its starts with truth and grace and being an example to others so they can follow the straight path. Bush's ignorance and aggression are well on the way to causing WW3: I preferred Clinton, who at least had some intellect of his own though patently human! He could talk his way out of anything, and maybe would have talked the parties into getting around a table before blood was spilt.
2006-08-19 10:36:09 · answer #1 · answered by Pan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mahatma Gandi cause Bush would only save the upper middle class and above.
2006-08-18 05:12:06 · answer #2 · answered by PYT 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Gandhi!!! If bush can decieve the american people then what makes me think that he would ever use his money for good? Gandhi is all about good and spreads a great message. I hope that everyone would save Gandhi. Bush has stolen from people. He is not an honest man. Gandhi was true to himself and others. He was an admirable man. I guess I am just to the point of recognition that money means nothing.
2006-08-18 05:11:46 · answer #3 · answered by Metacoma 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Money is the biggest problem in the world when it comes to the fat cats at the top of the ladder.....
Mahatma Gandhi was a noble, intelligent and truly spectacular man. People like Bush could never ever begin to understand the sheer extent/humbleness of a thought/action of Gandhi....
2006-08-18 07:41:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i hate Bush so got no choice but to save Gandi.
2006-08-18 05:11:46 · answer #5 · answered by -mystery- 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I'd save Gandhi, the pleasure of watching Bush's demise would more than make up for the loss of money he he he he. Of course I'd take sh*t off Gandhi for my decision and obvious lack of compassion for Bush, but my goodness it would be worth it !!
2006-08-18 05:17:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why would I save either? First off...Bush would never just give money away to save people.... how naive are you! haha.. he invests in oil... lol... give money away! haha what a laugh...
Ghandi? I mean... I can understand why I should "save" him... but why WOULD I? Very few people in this world deserve to be "saved" from anything. In many cases people make poor choices, and it gets them into the mess.
My choice..neither.
2006-08-18 06:12:08 · answer #7 · answered by the_thoughtless_ponderer 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For now I'm trying to save my self from what Bush created.
I have respect for Gandhi for his believes and i have hate for Bush believes. Gandhi is passed away so to answer your question i cant save a death person and i DONT WANT to save Bush, so neither.
2006-08-18 05:41:28 · answer #8 · answered by Arzuita 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think the real question is, would you save Millard Fillmore or a box of Rice Krispies?
2006-08-18 05:54:51 · answer #9 · answered by lobsterdelivery 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gandhi, of course, as he isn't guilty of murdering tens of thousands of innocent women and children, he hasn't completely demolished the Constitution, and he hasn't sold his country out to the highest corporate bidders.
2006-08-18 05:52:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋