 | | Re: Cuba
|
|
(...) Thank you. (...) No idea what you're trying to say there. (...) Yes. The US is a mixed economy, not a libertarian one, or an anarcho capitalist one, or even a plain old capitalist one. Therefore its policy is not what you would see from any of (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cuba
|
|
(...) That appears to be exactly what I did say. Put that way it's untrue and flat out wrong for me to have said it and I admit it without any prevarication, denial, or hiding behind "bad wording" defense. I am heads down on something (you can tell (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cuba
|
|
(...) Not "as they see fit." That again imputes capitalist values and a hierarchical structure to the actions of communist leadership. "For the common good" is more accurate. Now, *in practice*, it has often *been* "as they see fit," true...but (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cuba
|
|
(...) Slavery and theft indeed. How objective you are. Materialism in western society is the current norm. You should not feel that anything else is "immoral". It must be asked why the US victimises this country due to what you call "immoral" (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cuba
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes: <snip> I'm fairly happy with the accuracy of my characterization: you made a statement placing the entire blame for Cuba's woes here with the US instead of with their failed system, when challenged, (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cuba
|
|
(...) OK. Fair enough. If a system fails to live by its principles in extremis and acts in immoral ways, then it isn't perfect. But we can still quite easily judge it to be morally far superior to a system that systematically acts immorally. (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cuba
|
|
(...) But it isn't clear at the extremities whether your implication of morality is correct. For instance, during the recent discusion of the handling of Ender by the powers that be, you acknowledged that they were not clearly evil because of the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cuba
|
|
(...) We both have. (...) Lead me to water, then, and I'll drink. The well is dry if all your going to do is argue that Communism will always fail, no matter what, though you cannot possibly prove it in a million lifetimes. You're keen on telling (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gasohol?
|
|
(...) I had the same problem with the UK press too when Bush came to power. But, so far, he has demonstrated the ability to prove his critics correct. On a basic level, he does make great entertainment. I loved the shots of him the other day playing (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cuba
|
|
(...) Sum of total happiness will be higher, per capita. There may be individual excursions from the mean. In fact there better be! (...) Communism can't be democratic, freemarket systems can't be dictatorial. (...) Unless it is moral to dispose of (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cuba
|
|
(...) I would reword that as "if your personal values say that others do not have the right to dispose of you and your property as they see fit". Wouldn't you agree? (...) Did you or someone you are closely related to live in a communist bloc (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cuba
|
|
(...) Patently untrue, the core of the argument has been addressed elsewhere in the thread. I would say, rather, that you are the one obfuscating at present. (...) Not trying hard enough, apparently. (...) I've given my arguments elsewhere in the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gasohol?
|
|
(...) Well, it often seems to be all high heat, but it's definitely not all desert (in fact, around here, its often more all swamp.) james (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gasohol?
|
|
(...) Heh. Not just traffic laws. In any case, I think some of the smog laws may have relaxed since you were here, but I can't confirm that. I'll have to do a little looking to see what I can find out. Dave! (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gasohol?
|
|
I can't remember the laws offhand, as it has been over 5 years since I lived there, but I remember seeing some insanely stupid traffic laws on the books. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support | Netscape Communications Corp | A (...) (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gasohol?
|
|
(...) Truly! I'm surprised to learn that the law says otherwise in PA. Could you indicate a specific other-than-tailpipe law in PA? You've really gotten me curious about this. Dave! (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gasohol?
|
|
If you were as heavily into cars as I was, it would be plenty of reason. The hoops I have to jump through to get my main car to pass smog are insane in California. In just about any other state, all they care about is tailpipe emissions (the only (...) (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gasohol?
|
|
(...) Which smog laws, out of curiosity? I know in some sections of the state they don't even inspect cars for emissions. By the way--that (of all things ) is a pretty goofy reason not to live in PA (not that you really *need* a reason to choose not (...) (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gasohol?
|
|
(...) the Republicrats all around, but at least the Democrats tax-and-spend, instead of Republican borrow-and-spend (or "spend and borrow") tactics. At least with the former we feel the consequences right away and aren't fooled into supporting the (...) (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gasohol?
|
|
GOOOOD question. I've tried to convince her that TX is a really big state, it's not ALL high heat/desert, but she just doesn't want to move there. Then again, long ago, I said I'd never live in 3 states: PA - smog laws are almost as bad as CA, and (...) (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
