Debate : 18108


Off-Topic / Debate / 18108

Vote against/for... —Richard Marchetti

Vote against... ...war. ...continued international power-grabs. ...corporate welfare. ...bad corporate accounting practices. Vote for... ...peace. ...concern over the national economy. ...a rational fiscal policy. ...corporate accountability. Today (...) (22 years ago, 5-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —David Koudys

(...) Warning--Spoonerisms: (URL) (22 years ago, 6-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) Sometimes we have no choice. (...) How about the world showing the US a little respect first. (...) Who would support this? (...) Who wouldn't vote for this? (...) I think America did that. -John (22 years ago, 6-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Since Libertarians didn't sweep to stunning victories in most of their races, I'm not sure I agree. Like I said elsewhere, I fear for the country. Having the House, Senate and White House all controlled by the same party (either one of the (...) (22 years ago, 6-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Dave Schuler

(...) "Most?" Dave! (22 years ago, 6-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Ya "Most", Dave! Was gonna say "all" but hey, you know how it is, Dave! And if you've got a problem with that, you know where to go, Dave! :-) ++Lar (22 years ago, 6-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Dave Schuler

(...) Actually, Ken Krawchuk had a not-terrible showing in the PA gubernatorial race, pulling an estimated 6,652 votes versus (Green) Morrill's 4,952, and Krawchuk had at least *some* name recognition leading up to the election. The four main (...) (22 years ago, 6-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) As far as you know, which isn't far. -John (22 years ago, 6-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) None of us is blessed with omniescence, of course, as far as I can tell. And we're all limited by our horizons, and our companions. But I'm on a mountaintop with Thomas Jefferson, while you're down in a hog wallow with John Ashcroft, so I'm (...) (22 years ago, 6-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) That was my point. (...) *You* could be in the majority too if you'd pull your head out and join the Republican party to work for getting liberatarian agendas implemented, rather than support the go-nowhere, impotent Losertarian party. You are (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Richard Marchetti

(...) Right. I'd be happy to see some of those things too, dingus. If you think the war will pay for itself, or be a short easy to pay for war; then you need to reduce your lithium intake. Bush will raise the national debt paying off his (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —David Koudys

(...) I'm sorry for 'throwing it out there' to begin with... well, no, not actually. I actually liked this thread up until the word 'dingus' appeared (though to be said, the (sic) response was a jab as well--I think we all agreed to leave the (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) That's very nice. You should realize that such immature ad hominems only serve to reflect the complete lack of character of the user. (...) The estimated loss due to 9-11 was $95,000,000,000 USD. What do you suppose the cost (in terms of $$$, (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Dave Schuler

(...) Yeah, Larry--you should join the NRA/Christian Coalition/Enron whore known as the GOP. And John, since you're fond of overlooking reality when it favors your agenda, let's not forget that you can make no true claims of majority. Voter turnout (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Slinging names is not the way to keep this debate where it needs to be. Because when you use even a mild one like "Losertarian" you enable ill mannered rabble rousers to do the same (in kind, but far worse in degree). I find the use of the (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) See also this analysis... (URL) an admittedly partisan source) My favorite excerpt: "It marks the third consecutive election in which a Libertarian has cost the Republican Party a Senate seat," wrote Miller. "If there had been no Libertarian (...) (22 years ago, 23-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) If that's all your party ever wants to aspire to be (a spoiler), then knock yourselves out. But think about this: think about a senate with *no* clear majority and libertarian Republicans controlling the swing votes. That's power. What you (...) (22 years ago, 23-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) It's not. But we're performing a useful service to the country nonetheless. A filibuster proof Senate with the likes of Bob Barr running some things is a scary thought to behold. (...) c /libertarian Republicans/Libertarians/ and you're on to (...) (22 years ago, 23-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Scott Arthur

(...) Give it a rest. I wrote this post in an effort to stop your disruptive behaviour: (URL) man enough to either stick to the issues or keep quiet. Scott A (22 years ago, 25-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Scott Arthur

(...) I prefer Mike Huben's analysis: "The Libertarian Party is well on its way to dominating the political landscape, judging from its power base of 100+ elected dogcatchers and other important officials after 25 years of effort." ;) More here: (...) (22 years ago, 25-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Fiona Dickinson

(...) Perhaps instead of spending so much money on fighting a war, the ruling party over there in the USA should spend some more money on education so that you could learn the difference between your and you're. Maybe if there wasn't so much pig (...) (22 years ago, 9-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Perhaps you'd care to prove the correlation between "more money spent on education" and "better education"? It hasn't held up too well under close examination so far. BTW, welcome to .debate! (22 years ago, 9-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Scott Arthur

(...) It is anacdotal, but the EU countries spend more of thier GDP on education, and have higher adult literacy than the USA. At best, US school spending is average. Scott A (22 years ago, 10-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) Well, that's the problem now, isn't it? There *are* those in this world who can't just live and let live. If we don't subscribe to their particular POV, then we must be killed. There isn't much room for compromise there. And BTW, those who nit (...) (22 years ago, 9-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) How 'bout the US get off it's pretentious 'Mighter than thou so we can do as we please' high horse and smell the roses (or the toxic exhaust fumes from rampant consumerism) (...) (22 years ago, 6-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) The world needs to come to terms with the simple fact that the US *IS MIGHTIER THAN THOU* It's not pretentious, merely fact. Be thankful that the US also happens to be the greatest power ever to have existed on the face of the earth AND shows (...) (22 years ago, 6-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —Dave Schuler

(...) Although John may speak for the soon-to-be-installed right-wing overzealous militaristic hegemonic self-righteous theocracy, his wildly nationalistic statements should not be construed as anything like mainstream American thought, but they can (...) (22 years ago, 6-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —Richard Marchetti

(...) In fairness to John, doesn't he have EVERY right to believe his views have been co-signed by the american people? Either by positive act or by apathy, the future has been written. And yes, I do think it may be time to move to a country whose (...) (22 years ago, 6-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —David Koudys

(...) I'll help you with the lego :) It's the zealous nationalism which blinds people to fixing the issues. I'm a nationalist--I love being Canadian. As such, I believe in a 'just war' scenario--that is, I would pick up a gun and join the armed (...) (22 years ago, 6-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, he can assert that a majority of the estimated 39% of eligible voters chose to vote Republican, and beyond that he's welcome to believe whatever else he likes, of course. But I think he'd come across as less of a stereotypically boorish, (...) (22 years ago, 6-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —John Neal

(...) Your demagoguery and paranoia aside, let's take a wait-and-see attitude rather than engage in pointless inflammatory rhetoeric. I am just so tired of Americans apologizing for the US-- it is mad that I would have anything for which to be sorry (...) (22 years ago, 6-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —Richard Marchetti

(...) John, John -- wake up! You're talking in your sleep and some of us can still hear you... Increasingly we have more in common with socialism and/or communism than we do with a free democratic republic, or hadn't you noticed? THE 10 PLANKS OF (...) (22 years ago, 6-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —John Neal

(...) If by "we" you mean the liberal left, than I guess you are correct. -John (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —Richard Marchetti

Does somebody else feel like giving dingus a brief history of the "Grand Old Party"? I sure don't... -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —Scott Arthur

(...) There is an easy way to sort that. (...) Why does anyone ever apologize for anything? (...) Is it the judgment you don't like, or the fact that the USA is being judged? Perhaps the French should be denied the right to free speech? Perhaps Bush (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —Richard Marchetti

No real arguments here, Scott -- just the reminder that your buddy, Blair seems to enjoy kissing Bush's behind. Of course, I am not saying that you agree with that; just pointing out the obvious deficiencies of your own "leaders" over there. -- (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —Scott Arthur

(...) I think both France and Germany have done a good job standing up to the Chimp [sorry, I meant Chump] in the Whitehouse. Scott A (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —John Neal

(...) Why should US citizens apologize to anyone because our world view happens to differ from other countries'? If I hear of one more Hollywood star say in a press conference in Europe that they hate America, I'm think I'm going to puke! I don't (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —David Koudys

(...) Whoa whoa whoa.. Are you reading your own papers? Folks have been held for 'questioning' for long periods of time, even when there are no charges against them. There are people living in, well, not necessarily fear of their lives, but at least (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —Dave Schuler

(...) Who has said this? Name the star, and give the citation. (...) The fact that you are unable to imagine a dissenting view by an intelligent, well-motivated person of good character is a fantastic indicator that you yourself are either of low (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —John Neal

(...) The quickest link I could find: (URL) (...) Dave!, tell me why I should care more about some Hollywood star's opinions than anyone else's. The media seems to think that because they make films, their opinions must be somehow more valid and so (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —Dave Schuler

(...) hating America. Unless you modify your complaint, you are explicitly equating Bush with America, which is insane nationalistic idolatry. And, frankly, that sort of kneejerk follow-the-leader thinking, not to mention your anti-world diatribes (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No, I think he was asking where YOU would get your morals... you reminded him where he gets his, which I presume he already knew. We've discussed morality and the origins thereof in the past and I think I'm in the rather small minority that (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —David Koudys

(...) Now that is something I can agree with. ('xcept Canada is the best country to live in, but that's just my humble opinion :) ) I don't have cites--thanks for reminding me of hte word-gerrymandering--just folks who live there and to whom I talk (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —John Neal

(...) I agree with you completely. I would like to discuss with you sometime our side discussion of joining the Republican party sometime (and I apologize to you for my loser***n jab-- I was just tweaking:) I was intrigued to learn that you would (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm not sure I said that or left that impression. Although my wife does accuse me of being a closet Republican (...) It's not the platform thats so bad in the GOP case (after you cut about 50% away) it's the practice. (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) (You don't have to fly me to Spain to get me to opine that I'm not particularly fond of him either, but if you wanted to, I'd go!) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —John Neal

(...) Click further and you read: ?It makes me feel ashamed to come from the United States ? it is humiliating.? ? JESSICA LANGE Whatever. -John (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...) —Dave Schuler

(...) I read the whole article, and so did Larry. Did you? Nowhere in it did Ms. Lang say that she hates America. This is not a trivial point, since it highlights your willingness to misread a text for your own purposes. I love the United States for (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Richard Marchetti

Lemme see, how can I put this in the most polite terms possible? O, I know -- self-censorship! Hey John: Shut the **** up! -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 6-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) What, and miss out on such cogent discourse? -John (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

The Uncalled For/Unhappy Return of the Dingus!!! (was Re: Vote against/for...) —Richard Marchetti

din·gus (ding??s) noun, Slang. An article whose name is unknown or forgotten. [Dutch dinges, probably from German genitive of Ding, thing, from Old High German.] -- Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John P. Henderson

(...) Dave, I am just curious, is your perspective that on a non-US citizen? Maybe you made clear where you're from in an earlier post, but in this context I just wasn't sure. Assuming you are from elsewhere, I certainly hope you do not think that (...) (22 years ago, 6-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Jeroen de Haan

(...) Well, maybe not as free as you might think... (URL) (who happens to be from the Netjerlands...) (22 years ago, 6-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Mike Petrucelli

(...) Yikes! Lets just throw in a "Sich heil" for fun too. (...) Freest? What do you mean freest, shouldn't that be simply free. Why are there limitations placed on freedom. Granted as mind bogglingly naive as your rant is, you have the right to (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Dave Schuler

(...) Are you referring to that stupid campaign to sue Peter Jackson for the name of the second film in the LoTR trilogy? If so, then I'm with you, in that I can't figure it out, either. It was really insensitive of Tolkien to name his books after (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Mike Petrucelli

(...) all (...) Actually I was referring to the removal of any reference of the World Trade Center towers. I was particularly annoyed that the deleted scene of Spiderman capturing a helicopter in a web between the the towers was not included on the (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Christopher Tracey

(...) I thought that the appearences of the WTC in the Spider-man movie were for promotional purposes only and never intended for the final cut? As far as I know there were two promotional scenes, one was a poster of a larger than life spider (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Dave Schuler

(...) Let's keep it in perspective; there has been no "removal of any reference" to the Towers. Last night on Spin City I saw a clear shot of them, and the syndicated Simpsons recently showed the episode in which the family treks to NYC and Homer (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) What fun is that, except to a German after reading your malapropism:-) (...) As in show me a freer country than the US (it's comparative) (...) I doubt any "coruption (sic) from within" will attempt mass murder upon the citizens of the United (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Richard Marchetti

(...) Great! So our goal is war with Saudi Arabia, right? ...er, wait, what the hell is this business with Iraq again? (...) Figures. -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Mike Petrucelli

(...) The people of a country are either free or they are not, there is no middle ground. (...) Well if we let them get away with illegal property seizure, illegal imprisonment, and other blatantly obvious facist acts, who is to say they won't try. (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Scott Arthur

(...) Have you never read the bible John? Was Goliath not MIGHTIER than David? It all depends on how you measure "might". Ghandi demonstrated where the real power lies. He was stronger than the then British Empire. (...) Let me guess, the USA is (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) I was measuring it militarily. How would *you* measure it? By height? (...) Well, you guessed wrong. The US doesn't happen to rule the world; she just makes sure that nobody else attempts to do so. (...) Look, I am not saying the US is (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —David Koudys

(...) <snip> (...) That, my friend, shows me that you really can't see the forest thru the trees. In no way, shape or form is Scott's expression racist. It actually shows to me that he sees the inherent racism in the system and tries to point it (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) You, my friend, are wrong. Making generalizations based upon skin color is the very definition of racism, no matter what the race. -John (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Dave Schuler

(...) So... Sickle cell anemia is racist. Giving birth to same-race children by same-race parents is racist Tendency toward sunburn is racist The greater incidence of lactose-intolerance among Asian ethnicities is racist The physiologic adaptations (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Scott is guilty of many sins, too many to list actually, but that particular observation (that historically, it's went better for you if you're white and well off than if you're not) wasn't racist, per se. If it were, why then, pointing out (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Scott Arthur

(...) Very few of us are perfect Larry. Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 8-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I got pulled over for DWB once! Well, okay, all they could see was my passenger, but the fix-it ticket was for a problem they couldn't see when they turned on their lights. Oh no! Now I'm racist too! Bruce Black Irish (22 years ago, 8-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —David Koudys

(...) See? Now this mentality of people, whether police or not, to automatically suspect people just 'cause they're black is the racist part. This is what makes *me* 'mad enuf to puke' Pointing out that DWB's happen is *not* racist--pointing out (...) (22 years ago, 8-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) DAVID!!! THE POINT BEING MADE *REALLY* IS THAT IT IS THE *RICH* WHO HAVE THE EASIER RIDE!!! It doesn't matter about their skin color!! Black millionares skate just as easily as white ones!! Sometimes better! Ask OJ. -John (22 years ago, 8-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) (22 years ago, 8-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) (whoops) Skate, yes. As easily? No. DWB *is* a real problem whether you admit it or not. (22 years ago, 8-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) Somehow DWB has become the example here, which wasn't the initial assertion. Initially, Scott asserted that success in America is somehow assured if your skin color was a particular shade. DWB is an issue of profiling, to which I have mixed (...) (22 years ago, 8-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...] —Scott Arthur

(...) Nope. I inferred that white folks have more "freedoms". That view is not "class warfare". That view is not “racism”. It’s a fact. When I was in Seattle a couple of months ago I notices 2 things: 1. Beggars tended to be black [and there was a (...) (22 years ago, 10-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...] —John Neal

(...) Well, you inferred wrongly. They have the same "freedoms" everyone else has. There is one law for everyone. (...) Give me an example of an American law that grants whites more freedoms than blacks. (...) Sounds like an economic issue to me as (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...] —Scott Arthur

John, You are being obtuse again. Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...] —John Neal

(...) Squirm. Please provide examples if you can of US laws that limit freedoms according to race. -John (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...] —Scott Arthur

(...) I never said there are "US laws that limit freedoms according to race". Did I? It is you who are squirming by avoiding the point - despite the fact that it has been made by more than just me. Shut-up or Put-up. Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...] —John Neal

(...) You: I inferred that white folks have more "freedoms". Well, what are they? -John (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...] —Scott Arthur

(...) More of them have the "freedom" to go on holiday in Edinburgh [Scotland] than do non-whites. ;) Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...] —John Neal

(...) And for the third time, I assert that you are speaking about economics, not race. But you have managed to bury my original objection to your initial post with a barrage of obfuscation. Well done. -John (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...] —Dave Schuler

(...) When the economics are driven by race and an undercurrent of societal racism (not in every single person, but as a demonstrable trend in cultural character), then the economics are a symptom of the underlying racism. The fact that you, along (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...] —Scott Arthur

(...) You don't think they are linked? Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...] —John Neal

(...) In what way are they *SPECIFICALLY* linked. -John (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...] —Scott Arthur

(...) I'm asking you john why you think non-whites in the USA are genetically predisposed to have disproportionately less economic freedom. Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...] —John Neal

(...) Are you serious?? I have been *trying* to point out to you that, not only is such a spurious allogation not true, but *IT IS RACIST*. I never once made such a claim. Are you still beating your wife? -John (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...] —David Koudys

(...) Not going to speak for Scott, but I took his meaning as: If we do a poll, we will find out that the *majority* of black people make a lot less money and live in disadvantagious areas of the US than the *majority* of white people. Since you, (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...] —John Neal

(...) Okay, but so what? Statistically, one group will *have* to make more than the other group-- what is the point? The point is that there are haves and havenots-- why introduce race into the equation? How does that ultimately matter? And what (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...] —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) How did blacks get into the "less money" hole? Are you honestly trying to sweep slavery, racism, Jim Crow laws, blocking of access to education, discrimination in the workplace under the rug? If you pretend that this didn't happen, then you (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...] —John Neal

(...) *Are* all blacks in the "less money" hole? Why not? Why are millions well off, dispite all of the things you mentioned? I am not trying to sweep all of those things under the rug; I am calling for people who use such arguments as excuses to (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...] —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Why not? Why are millions well (...) You choose to dodge my question, so I'll ignore yours for the moment. Are you claiming that blacks haven't been put into a difficult position in the first place due to factors mentioned above? You may ask (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...] —John Neal

(...) Not at all. Blacks *did* have serious civil rights issues. Most of the country has been able to get beyond simple racism. Today many blacks face many social and economic problems (as does everyone else!)-- but to continually blame racism is (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Scott Arthur

(...) Did you not once say all Palestinians were terrorists? Scott A (22 years ago, 8-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) No, no and NO! That is what *you* heard me say, even after me having explained my position numerous times. What I said (and I'm typing slowly so you can keep up here) is that anyone who *supports* terrorists are as culpable as the terrorists (...) (22 years ago, 8-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Dave Schuler

(...) Such as the terrorist act of laying waste to two whole cities, for example? Dave! (22 years ago, 8-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) I don't know to what you are referring, but I would say such as the terrorist act of laying waste to two whole *buildings*, yes. -John (22 years ago, 8-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I know where you're going, Dave! Don't go there! No one wants to rehash THAT one! Plus LFB would be annoyed he missed it! (you've got me humming "I think I'm turning Japanese" already so knock it off!) ++Lar (22 years ago, 8-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, my knowledge of WWII history isn't as solid as it could be, so instead I was referring to: "Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomor'rah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; and he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, (...) (22 years ago, 8-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Ross Crawford

(...) Interesting question / answer session: Q: Does Iraq have nuclear weapons capability? A: Probably (or close anyway), but not enough information. Q: Assuming they do, would they be prepared to use it in a war if they thought it justified? A: (...) (22 years ago, 10-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) Now ask: Q: Whose reasoning for use of nuclear weapons do you trust more-- Iraq or the US? A: ? -John (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Ross Crawford

(...) Well, since I've publically stated I think their reasoning in WWII was nothing short of terrorism anyway (lets not go there again), I'd have to say "neither", especially with dubya at the helm. Here's another question: Do you think that (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John P. Henderson

(...) Herein lies the real problem. You hit it right on the head with that question, Rosco. I am somewhat in favor of blasting violent people with violent retaliation, but I do fear that to some extent such activity can breed future violence. Many (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) I tell you, the word "terrorism" gets so over/misused. The purpose of terrorism is to evoke fear in a GP for the purpose of swaying opinion. We dropped the bombs on Japan to bring about a quick end to the war (that *they* started BTW), not to (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Pedro Silva

(...) Actually, the bomb was dropped to scare the Japanese, thus ending the war. I don't see that as terrorism, though - terrorism implies a much more prolonged chain of events than a couple weeks in August '45. Terrorism is ETA in Spain, IRA in (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) The two atomic bomb raids were not the only US bomb raids on Japan during the second world war. US low level incendiary bomb raids started much earlier. The aim of the night time bomb raids were the civillian population, which largely lived in (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Pedro Silva

(...) I know that. I was referring to the use of the two bombs as part of a larger conflict - they were not a terrorist act themselves, IMHO. (...) It is not terrorism, but it is close. The name for it is "total war", a concept that was born in the (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —David Koudys

(...) And I think that war is hell, and that when you're in a *war*, that it truly is an 'us and them' scenario. There is no denying that the 'politic', the 'intelligencia' and the 'people' have to be 'on-side' in order to fight and maintain a war (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) Not the believe like us or die variety. That may be been en vogue 100s of years ago for Christianity, but Christianity grew out of those dark times, and continues to change with time (although the basic message is the same). Islam has no (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Pedro Silva

(...) Islam is not "Believe or die", nor it ever was. Neither was Christianity. Yet, both religions were used as pretexts by loonies - that is inevitable! (...) I have a hard time believing Allah wrote the Khoran. Somehow I tend to follow a more (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Ross Crawford

(...) nothing (...) "neither", (...) here. Thanks for not going there again. (...) Where did I mention muslims? ROSCO (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Scott Arthur

(...) So who trained OBL? Who funded terrorists in central America? Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 10-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Scott Arthur

(...) John, you are being obtuse. Like I say below, Ghandi demonstrated where the real power lies. (...) By parodying a rather (in)famous Austrian, I was actually referring to your nationalistic outlook. (...) So as long as the US saves more than it (...) (22 years ago, 8-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) Look, for every "Ghandi" type example you give, I could give you 100s where the little guy gets squashed. There is no "real power", just power. (...) Your little parody fell on deaf ears because it isn't even *remotely* analogous. (...) I will (...) (22 years ago, 8-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Larry Pieniazek

C'mon John, stop making me defend Scott, it's really annoying. (while he did correctly point out that no one is perfect, he forgot to add that some of us are closer than others) (...) Straw dog. That's not what he said... He merely pointed out that (...) (22 years ago, 8-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) In what way *specifically* does it help to be white? I would say that, all things being equal, it *hurts* to be white. In PC corporate America, if you had 2 applicants for a job, both equal in all ways but 1 black and 1 white, whom do you (...) (22 years ago, 8-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I can only suppose you don't know the answer to this or you would have never posed the question. The white. Oh, it's not as bad as it was during the sixties, but since the people in charge of hiring are still overwhelmingly white males, that's (...) (22 years ago, 9-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Scott Arthur

(...) I thought that was self-evident. I read a quote the other day which I liked. It's from Ted Turner: "If I only had a little humility, I'd be perfect." Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 10-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Fiona Dickinson

(...) Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Perhaps you should remember this and then start to worry about how much power your president has. (22 years ago, 9-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) That is why our Founding Fathers created a government of checks and balances. Our executive branch has no such thing and absolute power. A nice aphorism, but not germane. But I will hold the example our world dominance today up against any (...) (22 years ago, 9-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Scott Arthur

(...) John, "responsible" is not the word I would use - name me a country that has a worse record with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? In the cold war, the USA [and others] tried to destabilise many nations. Today, the USA funds human (...) (22 years ago, 10-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) The former USSR. (...) You go, spin doctor. The cold war was a battle of idealogies-- Communism vs Capitalism. We won. As far as Israel goes, that is your POV and not fact; we just see things differently. -John (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) We are winning. It ain't over yet. There are still the PDRK and PRC to deal with... (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) Yes, we won (the fight with the *former* USSR), but still wage the battle. -John (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Scott Arthur

(...) Don't forget Comrade Castro! Take a look at what communism provides for Cubans in terms of healthcare and education: (URL) years ago this system was being ridiculed everywhere. Now, the world is not so sure." Scott A (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) You literary make me laugh out loud. Scott, why do you suppose Cubans risk their lives almost daily to try and land on US shores? To escape world class healthcare and education?? You think Cuba is doing well, eh? Let's wait until Castro (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Scott Arthur

(...) John, this is pure dogma. Read the text again. (...) 1) Who has been stopping companies investing in Cuba? 2) The USA has a dire record in offering development and humanitarian aid to developing countries [~1.25 dollars per U.S. citizen in (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) B as in B, S as in S. The US government gives more in raw dollars than anyone (hardly "dire"), and that doesn't even count *private* giving... -John (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Scott Arthur

(...) Nope, it is a fact. From oneworld.net: "America ranks last among all developed western nations in the amount of aid it provides foreign nations expressed as a percentage of its gross domestic product (GDP) about 0.08 percent, according to a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Scott Arthur

(...) More data: Country Foreign Aid % GDP Japan 0.28 France 0.55 Germany 0.31 USA 0.10 Netherlands 0.81 UK 0.28 Canada 0.38 These figures hide the fact that Isreal gets most of the aid from the USA. Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

The US gives too much/not enough aid —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Giving more in raw dollars and being lower as a percentage of GDP are not mutually exclusive if the GDPs are different, a fact being conveniently ignored by your detractors, John. This also omits private contributions, and the aid in kind for (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid —Scott Arthur

(...) I'm not ignoring anything. GDP is the standard way of measuring it - under Agenda 21, the Official Development Assistance (ODA) aid target of 0.7% of GDP was set. Even when measured per head of population, the USA is still hitting below its (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) Bingo. (...) Ouch! Truth. (...) Slam! Down goes Fraser! (...) And finally the punch that Ali never threw--Wow, new appreciation for Scott. (...) Wow! Scott hit the nail directly on the (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

"Slam! Down goes Fraser!" [?] —Scott Arthur

(...) You'll have to explain this colloquialism to me. Scott A (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "Slam! Down goes Fraser!" [?] —David Koudys

(...) Is much like if I say 'The Giants Win the Pennant!! The Giants win the pennant!!" but more apt--is the line the announcer said when the finishing blow in a famous boxing match was thrown--"Down goes Fraser!" = finishing blow = nail in coffin = (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Don't forget Lend Lease (did we ever get any of the lends back?) (...) True but irrelevant. What matters is who would have won if we hadn't entered, and if you conclude the Allies would have (not a foregone conclusion by any means), at what (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid —Dave Schuler

(...) No, but we got Dr. Who, Monty Python, Absolutely Fabulous, and The Young Ones. (...) The US benefitted in terms of the synthetic rubber industry, computer industry, aircraft manufacturing industry, and the certainly in terms of the advent of (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid —David Koudys

(...) Not hard at all--science. More specifics--space program, aeronautics, other stuff--yes the world benefitted from these things but specifically, the US--letting in German scientists and turning a blind eye to some atrocities during the war they (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid —Jason Maxwell

(...) Well considering the decision to drill in Alaska hasn't been made yet, and has failed every time so far that Congress has tried to pass it, I think you're jumping the gun on this one. I'd say that the U.S. is at worst split down the middle (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid —Christopher Tracey

(...) Hi Dave, I agree with you that these affect the global environment, but you do they show exploitation of the developing world? -chris (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid —John P. Henderson

(...) Not to get off-topic (well, this is the off-topic forum), but I am curious, what would the people making 10 cents a day make as income if U.S.ians didn't buy Nike shoes? Would they make nothing a day? Are there jobs in their countries that pay (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid —Christopher Tracey

(...) What about US corporations preventing their laborors in the third world from unionizing? I'm sure they have had a hand in local politics as well. Didn't anyone see Zoolander (half joking). (...) Pittsburgh has largely cleaned itself up. Most (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid —Christopher Tracey

(...) This statement should no have to be proved to such a keen observer of the world but since you asked. 1) I was reading about the island of Borneo the other day and the exploitation of the their rainforests to provide cheap lumber to Japan (a (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I'd argue the "true but irrelavant" charge. Ignore Europe, stomp Japan with all our resources (is anyone contesting we couldn't do it?) then deal with Germany. Japan only took so long because they were on the constant back-burner. It's a silly (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid —Scott Arthur

(...) I'm not "anti-American", I'm pro-justice. Understand the difference. Scott A (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid —Scott Arthur

(...) Have you been watching war movies again? ;) This is what Ambrose had to say about the D-Day campaign [a/the key WW2 campaign]: ==+== That a cross-Channel attack against the Atlantic Wall could even be contemplated was a tribute to what Dwight (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid —Scott Arthur

(...) Yes. (...) I expect the cost would have been high, but worth paying. (...) Others have already. But if it matters to you, feel free to disprove it. (...) I think it is every bit as relevant as WW1. The USA continues to make bad decisions – (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Dave Schuler

(...) Yeah, but don't think that those nations are being singled out; much of the US population is living at Third World levels, and they don't get any help from the US-at-large, either. Dave! (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) c /literary/literally/ (...) That's my guess... (if world class == "average" or even "median") (...) Apparently we're offering some as we speak. (URL) see all of them so far: (URL) and go through the calendar to choose them...) I know, I know, (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Healthcare [was Re: Vote against/for...] —Scott Arthur

(...) I expect you are correct. I searched for the WHO rankings, but I had no luck. Although I did find this: (URL) makes no mention of Cuba, but it does tell us the WHO places the US system at number 38 [very average]. The rankings appear to be (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Scott Arthur

(...) Has it dropped "the bomb", has it used biological and chemical weapons the way the USA has? I think not. (...) Not quite right, but does the means justify the end? (...) No john, it's a fact. You know. I know it. It's a fact. Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) The USSR denotated plenty of nuclear bombs. Or did you mean killing people at the same time? Yeah, we dropped 2 nukes (tiny by today's standards), but reluctantly. Had we a cache of bombs we would most certainly have provided a little (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Scott Arthur

(...) As did the USA, France and the UK. So why is the USSR worse than the USA? (...) You are being obtuse again. (...) All that's debateble. General Dwight D. Eisenhower: "Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

(...) I was thinking in terms of nuclear accidents-- part of the responsibility for utilizing nuclear technology is controlling it. And what of nuclear waste? Somehow I think the USSR didn't care as much for the environment as we did in this regard. (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Scott Arthur

(...) I said "weapons". (...) Nope. (...) OK, Eisenhower was wrong. (...) The debate is about WOMD. (...) I'll blame the US for giving it to Iraq, and having poor bio-secuity. (...) Sure. (...) LOL (...) Check your tax bill. (...) Indeed. I'll have (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Richard Marchetti

(...) Total crap -- it would be true in a constitutional or purely theoretical system; alas, we have only the government that has been left to us. Plus, you act as if everything going on is above board, and it is fairly obvious that much goes on (...) (22 years ago, 10-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) A judicial branch that is beholden to the son of an ex-president doesn't seem like much of a check and balance, but in theory.... (...) I thought the X-Files was cancelled? (...) Wrong Texan (not that I'd count Mr. Preppy as a real Texan). (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes: <snip> Please tell me that you are kidding here, because if you aren't, you are a looney. -John (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Richard Marchetti

(...) In the "dingus" part of the thread it isn't important to make sense, have a coherent line of argument, or even stick to a singular theory as to why anything should happen. What *is important* is to merely bully your opinion over on people (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vote against/for... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Been there, done that. But somehow Bush is still in office. And stronger for it, too. Bruce (22 years ago, 8-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)