Debate : 18194


Off-Topic / Debate / 18194

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)