Is this a repost or a rant?
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Duuuuude, what is that sh*t you are smoking? Pass it on brother! Sounds like bad ass d0pe! In pricisely what way is my description of the U.N. invalid? Do the people in your country get to vote for their representative in the U.N.? Do the people in China? Again, my question, why should I, as an American, a citizen of the only successful culture on the planet, the one culture holding the entire global community together, economically and socially, care to give any sort of respect to the U.N.? I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
Reverend Stan wrote: In pricisely what way is my description of the U.N. invalid? Do the people in your country get to vote for their representative in the U.N.? I vote for my representatives indirectly. The government selects who will be our representatives. And this is not a new and excentric version of democracy - have you ever voted for all the people in positions who control your life? I didn't think so. Democracy as we know it is here:
True democracy |----+-----------------------| Despotism
^-- "Modern democracy"So what's your point? UN is no less democratic than any other modern democracy. If we are going to have peace ever on this planet, a country can't act like an uncooperative bullie like you propose. -- Please state the nature of your medical emergency.
-
here's one http://bensguide.gpo.gov/9-12/index.html[^] :) -c
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
:-D Excellent! -- Please state the nature of your medical emergency.
-
Reverend Stan wrote: In pricisely what way is my description of the U.N. invalid? Do the people in your country get to vote for their representative in the U.N.? I vote for my representatives indirectly. The government selects who will be our representatives. And this is not a new and excentric version of democracy - have you ever voted for all the people in positions who control your life? I didn't think so. Democracy as we know it is here:
True democracy |----+-----------------------| Despotism
^-- "Modern democracy"So what's your point? UN is no less democratic than any other modern democracy. If we are going to have peace ever on this planet, a country can't act like an uncooperative bullie like you propose. -- Please state the nature of your medical emergency.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: So what's your point? UN is no less democratic than any other modern democracy. My point is that the UN is far less democratic than any western democracy. There should be no membership in the UN for any country that has a leadership which was not elected by some form of recognized democratic process. (Which, I suppose would currently exclude the US, which would be fine with me). "True democracy" should not be the goal. In fact, nothing could be more dangerous. But to empower a country such as China, non-democratic nations such as exist in the Middle East, Africa and Asia with any sort of internationally significant vote is absurd at best. The more the U.S. disengages from the U.N. the better off the world will be. The UN has evolved into an organization which exists only to counter anything which even remotely resembles being in the vested interest of the US and to promote the European world view in the most anti-democratic manner imaginable - a world view which has not evolved significantly since it produced the likes of Hitler and Stalin. When the Europeans finally free themselves from the belief that massively centralized federal system are the only possible solution to every possible issue confronting the human species than, and only than, will I take them and their little club (the UN) seriously. I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
-
:-D Excellent! -- Please state the nature of your medical emergency.
However, you should be aware that the "National versus State Government" section is the crucial area of disagreement within our body politic - and always has been. There is tremendous disagreement on this issue. There are many American's, myself included, who would argue that the federal government is becoming far too powerful in relation to the states - so much so that we are now barely distinquisable politically from any European nation. For example, traditionally an issue such as whether or not "flag burning" represented free speech would have been decided at the local and/or state level of government. But recently the federal government stepped in and decided the issue for the entire country. To many of us, this represented a decrease in personal freedom, not an expansion of it. It means the federal judiciary now decides issues that I used to have a say in at the local level. The definition of what constitutes free speech is supposed to be in the hands of my neighbors and I, not some federal judge. "Prayer in Schoool" is another good example of this disagreement. I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
-
Paul Riley wrote: Hmmm... the US should defy the UN and invade Iraq for defying the UN. Interesting logic I never said anything about invading Iraq for defying the UN. That is not a part of my logic at all. Hell, I admire Iraq for defying the UN. So should we - overtly and purposefully. If the Europeans don't like it, let them invade us. What I'm saying is that we Americans should consider the UN a non-entity altogther. The UN is a lifeless, gutless, powerless committee controlled by your standard set of European political buffoons. If *we* have a reason to invade Iraq, what ever that reason might be, we should do so without any regard whatsoever to the wishes, proposals or dictates of that organization. I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
small>Reverend Stan wrote: If the Europeans don't like it, let them invade us. That's true, we might be a threat. Do you know we have still nuclear weapons ? :-D Reverend Stan wrote: The UN is a lifeless, gutless, powerless committee controlled by your standard set of European political buffoons. If *we* have a reason to invade Iraq, what ever that reason might be, we should do so without any regard whatsoever to the wishes, proposals or dictates of that organization. Just a game: Replace UN by SDN (Society of Nations) and Iraq by Austria or Poland, and re-read it :eek: Some of those that work forces Are the same that burn crosses ! Killing In The Name/Rage Against The Machine
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: So what's your point? UN is no less democratic than any other modern democracy. My point is that the UN is far less democratic than any western democracy. There should be no membership in the UN for any country that has a leadership which was not elected by some form of recognized democratic process. (Which, I suppose would currently exclude the US, which would be fine with me). "True democracy" should not be the goal. In fact, nothing could be more dangerous. But to empower a country such as China, non-democratic nations such as exist in the Middle East, Africa and Asia with any sort of internationally significant vote is absurd at best. The more the U.S. disengages from the U.N. the better off the world will be. The UN has evolved into an organization which exists only to counter anything which even remotely resembles being in the vested interest of the US and to promote the European world view in the most anti-democratic manner imaginable - a world view which has not evolved significantly since it produced the likes of Hitler and Stalin. When the Europeans finally free themselves from the belief that massively centralized federal system are the only possible solution to every possible issue confronting the human species than, and only than, will I take them and their little club (the UN) seriously. I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
Reverend Stan wrote: My point is that the UN is far less democratic than any western democracy. There should be no membership in the UN for any country that has a leadership which was not elected by some form of recognized democratic process. Well, isn't the function of UN to try to guide these countries into democracy? The UN is respected by most countries and is a valuable tool when severe crisises surface. I'm not saying all countries respect the UN right now, far from it. But I guess if UN is given a chance to resolve conflicts in an objective way without the use of excessive violence, the oppinion of the people will change. When people are given the chance to think for themseleves, dictatorships will go away. Why do you think Hitler and other dictactors burnt books? Knowledge is power! You live in a free country right? And you like it right? I think all countries where all citizens may enjoy freedom, are obligated to educate people of countries where there is no full freedom. I think the UN is a perfect tool for this. Reverend Stan wrote: The UN has evolved into an organization which exists only to counter anything which even remotely resembles being in the vested interest of the US and to promote the European world view in the most anti-democratic manner imaginable - a world view which has not evolved significantly since it produced the likes of Hitler and Stalin. That's bullshit and you know it. The UN is about resolving conflicts with as little blood sheding as possible. What's so damn wrong about that? We all want to bomb Saddam into oblivion, who doesn't? But can you do it without killing innocent people? Do you think killing innocent people will help? Now that's a perfect way to breed new and improved terrorists. Reverend Stan wrote: When the Europeans finally free themselves from the belief that massively centralized federal system are the only possible solution to every possible issue confronting the human species than, and only than, will I take them and their little club (the UN) seriously. I wonder if this was the general oppinion of the 18th century people too before Washington started your little club. -- Please state the nature of your medical emergency.
-
Anyone seen the film "Dr. Strangelove" :~ Elaine (cowering fluffy tigress) Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
Reverend Stan wrote: My point is that the UN is far less democratic than any western democracy. There should be no membership in the UN for any country that has a leadership which was not elected by some form of recognized democratic process. Well, isn't the function of UN to try to guide these countries into democracy? The UN is respected by most countries and is a valuable tool when severe crisises surface. I'm not saying all countries respect the UN right now, far from it. But I guess if UN is given a chance to resolve conflicts in an objective way without the use of excessive violence, the oppinion of the people will change. When people are given the chance to think for themseleves, dictatorships will go away. Why do you think Hitler and other dictactors burnt books? Knowledge is power! You live in a free country right? And you like it right? I think all countries where all citizens may enjoy freedom, are obligated to educate people of countries where there is no full freedom. I think the UN is a perfect tool for this. Reverend Stan wrote: The UN has evolved into an organization which exists only to counter anything which even remotely resembles being in the vested interest of the US and to promote the European world view in the most anti-democratic manner imaginable - a world view which has not evolved significantly since it produced the likes of Hitler and Stalin. That's bullshit and you know it. The UN is about resolving conflicts with as little blood sheding as possible. What's so damn wrong about that? We all want to bomb Saddam into oblivion, who doesn't? But can you do it without killing innocent people? Do you think killing innocent people will help? Now that's a perfect way to breed new and improved terrorists. Reverend Stan wrote: When the Europeans finally free themselves from the belief that massively centralized federal system are the only possible solution to every possible issue confronting the human species than, and only than, will I take them and their little club (the UN) seriously. I wonder if this was the general oppinion of the 18th century people too before Washington started your little club. -- Please state the nature of your medical emergency.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Well, isn't the function of UN to try to guide these countries into democracy? When does it intend to start? I see a world becoming less democratic, not more so. Even my own country is sadly following this trend. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: But I guess if UN is given a chance to resolve conflicts in an objective way without the use of excessive violence, the oppinion of the people will change. I think they have been given the better part of 60 years to prove their worth - only to consistently proove the opposite. The UN has established an environment in which every despote on the planet knows they will be treated with kid gloves regardless of how evil they act. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Why do you think Hitler and other dictactors burnt books? Because they possessed the power to do so. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Knowledge is power! One man's knowledge is another man's indoctrination. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: That's bullshit and you know it. The UN is about resolving conflicts with as little blood sheding as possible. What's so damn wrong about that? My opinions on European politics is based upon my firm belief that dependency upon political systems is the primary source of political evil. The reason that Hitler and Stalin were both enevitable was because they were able to acquire the reins of power in a political system which the common people looked to for their basic welfare. Such systems are fraught with danger. Europe, as a civilization, refuses to acknowledge that simple fact and continues to adher to politcal philosophies which make it virtually inevitable for Hitler like personalities to acquire power. You have learned the wrong lessons from your own history, and left to your own devices, are doomed to repeat it. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: We all want to bomb Saddam into oblivion, who doesn't? But can you do it without killing innocent people? Do you think killing innocent people will help? Now that's a perfect way to breed new and improved terrorists. Evil always hides behind innocence. That is the very nature of evil. If we cannot confront them militarily because some innocents might get hurt, and we cannot isolate them economically because innocents are hurt, what are we left with? Tolerating evil. I believe that all goverments acquire their power to go
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Duuuuude, what is that sh*t you are smoking? Pass it on brother! Sounds like bad ass d0pe! In pricisely what way is my description of the U.N. invalid? Do the people in your country get to vote for their representative in the U.N.? Do the people in China? Again, my question, why should I, as an American, a citizen of the only successful culture on the planet, the one culture holding the entire global community together, economically and socially, care to give any sort of respect to the U.N.? I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
Reverend Stan wrote: a citizen of the only successful culture on the planet, the one culture commercially and military successful, si. but culture? Pass on the dope, rev.... It's not that the earth would fall apart if the US would vanish in a poof of smoke. :cool: (which is a way :cool: thought)
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
-
Anyone seen the film "Dr. Strangelove" :~ Elaine (cowering fluffy tigress) Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
Reverend Stan wrote: why should I, as an American, a citizen of the only successful culture on the planet Only successful culture ? ;P Lets see, in Texas at the moment there are in excess of 1.5 million children without healthcare (this was on a news programme about two months ago). I have a friend in Florida who was ill and was seen by a doctor under this 'workmans comp' scheme. He was sent home as 'fit' with a fever of 105 degrees and collapsed outside the clinic. :mad: Elaine Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
Trollslayer wrote: Lets see, in Texas at the moment there are in excess of 1.5 million children without health I live in Texas and know that statement is totally false. There are 1.5 million with out independant health insurance, not health care. We can thank the lawyers for making the insurance so expensive that the typical lower income families can not afford it. And then have to use the county health system when ill. When my son was born (16 years ago) the 70% of the cost of the treatment for my wife was for malpractice insurance for the doctor and hospital. Not for care, I assume it has gotten worse.:mad: "If I won't be myself, who will?" Alfred Hitchcock
-
Paul Riley wrote: Hmmm... the US should defy the UN and invade Iraq for defying the UN. Interesting logic I never said anything about invading Iraq for defying the UN. That is not a part of my logic at all. Hell, I admire Iraq for defying the UN. So should we - overtly and purposefully. If the Europeans don't like it, let them invade us. What I'm saying is that we Americans should consider the UN a non-entity altogther. The UN is a lifeless, gutless, powerless committee controlled by your standard set of European political buffoons. If *we* have a reason to invade Iraq, what ever that reason might be, we should do so without any regard whatsoever to the wishes, proposals or dictates of that organization. I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
Reverend Stan wrote: The UN is a lifeless, gutless, powerless committee controlled by your standard set of European political buffoons. Er maybe I missed something, but aren't most politicians buffoons, regardless of where they come from? If not that, they're corrupt or always squabbling. :(( The whole concept of politics seems to intrinsically attact people who are unqualified to run a country by the standards of any sane (as opposed to mundane lol) person. Remember Dan Quayle and Michael Foot? One US, one Brit - and equally skatty. Enough said :wtf: <rant> Send them all to the Fletcher Memorial Home (listen to Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut" if you don't get it), and let the rest of us get on with our lives. </rant> Anna :rose: "Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch -
1.5 million children went blind with glaucoma in Texas alone???!!!!! Oh my god, its a crisis!!!! We need more government to protect the children from glaucoma! I think I know more about what it is like to be poor in the U.S. than do you. Here's a story for you. In the late 1950's my mother went blind. She needed surgery on her eye's to replace her corneas. At that time such surgery was very experimental and very expensive. There was no government health care to use, we did not have a stich of insurance of any kind, my father was out of work due to his own health problems. Yet my mother got her surgery thanks to the Lion's club. My father was soon back on his feet with help from the local churches. We children never did without. We did not need insurance. We did not need complex government programs. The reason those children are going blind from glaucoma is *because* of government intervention in what would otherwise be a perfectly workable health care system if it were simply allowed to function in a natural, unfettered, capitalisitic fashion. It is *your* principles that have blinded those children, not mine. My ideas work, yours do not. Supporting socialistic principles may make you feel good about yourself, but they do not help anyone. They hurt people, espescially the poor. I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
-
Reverend Stan wrote: a citizen of the only successful culture on the planet, the one culture commercially and military successful, si. but culture? Pass on the dope, rev.... It's not that the earth would fall apart if the US would vanish in a poof of smoke. :cool: (which is a way :cool: thought)
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
-
Sarcasm and bloody mindedness doesn't suit you Stan. I'd give it up if I were you. No country is perfect - the US included. Get used to it. Anna :rose: "Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschAnna :) wrote: Sarcasm and bloody mindedness doesn't suit you Stan. I'd give it up if I were you. Maybe, but I can misuse statistics with the best of 'em. Anna :) wrote: No country is perfect - the US included. Get used to it. When did I say it was? I would simply argue that ours is the best currently available, all things considered. Why does my belief that Socialistic principles harm the poor constitute "bloody mindedness" but the beliefs of others that Capitalistic principles do the harm is not? I want to help the poor, I believe unfettered capitalism is the best way to do that - hardly "bloody minded". "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Reverend Stan wrote: a citizen of the only successful culture on the planet, the one culture commercially and military successful, si. but culture? Pass on the dope, rev.... It's not that the earth would fall apart if the US would vanish in a poof of smoke. :cool: (which is a way :cool: thought)
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
You've obviously never listened to Waylon Jennings over a plate of catfish and Coors beer down at the trailer park. Culture indeed! "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
1.5 million children went blind with glaucoma in Texas alone???!!!!! Oh my god, its a crisis!!!! We need more government to protect the children from glaucoma! I think I know more about what it is like to be poor in the U.S. than do you. Here's a story for you. In the late 1950's my mother went blind. She needed surgery on her eye's to replace her corneas. At that time such surgery was very experimental and very expensive. There was no government health care to use, we did not have a stich of insurance of any kind, my father was out of work due to his own health problems. Yet my mother got her surgery thanks to the Lion's club. My father was soon back on his feet with help from the local churches. We children never did without. We did not need insurance. We did not need complex government programs. The reason those children are going blind from glaucoma is *because* of government intervention in what would otherwise be a perfectly workable health care system if it were simply allowed to function in a natural, unfettered, capitalisitic fashion. It is *your* principles that have blinded those children, not mine. My ideas work, yours do not. Supporting socialistic principles may make you feel good about yourself, but they do not help anyone. They hurt people, espescially the poor. I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
Reverend Stan wrote: Here's a story for you. In the late 1950's my mother went blind. She needed surgery on her eye's to replace her corneas. At that time such surgery was very experimental and very expensive. There was no government health care to use, we did not have a stich of insurance of any kind, my father was out of work due to his own health problems. Yet my mother got her surgery thanks to the Lion's club. My father was soon back on his feet with help from the local churches. We children never did without. We did not need insurance. We did not need complex government programs. ...and now 50 odd years later, in a society raised on the virtue of 'Dog eat dog', make it on your own or git in the ghetto, you and your parents would be fucked. There is no community spirit any more Stan, I can only reach back into the 70's in my memory of people helping others out in my community. They are now all dead and no-one and I do mean no-one gives a flying rat's arse if it doesn't concern them directly. Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "I personally love it because I can get as down and dirty as I want on the backend, while also being able to dabble with fun scripting and presentation games on the front end." - Chris Maunder 15/07/2002