82nd Airborne Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Agian, this is simply wealth redistribution. "Damm you have money... let's give to this guy who doesn't." Call it what it is, don't claim it is "polution control" when those poluting won't be effected by it. Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Cav, all well and good but Jeff does make some valid points. Try not to look at it as a snapshot in time but an evolving thing. The first step is to get an economy running, then lean on them for the polution controls. It will be in their best interests to conform as it was ours. Simply making the requirements for them the same as ours will effectively halt the process before it begins. Certainly there are some "mid range" targets for even the thirld world in polution control so as not to resort to the times of the industrial revolution. Anyway I still think we should have tougher polution control laws anyway...just because it's the right thing to do. Pie in the sky? Maybe. But you have to start somewhere. Regards ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kunzler: "And that is precisely why I am not going to answer your loaded question" Great example of obfuscation there. Are you sure you are not an attorney? Or a politician? Oops, more labels. Can I still call you "Jeff"? "The funny thing is, after moving to New York, I just filled out my voter registration, and, as always, checked the box next to Republican Party." Hmmm, you may want to rethink that. Take from the rich and give to the poor is classic bleeding heart politics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And you woder why I am not interested in answering your stupid questions? Without an ounce of evidence other than my point about global pollution control, you have already determined that not only am I liberal, but apparently I am a "bleeding heart" liberal who advocates wholeale redistribution of wealth. That is precisely why I am uniterested in answering any questions about my thoughts on environmentalism. You have no interest in my opinions, you merely wish to place anyone who does not conform to your narrow view of the way the world works into your "liberal" box, which you are going to do anyway. Still going to defend this guy CavScout? Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: You're right, I'm not one of the rich at all. And let me tell you, paying for a computer, CM, and an ISP is a bitch on those welfare checks. I haven't eaten in 3 weeks, but at least I can escape my dull reality in the vivid world of cyberspace. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I hardly claimed you to be poor either. Are you "rich"? If so, what "share" do you give to others so they are "better off"? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Oh, and comparing the redistribution of wealth to racism is a loaded and misleading comparison, I think. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, not when one tries to validate an opinion by its age. Your use of the "age" of the idea was misleading and irrelevent. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My point in saying that it's an old idea is that it's not some new plot cooked up by the UN to defraud the wealthy nations of the world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Of course I would point out that one of the oldest, I believe it is the oldest, governments <sub>(NOTE: I said GOVERNMENT not COUNTRY or NATION)</sub> has been the US Governemnt. It is also one of the few to have resisted the socialistic movement. There is a reason for it durability and I beleive it is the thinking that one should work for their living and not be handed it. Cav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie: Al Gore is British? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insu Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 Dear Minnesota Joe, I have read some of the posts but not all, excuse me if I repeat anything. I´m from Sweden, a very small counntry in Europe as you probably know. Every Swede without any handicap has do to service. I did 15 months as a sergant, platoon leader, in the Military Police. Sweden has a very long engagement in the U.N. peacekeeping forces, actually taking part in real combat operations in Kongo. I never personally took part in any operation though I did apply to go to Bosnia. What connection do I have with Bosnia. None, whatsoever. Why did I want to go? Cause I like war zones? - No . Because as a fellow human beeing I feel that us living in prosperity have an obligation to help out. Even though I didn´t have a choice on whether or not to join the Swedish army, I did and is still prepared to go to war for Sweden even if that means going to Bosnia, Zimbabwe or anywhere else. I really hope you feel the same cause if you don´t I really don´t understand your purpose with joining the army. As for the U.N. issue. U.N. is not well organized, as a matter of fact their organisation stinks. U.N. does not have any authority over the US military and never will have. The has a permanent place in the security council which allows them to VETO any decision, like Mr Clinton has today. I agree that the US have been and are kind of miscredited for some actions they take but in general they are credited for most operations. Why should US forces be sent "god knows where". Well, naturally because we are also sent "god knows where" AND think about it: Would you rather go as a US soldier with US equipment or as a soldier from another nation? Please, don´t be so selfish. I really apprecite that you write this and question your feelings about it but always remember that there are soldiers from small countries with worse equipment that also quietly ask why in gods name they have been sent to a place like that? Good luck in the army and make yourself proud by thinking that you actually have a great possibility of helping others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82nd Airborne Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg: Ok, some of y'all are seriously overmedicated. As for those who hate America, fine why you on this American forum,supporting an American game company? jeez, gidouddaheah! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can't count myself in one of the above but I must point out the ole right to free speech thingy to ya. You might have heard about it in the papers. Price of democracy I'm afraid. Boy I hope I've posted enough to make member status now. Cheers ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But you have to start somewhere. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree and I think you start with those polluting not those who used to. Cav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: And you woder why I am not interested in answering your stupid questions? Without an ounce of evidence other than my point about global pollution control, you have already determined that not only am I liberal, but apparently I am a "bleeding heart" liberal who advocates wholeale redistribution of wealth. That is precisely why I am uniterested in answering any questions about my thoughts on environmentalism. You have no interest in my opinions, you merely wish to place anyone who does not conform to your narrow view of the way the world works into your "liberal" box, which you are going to do anyway. Still going to defend this guy CavScout? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Untill you answer, I suppose so. You HAVE supported the idea of wealth distribution to "fix" the enviroment on the global scale, it is hardly unreasonable to conlcude you'd do the same on a national scale. That you continue to dodge the question does raise certain "red flags". Cav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82nd Airborne Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kunzler: [b Hmmm, you may want to rethink that. Take from the rich and give to the poor is classic bleeding heart politics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Worked for Robin Hood, so I am for it. The perfect ballot would be R.Hood for Prez with Tarzan has his running mate. (bet he's an environmentalist though) All in fun lads. Still trying to make member status. ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 Cav - In comparison with 99% of the world's population, yes, I am rich. Compared to some, no, I'm not. I donate 10-15% of my paychecks to a few humanitarian and educational organizations. Believe me, I'm well aware of the areas in which I'm hypocritical, and this isn't one of them. Second. I was not attempting to use age to validate the redistribution of wealth. I explained in my last post why I mentioned age. If it was unclear, I hope this will make it less so. Third. You turn right around and use age to validate the US government. Yes, it has been long-lived in comparison to many other governments. But, as you say, age and durability are not validations of an idea. Fourth. I think that there are very few people in the world who wouldn't love the chance to work for a living. Yes, there are people who are lazy. Yes, there are people who abuse the system and look for free handouts. I believe that these people are the exception rather than the rule. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: How was my question loaded? You advocate paying third-world countries to become compliant with enviromental regulations. The question is do you think a similar approach nationaly is warranted as well?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I do not advocate "paying" anyone anything. I said that if the US expects other countries to spend vast sums of money to become compliant with the rules that the US wishes to set, then the US is going to have to help with those costs, siply because otherwise those countries will simply refuse. That is why your question is loaded. Like your friend, you insist on couching it in terms of your choosing in an effort to make it appear something different than what my position is. What do you hope to accomplish by these games? Just be straighforward and honest. Ask a question in such a manner that you do not invalidate the answer. That is not a opinion, it is a fact. China and India are NOT going to quit dumping CO2 into the atmosphere because Germany (or the US) asks them to. They are not going to harm themselves simply because the US thinks that they should. You can whine, moan, graon, and complain about how unfair that is, but that is reality. The questions is not whether or not this is fair or not, it is whether or not it is important enough to take the necessary action on. As far as domestic evironmental issues go, I do not think they are remotely analagous to the global issues. But all political decisions are about what works and what is possible to accomplish. So, the answer is, of course, "it depends". I know that you are going to complain that I am evading, but the simple fact is that this is not a simple issue with simple solutions. I certainly make no claim that I know what the solution is. I do know there is a problem, and throwing up our hands and refusing to address it would be the worse solution of all. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 82nd Airborne: Price of democracy I'm afraid. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's why we are a Republic! "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759 [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-08-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Untill you answer, I suppose so. You HAVE supported the idea of wealth distribution to "fix" the enviroment on the global scale, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is just plain untrue. I have NOT supported that idea in any way, shape, or form. For example, I do not think that the US (the rich) should help pay for Tonga (the poor) to be better environemntalists, simply because Tonga does not pollute to a signifacnt degree. It has nothing to do with rich and poor. That is a variable that you introduced, and then claimed that I supported. Another exmaple of building a strawman. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82nd Airborne Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: That's why we are a Republic! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I like Bens quote too. Maybe I should have refered to the Constitution then, regarding free expression of ideas and such. Oh, BTW, define Republic. I am not clear on its meaning. ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 82nd Airborne: I like Bens quote too. Maybe I should have refered to the Constitution then, regarding free expression of ideas and such. Oh, BTW, define Republic. I am not clear on its meaning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Literal definition of republic is a country which is governed by a representative body rather than a hereditary ruler. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sneaky Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 "Fourth. I think that there are very few people in the world who wouldn't love the chance to work for a living. Yes, there are people who are lazy. Yes, there are people who abuse the system and look for free handouts. I believe that these people are the exception rather than the rule." I sure hope so. Having lived with a welfare family for 1.2 years and experienced their side of living, the problems faced, etc. it grieved me to come to the conclusion that as long as free handouts were available they would be used. Many (not all) of the people I came to know wanted to work but the system had so many disincentives, they preferred to sit around and do nothing. The do-nothings will be the exception when we stop making it the only avenue available. At it's heart, redistribution of wealth encourages this kind of result and perpetuates the exact thing it is trying to erradicate. Sneaky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: I do not advocate "paying" anyone anything. I said that if the US expects other countries to spend vast sums of money to become compliant with the rules that the US wishes to set, then the US is going to have to help with those costs, siply because otherwise those countries will simply refuse. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you going to argue semantics? "Helping" with the costs is the same as "paying" them. Having rich countries give money money to poor countries to become compliant is "paying" them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> That is why your question is loaded. Like your friend, you insist on couching it in terms of your choosing in an effort to make it appear something different than what my position is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hardly... but one has to wonder if this is not hypocrisy as you seem to be "couching" the "terms" to hide what is happening. How you can claim that having the US give MONEY to another country to improve their enviromental situation is not "paying" them is beyon me. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What do you hope to accomplish by these games? Just be straighforward and honest. Ask a question in such a manner that you do not invalidate the answer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The one playing games seems to be you. You are the one quibbling over the definition of "paying". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> That is not a opinion, it is a fact. China and India are NOT going to quit dumping CO2 into the atmosphere because Germany (or the US) asks them to. They are not going to harm themselves simply because the US thinks that they should.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And should the US harm itself by both taking away money from itself and supporting a country, such as China, who is building a military to compete with the US? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You can whine, moan, graon, and complain about how unfair that is, but that is reality. The questions is not whether or not this is fair or not, it is whether or not it is important enough to take the necessary action on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which is another debate. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As far as domestic evironmental issues go, I do not think they are remotely analagous to the global issues. But all political decisions are about what works and what is possible to accomplish. So, the answer is, of course, "it depends".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why is a polluting factory in China different than one here in the US? Heck, IMO, the one here should be the one "paid" to clean up over one a few thousand miles away. Cav ------------------ "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." --Bertrand Russell "God is always with the strongest battalions." --Frederick the Great "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759 "For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business." --D. W. Brogan, The American Character Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kunzler Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 Jeff, your responses and characterizations of my posts are starting to get a bit nasty. Please do not get offended just because we are having a debate. I have nothing against you and am not here to offend you. Look, I didn't say you are a liberal. If you are not a liberal, then you are not a liberal. This is not a witch hunt. If you are a liberal, I have not said anything disparaging about liberals. I have merely attempted to point out a fallacy in two positions that are often taken by people, whether liberals or not. The point is about principle. I respect views that are grounded on principle, whether I agree with those principles or not. If you take opposing views on two related issues, however, I have to wonder about those principles. For the record, I am not necessarily against compensating nations for implementing environmental reforms. There are things like most favored nation trading status, loans, foreign aid, and the like that can be used to encourage developing countries to make those reforms. That would be principled, IMO. As would compensating those domestically who are put in a worse position due to environmental reforms. And the ones espousing the reforms should be the ones coughing up the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sneaky: The do-nothings will be the exception when we stop making it the only avenue available. At it's heart, redistribution of wealth encourages this kind of result and perpetuates the exact thing it is trying to erradicate. Sneaky<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I disagree, but I suspect there's little either one of us can do to convince the other that we're right. On second thought, actually, I will elaborate. I believe that there's a minimum threshold, below which people will never be able to provide for themselves. The threshold is of education, healthy food, decent health care, a clean place to live. There are too many people who live below this threshold, and as such, don't ever have a chance to succeed on their own. Raise people above this threshold, by whatever means necessary, and I believe they'll earn the money back in spades. I agree that the present system of welfare doesn't do the poor any favors, and does indeed encourage people to do the minimum possible and pick up their checks. But I believe that this is not an integral part of the human condition, that it can be overcome, and that it needs to cost us more before it can cost us less. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. [This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 09-08-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: This is just plain untrue. I have NOT supported that idea in any way, shape, or form.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would make use of the edit function then... "So, I think the US and other Western antions should be much more heavily penalized than other countries, and I have no problem with the US and other western nations being asked to subsidize other countries efforts to become compliant."--Jeff Heidman <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It has nothing to do with rich and poor. That is a variable that you introduced, and then claimed that I supported. Another exmaple of building a strawman. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Naw... I am sure it is just accident that West is more "rich" than those that you'd like "helped". The only "strawman" seems to be your 'Presidentsque' evasion on semantics. Cav [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-08-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Not talking about that Brit trying to patent the hyperlink so they can charge per use are you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I hope not, I'm referring to Tim Berners-Lee - "inventor of the World Wide Web". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sirocco: Well, I hope not, I'm referring to Tim Berners-Lee - "inventor of the World Wide Web". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Did he invent the term WWW? Is that what you mean? Edit: [Never mind! http://www.w3.org/ is an interesting site.] [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-08-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumbo Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 Cav http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/bernerslee.html This is the dude. Frankly as the WWW has been such an international collaboration I dont think anybody can take credit for it but (shrug) certainly Americans and Brits were involved. -SNIP the above - Looks like I was wrong the dude did invent it. Learn something new everyday and I am a Brit too. _dumbo [This message has been edited by dumbo (edited 09-08-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felixgrey Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 Wow, you guys have gone a ways from the original question....but I just walked in and want to fire an answer to Joe. Currently, I'm still serving in the Ar.Cav (1-10 CAV, 4ID) and it is one of the best military organizations in the world. One of the few places where you have scouts,tanks, aircraft, and indirect working hand in hand 100% of the time. As for the UN, don't worry about it so much. I've been deployed four times and have seen various things. One of the things that effected me the most, was the time I was in Kuwait and a man who had been tortured by the Iraqis came up to me weeping and personally thanked me for being there to help protect their country. (and that was about a year ago.) The army is a good job, but be prepaired to be very flexible. As for officers (being that I am one) it's all about the individual. Some are good/squared away, others are POS. Same for NCOs and EMs. It's all about personality and how well you work well with other. Good Luck... and now back to your debate. -Scott -Scout's Out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sneaky Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 Chupacabra, Yes, I agree that people will rise above things once a certain minimal level has been reached. And it will certainly cost more before it costs less. But in two different ways. One where the people who have the means to help give up some of their wealth to stop the cycle (and this is currently done via taxation and entitlements). And two, the cost for those affected in breaking that cycle. It is not easy, neither psychologically, spiritually, nor physically. I was living with a 3rd generation family and believe me they would suffer first before they gained. I would also mention that education, housing, and food were all taken care of for them. But there was no incentive for them to take advantage of the program since the reality of a brief painful future as they made the transition kept them from taking the leap. In that sense then, the easy road seems to be chosen. Is the solution to make the transition "easy" with more money? Who knows. Then I visited Mexico and Guatemala. Our poor look rich...and who was more motivated to work? Makes you wonder... Sneaky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts