Do you oppose the Korean War in hindsight?

[Flanders]

The affirmation was Flanders, I asked for him to give solid evidence, and he publishes Herr Paul's submitted act with no evaluation of its cost benefits to us a nation.

I ask him to do so, and he keeps deflecting.

To JakeStarkey: Unusual wording. You went from debating me to addressing the people who might be following this thread. What a pathetic attempt to elicit support.

I’m content to let anyone who is interested decide for themselves which of us is deflecting.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I summarized Herr Flanders' less than acceptable postings.

Once he gives us the costs benefits analysis, I will be glad to give correct, accurate information in rebuttal.

 

[Flanders]

Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey

The UN is the creation of the US, and still often furthers US interests.

To suggest it should go away without any cost benefit analysis for the US is silly.

Quote: Originally Posted by Flanders

To JakeStarkey: Fine. Offer one. I wait with bated breath for the benefit you place on lost sovereignty.

Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey

Don't have to offer anything because no one has offered any evidenced reason why we should leave.

The affirmative is on you, Flanders, why we should leave the UN.

Quote: Originally Posted by Flanders

To JakeStarkey: It was you, not me, that introduced a cost benefit analysis. I offered you the opportunity to make your case.

Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey

The affirmative is on you, Flanders, why we should leave the UN.

Quote: Originally Posted by Flanders

To JakeStarkey: In a word SOVEREIGNTY. If you want precise details read HR 1146:

Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey

Thank you, Flanders, for FINALLY offering something, which is your duty to do.

Now that you have posted Herr Paul's act, give us a cost benefit analysis of withdrawing from the UN.

We all can respond once you have finished your duty of affirmation.

Quote: Originally Posted by Flanders

To JakeStarkey: My, my, what a clever little fellow you are. You brought it up. You do it. Or are you too stupid to prove your case with your own suggestion?

Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey

It is YOUR act, son, not mine.

Your affirmation requires you to do the heavy lifting.

Quote: Originally Posted by Flanders

To JakeStarkey: No It doesn’t. HR 1146 speaks for itself.

The truth is you were trying to sound intelligent by calling for a cost-benefit analysis. When I called upon you to produce one you realized you lack the intelligence to follow through. Now, you’re trying to weasel out by calling on me to make your case for you. Every filthy little sneak I dealt with in 13 years tried that game by asking clever questions.

Proof that what I say about you is true: Had I not posted HR 1146 you would lack an excuse for NOT presenting your cost-benefit analysis. Now either put up or shut.
Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey

The truth is that you posted a proposed Act without any discussion of its merits, podjo.

Until you do, no one can really respond.

To dialogue, you have to think critically and you are not doing that.
To JakeStarkey: Don’t you realize print is different than a face to face discussion! You may talk your way out of your stupid remarks when arguing with the folks down at the local gin mill, but you can’t weasel out once it’s in print; especially not with me. I have too much experience dealing with liberal sidewinders. You’re all the same. Everyone of your kind thinks that debating means demanding answers to sly questions.

Now, for the last time let’s review the “debate”!

You foolishly said the UN often furthers US interests. You who demand proof from me provided no proof of the UN’s usefulness to American interests. To support your first idiotic claim you trotted out cost-benefit analysis as though you knew what you were talking about. In short: Fools love using big words; cost-benefit analysis is your big word.

I then gave you the opportunity to back up your claim. It was at that point you realized you had dived into a pile of crap, and the only way to pull yourself out was to distance yourself from your a cost-benefit analysis blunder.

A close reading of the above permalinks proves that you wanted no part of cost-benefit analysis after you brought it up.

NOTE: I wonder how you would have handled it had another poster asked you to provide a cost-benefit analysis!

You next asked me a question I chose to answer because it gave me the opportunity to post the text of HR 1146. That was your golden opportunity to turn it around. Never mind that anybody with an ounce of brains could see that Res Ipsa Loquitur applied; you had to ask for more information because you were drowning in your own crap and any lifeline was better than going under. A person with any sense would have kept their shut at that point, but not you. Like so many of your kind on message boards —— getting in the last word proves you’re not a half-wit in your own mind no matter what you said previously.

I’ll close with a bit of friendly advice. For once in your life think critically and keep your mouth shut before your own crap engulfs you.

I summarized Herr Flanders' less than acceptable postings.

Once he gives us the costs benefits analysis, I will be glad to give correct, accurate information in rebuttal.

To JakeStarkey: Number 79 permalink says it all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Flanders' keeps dodging.

If he posts an affirmation, then he must post the evidence and explanation of such. He has not.

He simply can't stand being corrected, which is his problem not mine.

My duty is to keep him on the straight and narrow.

 

[GHook93]

You have two countries of the SAME people. You have two countries that started their current political and economic structure at the same time. You have the communist/socialist in the North and the capitalist democractic free marketers in the South.

The North is an utter failure. One of the poorest countries in the world. A country that has consist famines, no industrial improvement and one of the weakest economies in the world, despise mucho support from two superpowers (China and the Soviets then and Russians now). North Korea has been one of the biggest failures in the history of the world.

Then you have the South. A FIRST WORLD industrialized RICH country. They have a thriving economy, never have famines and export a ton of goods they produce. They are a successful country in every sense.

 

[Flopper]

You have two countries of the SAME people. You have two countries that started their current political and economic structure at the same time. You have the communist/socialist in the North and the capitalist democractic free marketers in the South.

The North is an utter failure. One of the poorest countries in the world. A country that has consist famines, no industrial improvement and one of the weakest economies in the world, despise mucho support from two superpowers (China and the Soviets then and Russians now). North Korea has been one of the biggest failures in the history of the world.

Then you have the South. A FIRST WORLD industrialized RICH country. They have a thriving economy, never have famines and export a ton of goods they produce. They are a successful country in every sense.

Thanks for bringing the discussion back to the Topic of this thread. I think Korea provides a dramatic comparison between success and failure of two ideological opposites.

There is something that's been bothering me about these NK threats against the US mainland. We dismiss them based on the fact that NK doesn't have the missile capability of delivering a payload to the US. But who said they have to use a missile to deliver a nuclear device? There are a number of ways to bring a nuclear weapon into the US which in my opinion are much more likely to be successful that a 6,000 to 7,000 missile shot. I'm surprised the media hasn't been all over this.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have two countries of the SAME people. You have two countries that started their current political and economic structure at the same time. You have the communist/socialist in the North and the capitalist democractic free marketers in the South.

The North is an utter failure. One of the poorest countries in the world. A country that has consist famines, no industrial improvement and one of the weakest economies in the world, despise mucho support from two superpowers (China and the Soviets then and Russians now). North Korea has been one of the biggest failures in the history of the world.

Then you have the South. A FIRST WORLD industrialized RICH country. They have a thriving economy, never have famines and export a ton of goods they produce. They are a successful country in every sense.

Thanks for bringing the discussion back to the Topic of this thread. I think Korea provides a dramatic comparison between success and failure of two ideological opposites.

And the South has a first rate nationalized health care system.

 

[Flopper]

You have two countries of the SAME people. You have two countries that started their current political and economic structure at the same time. You have the communist/socialist in the North and the capitalist democractic free marketers in the South.

The North is an utter failure. One of the poorest countries in the world. A country that has consist famines, no industrial improvement and one of the weakest economies in the world, despise mucho support from two superpowers (China and the Soviets then and Russians now). North Korea has been one of the biggest failures in the history of the world.

Then you have the South. A FIRST WORLD industrialized RICH country. They have a thriving economy, never have famines and export a ton of goods they produce. They are a successful country in every sense.

Thanks for bringing the discussion back to the Topic of this thread. I think Korea provides a dramatic comparison between success and failure of two ideological opposites.

And the South has a first rate nationalized health care system.

Yes, its a good example of a county that embraces the free market and yet supports a rather socialist healthcare system, that's one of the best in world.

In Korea, doctor’s offices and hospitals are privately owned, except a small number of community hospitals. There is a national health insurance, funded by nationally levied tax, in which everyone must enroll. Private health insurance exists to cover expenses that the national health insurance does not cover, primarily treatments that are not medically necessary and deductibles.

 

[Flanders]

I wonder how many people who think North Korea has a claim on South Korea realize they are supporting a governing monarchy which is what NK has. Three generations of Kims constitutes a ruling monarchy in any country. I can think of no other Communist regime that became a monarchy after being started by a dictator.

A few years ago I speculated that before American Communists are finished they will try to succeed where the Soviets failed; i.e., create a productive working class with one purpose in life: Maintain the religious Communist nobility. Socialism/Communism is a religion; so the prospect of a religious Communist monarchy would be humorous were it not for the type of person that is sure to be elevated.

Indeed, the press is always identifying American royalty; the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, etc. American royalty even has sub-chapters; Hollywood royalty, professional athlete royalty, and probably some I don’t know about.

Also, today’s social structure in Europe evolved from a mix of communism and monarchy without ever having tried severely limited representative government.

Maybe I was looking in the wrong places trying to figure out why limited government is in short supply even though it offers the most freedoms and the highest standard of living to the most people. I should have been looking at North Korea’s Kims.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Flanders is correct to note what communist cadres do: create elitist classes supported by the masses.

Corporatists fight regulations so they can do the same thing.

Libertarians fight laws so they can do the same thing.

 

[Desperado]

Thanks for bringing the discussion back to the Topic of this thread. I think Korea provides a dramatic comparison between success and failure of two ideological opposites.

And the South has a first rate nationalized health care system.

Yes, its a good example of a county that embraces the free market and yet supports a rather socialist healthcare system, that's one of the best in world.

In Korea, doctor’s offices and hospitals are privately owned, except a small number of community hospitals. There is a national health insurance, funded by nationally levied tax, in which everyone must enroll. Private health insurance exists to cover expenses that the national health insurance does not cover, primarily treatments that are not medically necessary and deductibles.

Wonder if they could still afford it if the United States was not paying for their military.

 

[Flopper]

And the South has a first rate nationalized health care system.

Yes, its a good example of a county that embraces the free market and yet supports a rather socialist healthcare system, that's one of the best in world.

In Korea, doctor’s offices and hospitals are privately owned, except a small number of community hospitals. There is a national health insurance, funded by nationally levied tax, in which everyone must enroll. Private health insurance exists to cover expenses that the national health insurance does not cover, primarily treatments that are not medically necessary and deductibles.

Wonder if they could still afford it if the United States was not paying for their military.

It's certainly more afford than American style health care where the per capita costs are three times what they are in South Korea.
Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries | PBS NewsHour