Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
The reason why I posted the article was to make clear that just because something is done under the auspices of the UN does not make it righteous or beyond reproach.
|
The only person who might disagree with you on this point, so articulated, is that Thotham fellow, and he hasn't been around lately.
Quote:
|
If there is not enough food there, how are the soldiers using it as sexual currency?
|
Huh? Its scarcity is what gives it value.
Quote:
|
My statement that I would not pay more taxes should not be viewed in a vacuum. If I believed that there was zero to little waste, an increase in taxes would be more palatable, though I would much prefer charitable donations as those are voluntary and would likely guarantee that more net dollars were used for their intended purpose.
|
In other words, I beat on you and you're changing your answer.
Quote:
|
Your statements as to ownership of tax dollars are inherently inconsistent. I'll let you figure that one out on your own.
|
I know what you're saying, but it's hooey. No matter who "owns" the tax dollars, you want to take them from the NEA to give them to poor African prostitutes, but not from your pocket.
Quote:
|
The UN angle did nothing to my game. I have already stated that in general freedom to contract would be my position, but in this case there is no real choice in the matter - the women can either prostitute themselves or starve and I do not see this as a policy the merits freedom of contract protection.
|
And yet you're not willing to have the UN spend more on famine relief -- at least not unless someone else pays for it but you don't have to -- and you are only using this situation to bash the UN, which is the only institution -- so far as I know -- actually there doing something to help these people.
'nuff said.
