Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 139
  1. #41  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    Got any data to back that up? I would like to see a per capita overview of charities/build up programs.
    Too lazy to look it up yourself

    It would probably be instructive for you to do so using your own "trusted" sources.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  2. #42  
    Originally posted by yardie
    By homogenous I mean one of the same (in terms of religion/ethnicity etc.). Political fissures can be worked. However, ethnic / religious differences are in-grained.

    I beg to differ. A true hard lined socialist can never come to any true understanding with a hard lined capitalist. Difference is difference.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  3. #43  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    Too lazy to look it up yourself

    It would probably be instructive for you to do so using your own "trusted" sources.
    NOFI but that reply sux...
    You claim a thing so you should back it up... the burden of proof lies with you ...
    I'm only asking for data per capita since even if the total amount is highest in the Us that doesnt say much.. if say the us pays $1 per person that is a lot higher than if say belgium pays $100 per person, while IMHO belgium pays more..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  4. #44  
    Originally posted by yardie
    So let me get this straight. The thinking and philosophy of the Left is not original but those of the Right are? I always thought it was the thinking and philosophy of both sides that differentiate the left from the right?

    I personally consider myself a centrist. Still I always voted for the conservative candidate in elections.


    What I said was that what I hear coming out of the mouths of the Left (are you of the "Left"?) comes out exactly the same from every "Lefty" I talk to, etc. I don't know what they're thinking, or if they are thinking at all for themselves. I just read a Leftist Op/Ed piece and get parroted the same stew back. It's frustrating to discuss facts with someone and have them ignore the facts and vomit yesterdays newspaper editorial on your shirt. I probably (apparently?) came across a little too direct. I have to admit that you actually discuss this instead of swearing and such.

    I must keep reminding myself that the world would be boring if everyione agreed.

    Here's an example: AIDS is killing millions of children a year in Africa. The most successful way to prevent AIDS is abstinence. (To see how it works just look at how a Christian led faith based movement has completely turned around Ugandas AIDS rates.) Yet the Left still supports condoms and sex education as the only viable way to prevent AIDS because they don't like the idea of people not being "free" to have sex. They would rather show films on sex education and give out free condoms, even though it doesn't have any real effect on the AIDS rate, because they are philosophically opposed to abstinence training because they see it as coming from a religious rational.

    BTW For a centrist you have been floating ideas that seem to fall to the left. I consider myself a conservative and you'll probably agree that I'm coming from the right, although I definitely don't fall into the Republican camp for many reasons.

    Back to the aid question. I was taking my figures from raw dollar figures for straight aid (not loans , etc.) 2001 and don't actually know where it all falls for 2002. I did exaggerate when I stated that the USA gives more than all our enemies/friends combined. I should have said that excepting Japan (who is consistently neck and neck with the USA) the USA is the largest giver overall (in 2001 approximately just over 1 in every 5 foreign aid dollars came out of the US coffers - out of the 22 largest givers) . I got a little hyperbolic. :sheepish grin:

    We also are hovering around a $40 billion trade deficit right now, meaning we're buying more from you than you buy from us. For example, we ran approx. $4 million per month in trade deficit to Canada alone in 2002, accounting for a loss of $49,761.60 ( .60 cents!) between just the USA and Canada.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  5. #45  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    NOFI but that reply sux...
    You claim a thing so you should back it up... the burden of proof lies with you ...
    I'm only asking for data per capita since even if the total amount is highest in the Us that doesnt say much.. if say the us pays $1 per person that is a lot higher than if say belgium pays $100 per person, while IMHO belgium pays more..
    Wow you're fast. I was just doing so and find this waiting for me!
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  6. #46  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    NOFI but that reply sux...
    You claim a thing so you should back it up... the burden of proof lies with you ...
    I'm only asking for data per capita since even if the total amount is highest in the Us that doesnt say much.. if say the us pays $1 per person that is a lot higher than if say belgium pays $100 per person, while IMHO belgium pays more..
    BTW Why does that matter? People don't suffer in proportion to their national income average. That's silly. A better question would be how does this money get adminstrated and handled. Does the UN, IMF, World Bank get the funds? What do they do with it? Who (if anybody) oversees their stewardship? Does it go straight to a country? What do they do with it?

    Do more people live better because Belgium gave more per capita, but much less overall (in your example), or do the Belgians just feel better about themselves? FYI - Belgium gave $866 million (.37% of GNP) in 2001 compared to the USA giving $10.884 billion (.11% of GNP).

    I still thinks it better for people to look this stuff up for themselves, and to cross verify it for themselves. I personally like to get as many peoples numbers on the table as possible and compare them. It's fun to see who rounds up and down and in regards to what.

    I also think everybody could be giving more. I personally give a minimum of 10% of my income (off the top, before taxes) every week and still find ways to give extra when the need arises. It's just money, I can make more of that.

    What's NOFI mean?
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  7. #47  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    BTW Why does that matter? People don't suffer in proportion to their national income average. That's silly. A better question would be how does this money get adminstrated and handled. Does the UN, IMF, World Bank get the funds? What do they do with it? Who (if anybody) oversees their stewardship? Does it go straight to a country? What do they do with it?

    Do more people live better because Belgium gave more per capita, but much less overall (in your example), or do the Belgians just feel better about themselves? FYI - Belgium gave $866 million (.37% of GNP) in 2001 compared to the USA giving $10.884 billion (.11% of GNP).

    I still thinks it better for people to look this stuff up for themselves, and to cross verify it for themselves. I personally like to get as many peoples numbers on the table as possible and compare them. It's fun to see who rounds up and down and in regards to what.

    I also think everybody could be giving more. I personally give a minimum of 10% of my income (off the top, before taxes) every week and still find ways to give extra when the need arises. It's just money, I can make more of that.

    What's NOFI mean?
    The importance is it sounded like you were beating your own chest and I wanted to point out that if you put things in perspective the US is probably not as generous as you may think... Things like these are things that acknoledge the 'arrogant american' stereotype.. just wanted to warn you for that...

    NOFI= NO Flame Intended..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  8.    #48  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    ... inspite of our economy chugging slowly along presently, we still are the most prosperous country in the world.
    Based on what do you think this is true? I hope you do not rely on economical growth rates for a comparison of prosperity, since it is well known that these are not comparable between different economies.

    For instance, the US have lost 2 million jobs in the last 24 months, while in Europe 2 million jobs were created, despite the fact that the indicated growth rates in the US were higher (I could give you the reference, but as you told us, you prefer to look these things up yourself). Also the capacity utilization in Europe is on a much higher level than in the US. In addition, other countries like Luxembourg have a higher per capita income than the US. And for me, it seems difficult to call a country prosperous as long as a major part of the population does not have health insurance.
  9.    #49  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    Here's an example: AIDS is killing millions of children a year in Africa. The most successful way to prevent AIDS is abstinence. (To see how it works just look at how a Christian led faith based movement has completely turned around Ugandas AIDS rates.)
    Having worked in Africa for I while, when I first read your example about a "Christian led faith based movement [that] has completely turned around Ugandas AIDS rates" thanks to abstinence, I found it extremely unlikely.

    Having looked up a reference (http://www.who.int/inf-new/aids2.htm), I now know it is bull****. Where did you get that crap from? Here some quotes from the World Health Organisation:

    "social marketing of condoms and self-treatment kits for sexually transmitted infections, backed up by sex education programmes, have helped reduce very high HIV infection rates [in Uganda]"

    "Sex education programmes in schools and on the radio focused on the need to negotiate safe sex ..."

    "a USAID-funded scheme to increase condom use through social marketing of condoms has boosted condom use from 7% nationwide to over 50% in rural areas and over 85% in urban areas"

    So please spare us such religiously inspired fairy tale stories, and please check your references before posting nonsense.
  10. #50  
    Originally posted by clulup
    So please spare us such religiously inspired fairy tale stories, and please check your references before posting nonsense.
    How about play nice, clulup?
  11.    #51  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    How about play nice, clulup?
    But I did say please twice, no?

    OK, the tone was a bit harsh, sorry for that - content-wise, I stand by what I have written (see posting below).
    Last edited by clulup; 05/06/2003 at 11:23 AM.
  12.    #52  
    Here it comes again, more nice hopefully:

    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    Here's an example: AIDS is killing millions of children a year in Africa. The most successful way to prevent AIDS is abstinence. (To see how it works just look at how a Christian led faith based movement has completely turned around Ugandas AIDS rates.) Yet the Left still supports condoms and sex education as the only viable way to prevent AIDS because they don't like the idea of people not being "free" to have sex. They would rather show films on sex education and give out free condoms, even though it doesn't have any real effect on the AIDS rate, because they are philosophically opposed to abstinence training because they see it as coming from a religious rational.

    Having worked in Africa for a while, when I first read your example about a "Christian led faith based movement [that] has completely turned around Ugandas AIDS rates" thanks to abstinence, I found it extremely unlikely.

    Having looked up a reference (http://www.who.int/inf-new/aids2.htm), I now know your example has nothing to do with reality. Where did you get that story from? Here some quotes from the World Health Organisation:

    "social marketing of condoms and self-treatment kits for sexually transmitted infections, backed up by sex education programmes, have helped reduce very high HIV infection rates [in Uganda]"

    "Sex education programmes in schools and on the radio focused on the need to negotiate safe sex ..."

    "a USAID-funded scheme to increase condom use through social marketing of condoms has boosted condom use from 7% nationwide to over 50% in rural areas and over 85% in urban areas"

    Indeed, when looking at well established facts (see reference), it turns out that things are quite the opposite of what you claim.

    So please please be careful with things you claim and do not post examples that do not withstand a reality check. After all, such false claims cast doubt also on other things you write.
    Last edited by clulup; 05/06/2003 at 11:15 AM.
  13. #53  
    Originally posted by clulup
    Here it comes again, more nice hopefully:[...]
    So please please be careful with things you claim and do not post examples that do not withstand a reality check. After all, such false claims cast doubt also on other things you write.
    Thank you!! Sorry for my sua sponte Hall Monitoring!
    KC
  14. #54  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    The importance is it sounded like you were beating your own chest and I wanted to point out that if you put things in perspective the US is probably not as generous as you may think... Things like these are things that acknoledge the 'arrogant american' stereotype.. just wanted to warn you for that...

    NOFI= NO Flame Intended..
    thanks
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  15. #55  
    Originally posted by clulup


    Based on what do you think this is true? I hope you do not rely on economical growth rates for a comparison of prosperity, since it is well known that these are not comparable between different economies.

    For instance, the US have lost 2 million jobs in the last 24 months, while in Europe 2 million jobs were created, despite the fact that the indicated growth rates in the US were higher (I could give you the reference, but as you told us, you prefer to look these things up yourself). Also the capacity utilization in Europe is on a much higher level than in the US. In addition, other countries like Luxembourg have a higher per capita income than the US. And for me, it seems difficult to call a country prosperous as long as a major part of the population does not have health insurance.
    You can spin it any way you want to. I'm basing it on assets, cash and property. We still have more natural resources than all of Europe combined. Feel free to dispute it, but the US economy in 2001 equaled $10,065,265 (US) which was still bigger than the next five countries (Japan, Germany, UK, France, and China) - these figures from the World bank (which combined didn't quite crack $10 billion). That's what I meant about the US being the most prosperous nation in the world. I wasn't talking about per capita income, individual purchasing power, but economic dominance.

    As to you view of health insurance, what do you think medicaid/ medicare is?

    Quite a few people in the US, like myself, don't want health insurance, nor any form of socialized medicine.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  16. #56  
    Originally posted by clulup


    Having worked in Africa for I while, when I first read your example about a "Christian led faith based movement [that] has completely turned around Ugandas AIDS rates" thanks to abstinence, I found it extremely unlikely.

    Having looked up a reference (http://www.who.int/inf-new/aids2.htm), I now know it is bull****. Where did you get that crap from? Here some quotes from the World Health Organisation:

    "social marketing of condoms and self-treatment kits for sexually transmitted infections, backed up by sex education programmes, have helped reduce very high HIV infection rates [in Uganda]"

    "Sex education programmes in schools and on the radio focused on the need to negotiate safe sex ..."

    "a USAID-funded scheme to increase condom use through social marketing of condoms has boosted condom use from 7% nationwide to over 50% in rural areas and over 85% in urban areas"

    So please spare us such religiously inspired fairy tale stories, and please check your references before posting nonsense.
    Having read your post with some amusement (wow, working in Africa makes you an expert?) I couldn't quite decide where to start.
    Could it be the remarkable turn around in AIDS figures in Uganda (quite easily found)?

    Could it be the Uganda AIDS Commission itself which stresses in it's practical section of it's website Abstinence, Fidelity, and Condom - in that order?

    Could it be the Ugandans that I have spoken to personally that have told me their stories?

    Please check your religious bigotry at the door. Just because you don't want to believe doesn't mean a hill of beans to the people of Uganda who have turned their country around.

    Read this for more "religious fairytales".

    Since AIDs spreads itself thru sexual transmission, or directly through shared blood ("dirty needles") it's obvious that abstinence would be the number one way to stop transmission. Faith based organizations are in a unique position to work at this problem from that direction because abstinence is a tenet of Christian living. You may not agree with it, which is your right, but you can't deny it's validity and it's success.

    If you go to the USAID site and read the Uganda Report you will find many references to NGOs.

    If you go further into the USAIDS site you will find further references to these NGOs and see that they do most of the community centered work. The turn around has occured because people are having sex later, with fewer partners, or waiting until they get married (one partner).

    And of course the Ugandan who heads the AIDs commission (since 1995) is a Christian that thinks invovling local churches is a good thing.

    :thumb to nose: Nyahh Nyahh
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  17.    #57  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    Having read your post with some amusement (wow, working in Africa makes you an expert?)
    I never claimed to be an expert, but if your misunderstandig makes you feel amused, it's ok for me.

    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    Could it be the remarkable turn around in AIDS figures in Uganda (quite easily found)?

    Could it be the Uganda AIDS Commission itself which stresses in it's practical section of it's website Abstinence, Fidelity, and Condom - in that order?
    I cannot comment on this site because it is offline presently.


    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    Please check your religious bigotry at the door. Just because you don't want to believe doesn't mean a hill of beans to the people of Uganda who have turned their country around.

    Read this for more "religious fairytales".
    I see no indication of bigotry in my statement, maybe you can show me?

    As to this reference, I found a number of interesting statements, like "We deeply regret instances where FBOs [Faith Based Organisations] have contributed to stigma, fear and misinformation" - That was also the impression I got when being in Tansania, which is similar to Uganda.

    And even this reference mentions the importance of condoms as a means against the spread of AIDS.

    However, I do not doubt that FBOs can in principle have a beneficial role, if they get rid of ideological burdens that can often have an extemely negative effect (like stigmatizing AIDS, etc.). Apparently, this has happened in Uganda, but in other countries FBOs continue to play a very dubious role.

    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    If you go to the USAID site and read the Uganda Report you will find many references to NGOs.

    If you go further into the USAIDS site you will find further references to these NGOs and see that they do most of the community centered work. The turn around has occured because people are having sex later, with fewer partners, or waiting until they get married (one partner).

    And of course the Ugandan who heads the AIDs commission (since 1995) is a Christian that thinks invovling local churches is a good thing.
    I never doubted that NGOs can play an important role. Why do you think I did?

    The importance of FBOs is only mentioned as one point out of eight in your reference, and not at all in the WHO reference I cited. Of course it is true that changes in sexual behaviour (less partners, later start of sexual activity, safe sex) can have an important role in the reduction of AIDS cases, but it is naive to think this change can be attributed to FBOs (alone), as you claim. Only because FBOs find it important to promote abstinence (as you put it) does not mean it is because of them that the change happens.

    And, again, also your reference shows that the marketing of condoms had a "key" role in the reduction of the spread of AIDS, even if they assume that other changes in sexual behaviour were more important.

    Your statement "To see how it works just look at how a Christian led faith based movement has completely turned around Ugandas AIDS rates" still lacks supportive evidence.
    Last edited by clulup; 05/07/2003 at 05:09 AM.
  18. #58  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    The most successful way to prevent AIDS is abstinence.
    Hm, the experts in the region don't seem to think so.. they seem to think that the FBOs in the area are being counterproductive by stigmaticizing AIDS:


    "Each year, more and more people die from the disease and it is the stigma and misinformation around HIV that is killing people," said Juan Manuel Suarez del Toro, President of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

    "Faith-based and other prominent organisations" which actively condemned the use of condoms or singled out high risk groups "for blame and discrimination", were hampering the fight against the disease, the Federation said in a statement issued today.
    Methinks the Red Cross/Red Crescent hardly qualify as pinko liberal organizations. Story Here
  19. #59  
    Originally posted by septimus
    Hm, the experts in the region don't seem to think so
    By definition, without regard to stigma, religion, social mores, etc, the best prevention of spread of any sexually transmitted disease is abstinance.
  20. #60  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    By definition, without regard to stigma, religion, social mores, etc, the best prevention of spread of any sexually transmitted disease is abstinance.
    Technically you are 100% right.. if you dont have sex you cant get a (purely) sexually transmitted disease...

    However, people will have sex. period... some people may even have sex against their will.
    So abstinance IMHO is only a theoretical sollution.. it goes against human nature (against nature in general actually...)
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions