• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Improving the UN.

Wow, one person.

Do you believe that is the only time that has happened?

If the UN is the only option, or some global forum packed with third world dictators, then how come we negotiate out of it?

How about you give your alternative instead of just criticizing? Again, you offer no alternatives aside from leave without explaining how that would be better in solving the problems the UN cannot do now. Offering no viable alternatives is not a solution. I'll wait.

Awsome,then calculate this. Lets say you tear down the UN, and put up 2 40 story buildings on site, that area of midtown rent often goes for $5000+, in order to pay that rent and live in the city, you would need to make lets say $200,000 a year.

Okay... you do know that it's primarily office buildings around there no?

Which is going to bring in more revenue? people who drive to the un to work US tax free, or residential appartment skyscrapers which would add thousands of residents to ny and bring in tax and economic benefits.

Except your equation is lacking. Removing the UN removes, as I have calculated, over $300 million in spending. Tell me, replacing that with residential buildings, a mere two of them and causing office rents to decline significently in the area, how much is that going to bring in? You gave the counter argument, how about you do some math to show that such activity will bring in more than $300 million in spending along with increases in rent. I'll wait.

Put some effort into your posts.

The UN, is a drag on the city, the real estate is being wasted on the international house of dictators.

In your opinion. Which you have yet to substantiate with any calculations.

Good for you, you put the effort in but is was an incomplete picture. you speculated, wrongly I might add about what diplomats spend in the city

Show me how I was wrong about what diplomats spend in the city. Merely because you declare something wrong does not equate to being wrong. Where is your reasoning for why my calculations are wrong other than your belief that they are wrong which you have yet to substantiate. I'll wait.

and you failed to see the difference between having a building full of no tax paying freeloaders vs a residential housing skyscrapers that would eclipse any contribution the UN makes to the economy of ny.

No tax paying freeloaders? Tell me, what is the sale tax in NYC? Tell me, do foreign property owners get exempted from property taxes? As for your statement about residential housing skyscrappers, you again have yet to provide any evidence to support your claim. I provided basic spending and how that would add to the local economy. Where is your calculations showing that the residential housing would add more? You say it, but you don't show any math at all to even remotely back up such a claim. I'll wait.

Watch:

Cop out, you made a speculative calculation and excluded primary points to arrive at a poor conclusion.


Again, didn't have to change a single word to turn it around.

Answer, which would bring more to the economy of NYC, apartments there, or the UN?

Don't know. What I did was provide calculations for impact of UN spending in the city. I have nothing to compare it to aside from your insistence that residential would add more, yet I see absolutely nothing given by you to support such a position. So how can you assert that the apartments would add more when you have not done the math to calculate their economic activity?

All your argument is at this point is your desire to support your internal belief that the UN is bad economically with a desire not to do any work to show how such a belief is correct. I'm open to the notion that the apartments would be more then $300 million in activity, but as to date, you have not done an ounce of work to show that other than saying that they would. I'll wait.


So how about you back your claim up with something other than "I say so?"


You don't get how it works around here do you. When you live in NJ and work in ny, most of the time, you spend very little money in the city.

Since when did circumstantial evidence based on life histories count as empirical evidence?

So you're telling me that staff assigned to a diplomat who work long hours in the city don't spend their money in the city? That in the few hours they have outside of the city is where they spend the vast majority of their money? Really. Please provide evidence for this. I'll wait.

no, you just speculated how much they make. you have shown no evidence what they actually spend in the city, nor did you consider if the UN was the best value for the land.

Which is no different from what you are doing right now. Except based on research, my numbers are exceptionally lowballs:

Cato Handbook for Congress: The United Nations

That's for the 105 congress and based off of 1990s era data. The notion that a head diplomat gets paid much less than what the UN Secretary General got more then a decade ago is laughable.

And low and behold, $140,000 was the base pay of one of the Dutch diplomats at the UN, not the head one:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1A1-D90U3QU84.html

Furthermore, I'm not even counting the actual UN Staff, just the foreign dignitaries entourages. So my bottom line number should be significently higher.

The burden of proof of cost falls on you. Not me. Stop trying to get me to do your homework. You claim that the UN costs more. Therefore it is your job to prove that they cost more than they bring in. You should be thanking me that I've given you base rates of spending to compare it to.

sorry man, doing math on the internetz doesn't mean much when you cant correlate it into the economy...

Better than your argument of "they cost more because I say so."

Put some effort into your posts for a change.
 
I dont think its that bad an idea in principle. Its fairly common for democratic systems to lapse into becoming authoritarian systems so isnt the existence of an external check a good thing?
Not really because it would give potentially disruptive and tyrannical power to an even bigger and less accountable organisation. That has been a quite familiar pattern over history, the centralised organisation gets involved just as a little bit of a check such as fuedal monarch on his vassal or free city and sooner or later takes on more and more power. Some checks are necessary but they must be very limited imho, certainly no more power is needed for the UN.
 
So you already get rid of China and Russia right off the bat. Its even more impotent than the league of nations.



Except dictators tend to start wars and kill people, not squawk. And if China and Russia start stuff, the members of your U.N. are going to be in deep ****.



The purpose of the U.N. is be an forum to deal with international issues. If dictators run the country, you have to deal with them, because they call the shots. Power is what rules the world, not democracy.

Did you ever take time to notice how China will veto any effot to stop genocide in Sudan or how Russia threatened to veto any effort to stop the big bad bear carving up Georgia?

The UN does not stop war, nor are tyrannical nations afraid of it, they use it, why?

Because they can.

Hence we come back to power, it is a struggle, and the democratic world should not faciliate the legitimacy of the tryannical.

We should use the power we have, because the tyrant sure will.
 
Last edited:
Do you believe that is the only time that has happened?

did I say that?


Please put some effort into your critical thinking.


How about you give your alternative instead of just criticizing? Again, you offer no alternatives aside from leave without explaining how that would be better in solving the problems the UN cannot do now. Offering no viable alternatives is not a solution. I'll wait.


Alternative is, as I said, national soveriengty..... we do without the UN all the time, the UN solves nothing. why have something that does not work?

It's the logical alternative.....


But you "keep waiting" for an answer you like. :roll:



Okay... you do know that it's primarily office buildings around there no?


As a New Yorker, i chuckle at the notion that they would replace east river river front real estate with office buildings....


and you are wrong, the neigborhood is a mix of high rise apartment building. but you go on with your ignorance, tell me how there are "primarilly" office buildings in that midtown neighborhood.





Except your equation is lacking. Removing the UN removes, as I have calculated, over $300 million in spending. Tell me, replacing that with residential buildings, a mere two of them and causing office rents to decline significently in the area, how much is that going to bring in? You gave the counter argument, how about you do some math to show that such activity will bring in more than $300 million in spending along with increases in rent. I'll wait.


again, with the ignoance. :lol: this isn't kentucy, on the land that occupies the UN you could have several high rises, that would in the same land mass, house equal to more than say trump place and its 5,700+ $5,000 a month+ apartments....

What does one need to afford an apartment like that in NYC? Please, I think the "math" is obvious..


Put some effort into your posts.


Why I am playing down to the present company. :shrug:



In your opinion. Which you have yet to substantiate with any calculations.


calculations from ones waste ejection port is in no way "substantiation" sorry.



Show me how I was wrong about what diplomats spend in the city. Merely because you declare something wrong does not equate to being wrong. Where is your reasoning for why my calculations are wrong other than your belief that they are wrong which you have yet to substantiate. I'll wait.


Show me you are right, you made a baseless claim simply on guessing salaries.... and thier economic contributions to the city. show me proof.... then when we have a logical foundation, we can continue this line of discussion, until then, i am not playing some nerd math version of qiennes mas macho with you. sorry.


No tax paying freeloaders? Tell me, what is the sale tax in NYC? Tell me, do foreign property owners get exempted from property taxes? As for your statement about residential housing skyscrappers, you again have yet to provide any evidence to support your claim. I provided basic spending and how that would add to the local economy. Where is your calculations showing that the residential housing would add more? You say it, but you don't show any math at all to even remotely back up such a claim. I'll wait.

See above. I will add, which would be better for the city, income tax free individuals, or replace them with tax paying residents?

we don't need speculative and guesswork math to answer this question. sorry.


Watch:

Cop out, you made a speculative calculation and excluded primary points to arrive at a poor conclusion.


Again, didn't have to change a single word to turn it around.



Don't know. What I did was provide calculations for impact of UN spending in the city. I have nothing to compare it to aside from your insistence that residential would add more, yet I see absolutely nothing given by you to support such a position. So how can you assert that the apartments would add more when you have not done the math to calculate their economic activity?

All your argument is at this point is your desire to support your internal belief that the UN is bad economically with a desire not to do any work to show how such a belief is correct. I'm open to the notion that the apartments would be more then $300 million in activity, but as to date, you have not done an ounce of work to show that other than saying that they would. I'll wait.


So how about you back your claim up with something other than "I say so?"


You first. how about you back up your claim, blah blah blah.... with something other than guess work....


It's out there, perhaps you should do some searching. :lol:




Since when did circumstantial evidence based on life histories count as empirical evidence?

So you're telling me that staff assigned to a diplomat who work long hours in the city don't spend their money in the city? That in the few hours they have outside of the city is where they spend the vast majority of their money? Really. Please provide evidence for this. I'll wait.



Which is no different from what you are doing right now. Except based on research, my numbers are exceptionally lowballs:

Cato Handbook for Congress: The United Nations

That's for the 105 congress and based off of 1990s era data. The notion that a head diplomat gets paid much less than what the UN Secretary General got more then a decade ago is laughable.

And low and behold, $140,000 was the base pay of one of the Dutch diplomats at the UN, not the head one:

Dutch government concedes housing subsidy for U.N. diplomat broke rules | Article from AP Worldstream | HighBeam Research

Furthermore, I'm not even counting the actual UN Staff, just the foreign dignitaries entourages. So my bottom line number should be significently higher.

The burden of proof of cost falls on you. Not me. Stop trying to get me to do your homework. You claim that the UN costs more. Therefore it is your job to prove that they cost more than they bring in. You should be thanking me that I've given you base rates of spending to compare it to.



Better than your argument of "they cost more because I say so."

Put some effort into your posts for a change.




***yawn***


so the dutch guy makes the same as the cuban guy?



Let me ask you, which in your accountant mind would make more economic sense for nyc, keeping the un or replacing it with the same or more, apartments and residents?

Remember this is east side river front midtown, you could easily get 5-20k per month per apartment.....


Lets see that math! :2wave:
 
Did you ever take time to notice how China will veto any effot to stop genocide in Sudan or how Russia threatened to veto any effort to stop the big bad bear carving up Georgia?

That is the cost of having veto power. Considering that no country of any size and power, U.S. included, would be a part of any organization that makes them beholden to groups of minors powers, there is no way around it.

The UN does not stop war, nor are tyrannical nations afraid of it, they use it, why?

The U.N. has intervened in a few conflicts, and slapped plenty of countries with sanctions. It obviously can't solve our problems, especially considering that everyone wants it neutered. However, it does tend to do something when unprovoked invasions and annexations occur.

Hence we come back to power, it is a struggle, and the democratic world should not faciliate the legitimacy of the tryannical.

What a joke. The democratic world will cheerfully set up lucrative trade deals and give military aid to tyrants. If you want to actually live up to such principles, you better be willing to utterly destroy the entire U.S. economy.

We should use the power we have, because the tyrant sure will.

And the U.N. has power we can use, and it would be foolish to give it up because you don't like some of its members.
 
How would you fix Africa? It isn't even capable of waging total war in the first place because the nation state isn't strong enough. Much of the conflict is internal as well.

This sounds like the same logic that was used to justify imperialism: "Our little black brothers can't take care of themselves. We'll protect and take care of them and show them the way." Why is it up to anyone but Africans to "fix" it? :confused:
 
This sounds like the same logic that was used to justify imperialism: "Our little black brothers can't take care of themselves. We'll protect and take care of them and show them the way." Why is it up to anyone but Africans to "fix" it?

I wasn't making that kind of point. I was pointing out the impossibility of having a WW2 style resolution to the conflict like there was in Europe. You are correct that outside powers like the U.N. aren't going to be able solve Africa's problems.
 
did I say that?

Please put some effort into your critical thinking.

Why did you say Wow, one guy then?

Alternative is, as I said, national soveriengty..... we do without the UN all the time, the UN solves nothing. why have something that does not work?

So therefore you believe that nations should be free to do whatever they want and be bound by nothing but force? Oh joy. Let's go back to the times of the 100 year war. How did that turn out?

It's the logical alternative.

Only if you think that complete freedom of action for everyone results in a better outcome. Tell me, are you going to support going to war every time a country does something we don't like that could have easily been stopped in the UN? What you propose is being the World's Policeman...on crack.

But you "keep waiting" for an answer you like. :roll:

Which is what you do here.

As a New Yorker, i chuckle at the notion that they would replace east river river front real estate with office buildings.

Oh yay! More circumstantial evidence? What's next, a life story? Awww.

again, with the ignoance. :lol: this isn't kentucy, on the land that occupies the UN you could have several high rises, that would in the same land mass, house equal to more than say trump place and its 5,700+ $5,000 a month+ apartments....

What does one need to afford an apartment like that in NYC? Please, I think the "math" is obvious.

So where is your math?

You keep harping you are correct, but all I see is you saying you're right....because you're right.

Why I am playing down to the present company. :shrug:

I often ask myself why I bother talking to someone who's primary form of argumentation is "I say so."

calculations from ones waste ejection port is in no way "substantiation" sorry.

Better then "I say so." At least I have given you something to compare your argument to. You give me nothing but "I say so."

Watch. You are wrong because I say so. Did that convince you? No. Now why do you expect that to work on me?

Put some effort into your posts for once in your career here.


Show me you are right, you made a baseless claim simply on guessing salaries.

Except I did not, as I proved in my post. And you declare I am wrong, it is your job to show that. I given you estimates on spending. Since you think they are wrong, it is your job in the debate to prove it. Back up your assertion.

and thier economic contributions to the city. show me proof.... then when we have a logical foundation, we can continue this line of discussion, until then, i am not playing some nerd math version of qiennes mas macho with you. sorry.

lol. I base calculations on evidence of actual salaries and do rough computations to show economic benefit....while your argument is deny my numbers and declare your argument is correct because you said so providing absolutely no evidence of anything you say. Furthermore, you want me to show to you that you are right yet you will do absolutely nothing to show me why I am wrong.

Huh? Please take a debate class in your local community college.

The burden of proof falls on you.

See above.

What calculations? You made speculative claims on rent costs and nothing more. You bash me for speculation, but you expect me to take you on face value?

Seriously? That's beyond hypocrisy.

I will add, which would be better for the city, income tax free individuals, or replace them with tax paying residents?

And I asked you in the post you quoted, since when did diplomats and UN staff not pay sales tax nor property tax? :confused:

And they are tax paying residents. Last I checked, sales and property were indeed taxes...unless you think they aren't.

we don't need speculative and guesswork math to answer this question. sorry.

Which is what you did. Interesting how you just rejected the basis of your argument. Amusing, but not unexpected.

And exactly how did you think that your speculation = truth but mine is totally wrong? Especially after I cited actual salaries of UN diplomats and all you did was argue "I say so?"

You first. how about you back up your claim, blah blah blah.... with something other than guess work.

Huh. Imagine that. I already did in the post you quoted. You know, it helps to read the entire post before you reply. Saves you from making that kind of dumb statements.

How about you back up your claim, blah blah blah.... with something other than guess work.

There's a theme here. I can turn your statements around against your argument without changing a single word. What does that tell you?

It's out there, perhaps you should do some searching. :lol:

The funny thing is, the very next thing you quote proves me correct.

***yawn***


so the dutch guy makes the same as the cuban guy?

I do enjoy turning tactics around. Prove that they don't.

Let me ask you, which in your accountant mind would make more economic sense for nyc, keeping the un or replacing it with the same or more, apartments and residents?

I'm not sure. There's clearly a large economic influx from spending, not to mention tourism and increasing property values from UN related spending. What I don't have, and what you seem so intent on never providing is the alternative. How can I absolutely declare (as you do) that one is clearly better then the other when I have only half of the equation?

You have provided absolutely nothing to show that the UN either costs the city more in things like parking tickets or that your alternative of apartments would provide more economic activity.

As I stated before, I'm open to your idea, I just need something other than "I say so" which at this point is the sole thing you have provided. Notice I provided several links discussing salary which amusingly you criticized me before as having no evidence.

Remember this is east side river front midtown, you could easily get 5-20k per month per apartment.

Prove it. I'll wait.

Why should I have to do your homework? I'm not the lazy one here.
 
Why did you say Wow, one guy then?



You posted one guy as your proof, you said it moreso than I, but being purposefully obtuse, is probably the best arrow you got left in your quiver. :shrug:



So therefore you believe that nations should be free to do whatever they want and be bound by nothing but force? Oh joy. Let's go back to the times of the 100 year war. How did that turn out?


uhm yeah, if you are going to resort to this sort of peurile intellectualism, I am done with you.


Never said that, never indicated any such thing, and your extremist logic fallacy is a FAIL


Only if you think that complete freedom of action for everyone results in a better outcome. Tell me, are you going to support going to war every time a country does something we don't like that could have easily been stopped in the UN? What you propose is being the World's Policeman...on crack.


Again, extremist logic, please show that this would happen, your fear, is not based in reality.



Which is what you do here.


***yawn***



Oh yay! More circumstantial evidence? What's next, a life story? Awww.


Oh wait, is this that civil discourse, I am supposed to respond in kind to? :roll:


I take it by your big mouthed response to me you concede the point, and that you were indeed wrong, about the neigborhood.



So where is your math?

Don't need it.



You keep harping you are correct, but all I see is you saying you're right....because you're right.


I do? All i have done thus far is point out the flaws in your using math and numbers you like excluding other variables in your calculations as your be all end all to our argument...



I often ask myself why I bother talking to someone who's primary form of argumentation is "I say so."


You keep talking to me, you get rude to me, and then you cry about it..... I don't get why you talk to me either... :shrug:



Better then "I say so." At least I have given you something to compare your argument to. You give me nothing but "I say so."

And I see you are in full feet stamping mode.



Watch. You are wrong because I say so. Did that convince you? No. Now why do you expect that to work on me?

Put some effort into your posts for once in your career here.


And reduced to lies about my argument, and my position, and then a personal attack, gee OC looses all self composure, how shocking. :roll:



Except I did not, as I proved in my post. And you declare I am wrong, it is your job to show that. I given you estimates on spending. Since you think they are wrong, it is your job in the debate to prove it. Back up your assertion.

I have. you choose not to see it, by simply pointing out your ignorance, and refusal to consider other variables, I have shown that you have no clue as to the accuracy...

Let me help you out, it is estimated that 2 billion is added to the NYC economy through the UN, you can google that if you want.... this is before subtracting costs mind you.... they did not give a number for that... still looking... but it does include estimated rentals, etc.....

I still say, given the price of real estate, construction, and high end rentals that attrack wealthy peoples, the community in that neighborhood would see more economic impact, and the city would recieve more in tax revenue if you had high rise apartment buildings on that site. you are the accountant, crunch the numbers.....



lol. I base calculations on evidence of actual salaries and do rough computations to show economic benefit....while your argument is deny my numbers and declare your argument is correct because you said so providing absolutely no evidence of anything you say. Furthermore, you want me to show to you that you are right yet you will do absolutely nothing to show me why I am wrong.


deny? no I ask you to back up your numbers, where am I saying "im right" all I am doing is showing your flawed reasoning.



Huh? Please take a debate class in your local community college.


another personal attack, are you going to whine, when I throw it back at you?







and yeah, I cut the rest of your post, there is nothing of substance, just repeating of your nonsense and personal attacks..... sorry not interested....
 
Why am I not surprised?


When asked to back up his argument....Rev utterly and completely fails and tries to make it my failure as to why he cannot in any way defend his claims much less refute anyone else's.


And hence why you're not worth talking to.

Furthermore, it does not matter that you did not say something explicity. The logical conclusion of your argument is still quite valid. Merely because Bush never said the word "imminent" didn't mean he didn't argue that impression.

You expect me to take your speculation at face value, but you reject my argument which is actually based on real numbers.

This perfect sums up your argument:

Don't need it.

Don't need evidence, don't need reason, don't need anything resembling facts.

Just declare you are right and hope people buy it.

Didn't your parents teach you "I say so" is an awful argument?

Come back when you actually want to discuss the subject honestly instead of in your usual immature manner.
 
Why am I not surprised?


When asked to back up his argument....Rev utterly and completely fails and tries to make it my failure as to why he cannot in any way defend his claims much less refute anyone else's.


And hence why you're not worth talking to.

Furthermore, it does not matter that you did not say something explicity. The logical conclusion of your argument is still quite valid. Merely because Bush never said the word "imminent" didn't mean he didn't argue that impression.

You expect me to take your speculation at face value, but you reject my argument which is actually based on real numbers.

This perfect sums up your argument:



Don't need evidence, don't need reason, don't need anything resembling facts.

Just declare you are right and hope people buy it.

Didn't your parents teach you "I say so" is an awful argument?

Come back when you actually want to discuss the subject honestly instead of in your usual immature manner.






yeah, I have no interest in your baiting, trolling, personal attacks, or tantrums...



No where did I make say "I say so" or perported that I was even right, all I did was demonstrate the idiocy of your math and the factors it did not consider.

You are lying when you use claim that I am claiming I am right because "I said so"....


Please, when you are whining about others "immaturity" perhaps you should worry about your own first.


What a waste of time.


Later.
 
Back
Top Bottom