Moved from D1 forum

[--Pete]

Hi,

There are several things wrong with this post. The essay its difficult for YOU to swallow because I question American traditions and norms that few people would have the balls to question.

You can lead a jackass to water, but you can't make him think.

Jester has taken the time to carefully review the pile of puke you so proudly exhibit as your best work. Instead of being grateful to him for his efforts, you attack him personally. Your attack is not only unjustified, it is laughably wrong. Jester is not an American (if by that you mean a citizen of the USA), he is not even particularly supportive of many of the positions and institutions of the USA. Indeed, on the Smith-Marx scale, I suspect he's closer to you than to me.

Nowhere in his reply to you does Jester challenge your viewpoint. What he does challenge is the methods you use in presenting it. I suspect that had you been proposing exactly what Jester believes in, he would have faulted you in the same way.

Your reply to him, when we finally get passed the unfounded accusation, we find more of the illogical, poorly formulated nonsense that you seem so found of spouting. "... this isn't an argumentative paper, but more like an analytical paper" -- fine, but as Jester points out, you don't do any analysis. All you do is throw around pompous, unsupported statements.

Jester points out your incoherent exposition of history. You reply with something even more incoherent. England's control of the colonies terrorism? Please.

As to the rest of your reply, it's like a cat trying to cover a mess on a tile floor. Lots of scratching, but the stink is still there.

Indeed, all you have done is to further exhibit your lack of knowledge, critical thinking skills, and writing ability.

--Pete

[Hammerskjold]

There are several things wrong with this post. The essay its difficult for YOU to swallow because I question American traditions and norms that few people would have the balls to question.

...wow.

Ok I think I have to say this.


Friends, Row-mens, Country Fried Chickens.

Lend me your beers and shut up for a second.

I urge you to stop, drop, and roll away any urge for further criticism of this brilliant paper.

It is clear as the morning day is long that NONE OF YOU here can comprehend the brilliance of this paper and the ideas it holds fortwith, or maybe fort knocks. In any case the paper, like fort knocksville itself. Contains a precious and shimmering brightness that blinds the rest of you morons. (Or maybe you just jealous, sippin' on that hate-orade.)

And like any precious objects, the best and only criticism is reverence. Silent reverence! For you simply can not comprehend with your sub average consciousness the perfection that is, this A paper.

I welcome you to continue discussing anything else in this thread, but please. Do not sully the sweet air surrounding this A paper anymore with a single idiotic breath from your unworthy wordhole.

For you do not understand, can not understand, will not understand. When a genius is among you.

[kandrathe]

... and if you don't agree with me then you are just another jingoistic capitalist chauvinist clinging to your male dominated white hegemony with its obsessions on racism, guns, bombs, rape and clubbing baby seals.

[kandrathe]

England's control of the colonies terrorism? Please.

If anything, it was the Americans who were the terrorists in that case. The American "patriots" used asymmetric warfare and propaganda (via the printing press) to their advantage. Had we mustered an army, and squared off against the British, I fear we'd be more like Canada.

An example or their guerrilla tactics was to use buildings to house snipers to kill off British officers, which the British responded to by burning down the buildings, making great fodder for the propaganda sheets. Washington spent months retreating through the countryside, utilizing an attrition strategy to expend the British resources and taking advantage or their reliance on the traditional warfare conducted by gentlemen soldiers. Or, the battle of Trenton, where the Americans waited until the Hessians had laid up for the winter, and then surprised them in an early morning attack.

Let us not speak of the notorious John Paul Jones, and his raids in the Ranger against merchant shipping in the Irish sea and his assaults on St. Mary's Isle and Whitehaven.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Had we mustered an army, ...

We did. It was French.

... taking advantage of (?) [British] reliance on the traditional warfare conducted by gentlemen soldiers.

Perhaps led by gentlemen. Which is why the idea of specifically targeting the officers was anathema to the European armies of the time.

Let us not speak of the notorious John Paul Jones, and his raids in the Ranger against merchant shipping in the Irish sea and his assaults on St. Mary's Isle and Whitehaven.

Oh, please, let us indeed speak of him. JPJ is, along with Drake and Morgan, a hero of mine. Oh, wait, weren't the other two British pirates? (And, please, Jester -- I know they weren't contemporaries. But it all happened a long time ago, so they sorta were. BTW, what's wrong with using a conjunction to start a sentence? Ain't you never heard of the null set -- it's kinda like the null hypothesis, only terser).

--Pete

[Jester]

There are several things wrong with this post. The essay its difficult for YOU to swallow because I question American traditions and norms that few people would have the balls to question. But I don't suffer from blind patriotism, I call things as they are regardless of the response people will have. If people are to hate me for it, I say oh well. I should have mentioned in that paper that most Americans do not accept eccentric viewpoints very well. John Stuart Mill would have been proud.

Since you do not seem to have registered the several large anvils that have been dropped on this topic so far, let me make it abundantly clear for you: I AM NOT AN AMERICAN. Whatever ridiculous, ad hominem, specious reasoning you have attached to this obviously false premise, you can officially rubbish (as they say here in ENGLAND) because it's bollocks (as they also say here in ENGLAND). Sorry. (As they say in my home country, CANADA.)

Im not trying to argue ANYTHING in this paper.

Well, at least that much was clear.

Also, I did very little quoting of Rawls' because that was part of the instructions for the assignment, quoting the theorist was to be kept to an absolute minimum.

There's a difference between *quoting* the theorist, and *using* them. One involves blocks of text, the other, ideas.

When we were fighting for our independence from England, was the control they had over us not a form of terrorism?

No. Next question?

And it is well documented that England was an empire that seek to colonize the world (the reasons are irrelevant), and that was THEIR Manifest Destiny.

No. I study Uruguay, a country that offered, on at least three separate occasions, to be made a British colony. I have seen the documents. The Foreign Office threw their request in the garbage each time. Whatever you might say about British colonialism (and I am deeply critical), it is vastly more complex than your stereotype. This was not an attempt to colonize the entire world, and the reasons are absolutely relevant. How can you understand anything political without some idea of motive?

Maybe you don't consider this imperialism, but I don't see why its difficult to argue that it is.

You said IN NAME OF. That means that the actions were being taken while invoking the name of imperialism. This is precisely what the US does NOT do. Even if they are an empire, they make no reference to it. Read my frickin' argument, it's right there.

Yes, Brazil and South Africa are more unequal than America in terms of economic inequality, but my statement was referring to the advanced/industrialized democracies of the world (which I could have made more clear perhaps, but nevertheless), of which the US has some of the largest and most distinguished disparity in social class and income.

Being unclear and being wrong is not the same thing. If you meant "advanced, industrialized democracies" then you should have said so. If I said "I am the richest man in the world" and meant "I am the richest man in the world in this room," then I would, at best, be a very unclear writer - which, if I recall correctly, was the whole point of this absurd exercise.

Even so, you're *still* technically wrong - Singapore is worse.

Social darwinism coming before or after capitalism is irrelevant. The principles of capitalism is based on what the very meaning of social darwinism is -- survival of the fittest -- and you cannot sit here with a straight face and tell me that is not true.

I will sit here, with a straight face, and tell you that this is not true. While I agree that competition within a free market leads to the elimination of structures, practices, and processes that are economically inefficient, it has absolutely nothing to do with the *survival and reproduction of individuals*, which is the level on which evolution (in its natural or Social Darwinist forms) acts. Indeed, if one looks at the world today, who is reproducing, and increasingly surviving, with the greatest frequency? People with low incomes. How on earth does that square with Social Darwinism? Or do you merely equate Social Darwinism with any competitive system, rendering your argument basically tautologous?

Im aware the US has more than two political parties, I even stated it in my paper but you obviously missed the point I was making entirely. Which was that only two parties have any real or substantial political power (this is not even up for debate considering both parties have dominated politics for 150 years or so, also stated in my paper) to represent the will of 310 million+ people.

Had Ralph Nader and the greens not taken roughly 2.75% of the vote in the 2000 election, Al Gore would have almost certainly been elected president. Power is not just winning elections, but influencing their results, as anyone with the smallest inkling of European politics can tell you. The US has a monolithic system dominated by two parties, but by and large, this is the result of peoples' choices. When other parties are defeated, is it their lack of access to funds? Or the unpopularity of their platforms and candidates? Surely some of both, but even in the most diverse countries, voters still display something at least resembling the left-right split in the US. This is a generalized phenomenon. There is no great mass of popular opinion waiting to rally behind a radical party, only a whole lot of people with a whole lot of different opinions.

-Jester

[Hammerskjold]

If I said "I am the richest man in the world" and meant "I am the richest man in the world in this room," then I would, at best, be a very unclear writer - which, if I recall correctly, was the whole point of this absurd exercise.

Dude, seriously don't even bother at this point. This person either can not, or do not want to know the difference. Read a couple of pages back if you need a refresher. Continuing further accomplishes nothing. Mud wrasslin with a pig and all that.

Just nod and smile and kara-tay bow to the obvious supremacy of the literary genius on display before you, and pass the popcorn.

Because here's a clip that reminds me of another genius. Warning this scene contains some coarse language, so viewer discretion is advised.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37v-6Zs5T10

"My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives."
- Hedley Lamarr

This is the kind of beautiful mind you're dealing with, Jester. So I suggest you check yourself, before you wreck yourself.

[DeeBye]

I fear we'd be more like Canada.

You make that sound like a bad thing

This thread is a lot like one of my favourite Youtube videos.

[FireIceTalon]

Meh, I think im done with this thread. I have more important things to do, and clearly, getting through to the majority in this thread is akin to banging your head against a brick wall for hours on end. Enjoy your capitalism. Good day.

[kandrathe]

"The megalomaniac differs from the narcissist by the fact that he wishes to be powerful rather than charming, and seeks to be feared rather than loved. To this type belong many lunatics and most of the great men of history." -- Bertrand Russell

[DeeBye]

Meh, I think im done with this thread. I have more important things to do, and clearly, getting through to the majority in this thread is akin to banging your head against a brick wall for hours on end. Enjoy your capitalism. Good day.

To be honest, you stuck it out a lot longer than I thought you would. I congratulate you. Bravo.

So, what do we talk about now? Sports, weather, maybe food? It's kinda awkward with nothing more to discuss.

[NuurAbSaal]

Meh, I think im done with this thread. I have more important things to do, and clearly, getting through to the majority in this thread is akin to banging your head against a brick wall for hours on end. Enjoy your capitalism. Good day.

And the heavens wept.

take care
Tarabulus

[--Pete]

Hi,

Meh, I think im done with this thread.

Yet another brilliant mind driven off the Lounge.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

As far as people here having higher degrees than me, how could you possibly know what degrees I have or do not have?? ROFL. For one who hates people that make ignorant assumptions, you sure are the poster boy for it. That foot taste any good? Nevermind I dont want to know. And even if they do have higher degrees, I have no interest in getting a Tea Partyism or American Fascism PHD, where the rewriting of history and embracing of myth and folklore over rationality and logic is par for the course, so you can go on and keep that.

Welcome to the Tea Party Jester. Here is your degree in American Fascism, please register your complaints at the counter to the left. Oh, this is sooooo rich! <--- Me = belly laughing.

Do you really think everyone here has an equal opportunity for success? Do you really think someone who grows up in Harlem has the same opportunities to achieve the American Dream

Yes. And if you miss out on all the "feel good" stories of it happening all the time in America, you need to stop watching whatever it is you are watching and do some research. Loser Makes Good, Poor man ends up rich, and similar tales happen all the time in America. But because of the media are swept under the rug for the more "enticing and scandalous" stories about wieners, and boehners and other political partisan crap.

I'm not saying that everyone will end up a rags to riches story, but the fact that they happen is further proof that anyone with enough determination, grit, and desire can make things better for themselves.

Being ignorant to the possibility of that happening doesn't make your point correct.

My MIL, a life long social worker, who met her husband at the school for the blind, who lived most of her life well below the poverty line, at age 57, started Windows Magazine in 1990, and sold it to CMP in 1991 for some millions. Yes, I've witnessed rags to riches stories, and I work with newly arrived immigrants and witness "the American Dream" all the time. It's usually a combination of luck, perseverance, intelligence, and connections. And, what's with the stereo-typed "Harlem" crap? Even Bill Clinton had to move his office away since the rent was too high. If FIT were cognizant of modern barrio's he'd reference certain neighborhoods in Chicago, Detroit or Cincinnati.

Ad hominem attacks wont get you very far with me. You're last statement is wrong on so many levels, where do I begin? I suppose if it were up to you, we would go back to the Mccarthy era where it was banned to even teach Marx's readings in school, yet somehow im the dictator and madman. Way to put your foot in your mouth, genius. As for Marx's anti semetic comments, he isnt necessarily attacking Jews themselves (afterall, Marx himself was Jewish and likely would have been put to death had he lived during the 1940's in Germany) so much as he was the Jewish bankers and factory owners of the Industrial Revolution. This isnt a race or religion issue, this is a CLASS issue. LOL again at me being a madman, and lol even more at me being the only one that appreciates Marx's theories. You my friend, are hypocritical, and delusional. Its easy to denounce someone who is a greater thinker than you are that you dislike Smile Afterall 20 years from now, Marx will no longer be taught and instead we will study the works of the great kandrathe right? Rofl!

Have you read 'Zur Judenfrage'? So, maybe Marx was a self-hating Jew. Just like there are self-hating Americans...

"Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished." -- Karl Marx

And, this was vogue for socialists at that time, such as;
"This race poisons everything by meddling everywhere without ever joining itself to another people. Demand their expulsion from France, with the exception of individuals married to Frenchwomen. Abolish the synagogues; do not admit them to any kind of employment, pursue finally the abolition of this cult... The Jew is the enemy of the human race. One must send this race back to Asia or exterminate it... By fire or fusion or by expulsion, the Jew must disappear... What the peoples of the middle ages hated by instinct I hate upon reflection and irrevocably." -- French socialist, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, 1847

It was the Bolshevik's who having won the revolution turned around and closed the synagogues, and banned the teaching of Hebrew.

"How was Auschwitz possible, what was anti-Semitism? It used the hatred of the people of their dependence on money as a medium of exchange, their longing for communism. Auschwitz means that six million Jews were murdered and carted on to the rubbish dumps of Europe for being that which was maintained of them — Money-Jews. What had happened was that finance capital and banks, the hard core of the system of imperialism and capitalism, had diverted the people’s hatred of money and exploitation away from themselves and on to the Jews." -- Ulrike Meinhof, of the Marxist Red Army Faction, 1972 in response to the massacre of Israeli Athletes.

I can only present the facts, and you can choose to look, or not.

I am right, Americans truly don't get it, and the above post confirms it. I'm done with this thread, you guys keep sipping on that Horatio Alger Myth kool-aid. ROFL.

Although, all of us here, myself included can look at our grandparents, parents, and ourselves and see social mobility. My grandfathers were farmers, who came from Sweden around the 1880's and they educated their children who did better. My father was a semi-truck driver, and a member of the Teamsters union. My siblings and I ended up working and putting ourselves through college (I put myself through college raising cattle, and working at the local railroad answering computer help desk calls), and so our generation has done even better. This is no Horatio Alger myth, and it was no get rich quick scheme. It was plain and simple social mobility, accomplished with dedication and hard work. Dance around gleefully claiming victory if you must. I'm not sure what it is that you think we don't get, because you've yet to forward anything resembling an argument. For evidence, you just wave your hands around and say "Look at the empirical evidence". And... how endearing is it of you to rebuff any challenge to your specious and unsupported claims with "LMAO", "ROFLcopters", and "Bwahahahaaha! you poor deluded fool". Is this the junior high? You need to grow up son. I'm sorry life has been hard on you and you didn't get the brass ring.

Meh, I think im done with this thread.

Yet another brilliant mind driven off the Lounge.

He's said that before. Do you think he means it this time? It's pretty far from "I'm a brilliant PoliSci Major, look at my A paper." to being unwilling to fence wits with some dullard capitalist pigs. Other than name dropping Rawls, and other notables from the Frankfurt school, he has yet to demonstrate any understanding of the theories which he is supposedly supporting. I've been forced to learn more about Marxism, not even being in the social sciences, than he seems to have absorbed immersed in it.

[FireIceTalon]

Poor deluded fool? Son? Believe me, I am far from being your son, jackass. As I said before, I will not waste time arguing about anything with you (politics or otherwise) because its a waste of my time, because you will never get it. I dont care how many people you know went from rags to riches, your meaningless and cherry picked anecdotal evidence is far from enough to disprove the Horatio Alger Myth which implies that ANYONE, with simple hard work, can become successful or even wealthy in this country despite inheritance and staggered starts, racial and social/economic inequality, segregation etc. Take the goddamn rose colored glasses off and snap out of that little fairytale world you live in (which seems to rest somewhere between "The Prince & The Pauper" and "Ragged Dick"). I can use anecdotal evidence too and say my mom has worked hard for the last 25 years (an average of 10-12 hour days in a highly multi-tasking job that pays well above the national average) but is struggling to stay above water. The difference between your anecdotal evidence and mine though, is that a far larger percentage of the population is applicable to mine, that is fact. Yet somehow Im the deluded fool. I think you need to take a long, hard look in the mirror, son. Im done with you. Using anecdotal evidence in these debates is pointless for obvious reasons, but two can play that game. Now, you can join that other old fart on his high horse on my ignore list. Enjoy. And if you want to ban me cause of this post, be my friggin guest, heh. Owned.

[kandrathe]

Ah, I guess this is Junior high.

[Jester]

Owned.

We've progressed beyond that stage of history. Ownership is now a relic of the bygone capitalist era.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Owned.

We've progressed beyond that stage of history. Ownership is now a relic of the bygone capitalist era.

I think I will rededicate my hot tub, the Official Horatio Alger Myth Hot Tub... and then go soak my allegedly bruised ego, and fictitiously spanked behind in it. Does anyone have a particularly good recipe for Mint Juleps? That is if it doesn't rain.

[Bolty]

I have received more Reports on this thread than all the other threads on the Lounge in the last 6 months combined (excluding spambots). If you're sitting there wondering why Bolty doesn't do anything, it's because you're asking me to fix a train wreck by adjusting the train track 3 feet to the side. After the wreck happened.

I blame Tal, personally.

[Tal]

I blame Tal, personally.

Always a sound course.