http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/publications/Students/04.2.html
.
|
|
| User: "kmiller" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
02 Oct 2007 12:44:38 AM |
|
|
Don't "Under-Estimate" what the C.I.A. does - especially since you
won't hear about it HERE !!!
;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
02 Oct 2007 02:33:09 AM |
|
|
"kmiller" <miller.k@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1191303878.192436.107920@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Don't "Under-Estimate" what the C.I.A. does - especially since you
won't hear about it HERE !!!
;-)
Shuddup, Kimmy.
How'd you like to get a surprise *midnight delivery*?
Everything's as it should be here.
Don't rock the boat, I warn you.
/.\|/.\
.
|
|
|
| User: "kmiller" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
02 Oct 2007 04:29:47 AM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 3:33 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"kmiller" <mille...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1191303878.192436.107920@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Don't "Under-Estimate" what the C.I.A. does - especially since you
won't hear about it HERE !!!
;-)
Shuddup, Kimmy.
How'd you like to get a surprise *midnight delivery*?
Everything's as it should be here.
Don't rock the boat, I warn you.
/.\|/.\
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The "Package" Has already been delivered -and it is a DUDE (like
usual).
Thankfully the CIA isn't Canada's Security - or we would all be in
Guantonamo !!!
Just A Thought - about "Barking Up The Wrong Tree".
:-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
05 Oct 2007 08:35:58 AM |
|
|
On 27 Sep, 22:39, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/publications/Students/04.2....
Just got back from Dublin to find the douglas twat has latched onto
another, he thinks, great way to defend his total ignorance...i.e.
that I said nobody can write something about somewhere they have never
been, (or something like that...I can't be bothered to even try to
understand his rubbish properly). Anyway douglas, this is a scientific
study, albeit by a student, and it is written true to that. The
references, (bibliology), at the end that the student references are
all well respected scholers and publications, (the author didn't just
read a book but studied the subject intensly...whereas you read a book
from the likes of Pat Buchanan and just swallow the lot without
looking around you). You douglas...YOU...can't write about any place
you've never been 'cos you just haven't a fuckin' clue. You just
repeat over and over and over again the stereotype ***** that we've
all heard but rubbished years ago. You're like a fuckin' baby
douglas...
Jeeze!!!
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
05 Oct 2007 09:03:03 PM |
|
|
On Oct 5, 6:35 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 27 Sep, 22:39, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/publications/Students/04.2....
Just got back from Dublin to find the douglas twat has latched onto
another, he thinks, great way to defend his total ignorance...i.e.
that I said nobody can write something about somewhere they have never
been, (or something like that...I can't be bothered to even try to
understand his rubbish properly).
It was your rubbish in the first place. You should be able to figure
out your own remarks about the difference between actually being
somewhere and reading about it.
Anyway douglas, this is a scientific study, albeit by a student,
and it is written true to that.
Scientific??? You're kidding, of course. Other than the factual
errors, the kid couldn't bring himself to call Communism what it is.
He repeatedly referred to it as "socialism" rather than its actual
name.
The references, (bibliology), at the end that the student references are
all well respected scholers and publications, (the author didn't just
read a book but studied the subject intensly...whereas you read a book
from the likes of Pat Buchanan and just swallow the lot without
looking around you).
Pat Buchanan? You're kidding, of course. Pat Buchanan is (like you)
anti-Israel. He's an old guard Republican who has said the US had no
good reason to go over to Europe to fight Hitler. Those two examples
sound like me, right? Wrong. I don't like Pat Buchanan. Do you ever
tire of being wrong?
You douglas...YOU...can't write about any place
you've never been 'cos you just haven't a fuckin' clue.
Please tell me again how Bulgaria did not have millions of tourists
during the Communist era. Please demonstrate your superior first-hand
knowledge on that topic one more time.
You just repeat over and over and over again the stereotype
***** that we've all heard but rubbished years ago.
Do you have something in particular in mind? Or is this just another
example of meaningless generalization?
You're like a fuckin' baby douglas...
Jeeze!!!
Such a coincidence -- that's how I think of you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
06 Oct 2007 06:54:17 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191636183.538171.299880@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 5, 6:35 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 27 Sep, 22:39, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/publications/Students/04.2....
Just got back from Dublin to find the douglas twat has latched onto
another, he thinks, great way to defend his total ignorance...i.e.
that I said nobody can write something about somewhere they have never
been, (or something like that...I can't be bothered to even try to
understand his rubbish properly).
It was your rubbish in the first place. You should be able to figure
out your own remarks about the difference between actually being
somewhere and reading about it.
Anyway douglas, this is a scientific study, albeit by a student,
and it is written true to that.
Scientific??? You're kidding, of course. Other than the factual
errors, the kid couldn't bring himself to call Communism what it is.
He repeatedly referred to it as "socialism" rather than its actual
name.
The references, (bibliology), at the end that the student references
are
all well respected scholers and publications, (the author didn't just
read a book but studied the subject intensly...whereas you read a book
from the likes of Pat Buchanan and just swallow the lot without
looking around you).
Pat Buchanan? You're kidding, of course. Pat Buchanan is (like you)
anti-Israel. He's an old guard Republican who has said the US had no
good reason to go over to Europe to fight Hitler. Those two examples
sound like me, right? Wrong. I don't like Pat Buchanan. Do you ever
tire of being wrong?
You douglas...YOU...can't write about any place
you've never been 'cos you just haven't a fuckin' clue.
Please tell me again how Bulgaria did not have millions of tourists
during the Communist era. Please demonstrate your superior first-hand
knowledge on that topic one more time.
You just repeat over and over and over again the stereotype
***** that we've all heard but rubbished years ago.
Do you have something in particular in mind? Or is this just another
example of meaningless generalization?
You're like a fuckin' baby douglas...
Jeeze!!!
Such a coincidence -- that's how I think of you.
There's one significant difference, though, between you two babes.
Stevie's a weaselly chickenshit abuser, and Woodlouse's a direct and
upfront abuser.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
05 Oct 2007 02:46:19 PM |
|
|
On Oct 5, 9:35 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 27 Sep, 22:39, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/publications/Students/04.2....
Just got back from Dublin to find the douglas twat has latched onto
another, he thinks, great way to defend his total ignorance...i.e.
that I said nobody can write something about somewhere they have never
been, (or something like that...I can't be bothered to even try to
understand his rubbish properly). Anyway douglas, this is a scientific
study, albeit by a student, and it is written true to that. The
references, (bibliology), at the end that the student references are
all well respected scholers and publications, (the author didn't just
read a book but studied the subject intensly...whereas you read a book
from the likes of Pat Buchanan and just swallow the lot without
looking around you). You douglas...YOU...can't write about any place
you've never been 'cos you just haven't a fuckin' clue. You just
repeat over and over and over again the stereotype ***** that we've
all heard but rubbished years ago. You're like a fuckin' baby
douglas...
Jeeze!!!
WH
dude u suk =(
http://www.stopcyberbullying.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
27 Sep 2007 09:19:38 PM |
|
|
On Sep 27, 1:39 pm, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/publications/Students/04.2....
Hmm, written by a university student who wasn't even born when the
events he mentions took place. How can you give him any validity when
he wasn't there? How did he come by his knowledge? Why, he must have
read a book!
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
29 Sep 2007 03:51:55 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Hmm, written by a university student who
wasn't even born when the events he
mentions took place. How can you give him
any validity when he wasn't there? How
did he come by his knowledge? Why, he must
have read a book!
It's just plain bad. Not only does it ignore all
context, but it ignores the entire frigging world!
I agree that most of U.S. foreign policy towards
south & central America was heavily flawed --
unlike you -- but papers like this have no hope
of correcting those flaws, as they ignore the
context and present no realistic alternatives.
Need an example?
Well, all those south American revolutionaries
that the U.S. government was always afriad of,
you didn't think they picked their AK-47s off
of trees, did you?
Clue for the cluelss: The U.S. wasn't the only
foreign government into the whole "Nation
building" thing, the U.S. was merely the foreign
government that happened to be successful in the
two cases mentioned.
Boiling it down further: It was never a case
of U.S. intervention or no intervention. there
was never any "no foreign intervention" option.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
29 Sep 2007 09:17:00 AM |
|
|
On Sep 29, 1:51 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Hmm, written by a university student who
wasn't even born when the events he
mentions took place. How can you give him
any validity when he wasn't there? How
did he come by his knowledge? Why, he must
have read a book!
It's just plain bad. Not only does it ignore all
context, but it ignores the entire frigging world!
I agree that most of U.S. foreign policy towards
south & central America was heavily flawed --
unlike you -- but papers like this have no hope
of correcting those flaws, as they ignore the
context and present no realistic alternatives.
Need an example?
Well, all those south American revolutionaries
that the U.S. government was always afriad of,
you didn't think they picked their AK-47s off
of trees, did you?
Clue for the cluelss: The U.S. wasn't the only
foreign government into the whole "Nation
building" thing, the U.S. was merely the foreign
government that happened to be successful in the
two cases mentioned.
Boiling it down further: It was never a case
of U.S. intervention or no intervention. there
was never any "no foreign intervention" option.
I notice the author of that article thinks Ronald Reagan was president
in 1980. The fact of the matter is that Jimmy Carter was president in
1980, and a lot of things happened that year. For instance, Jimmy
Carter began arming the Mujahadeen after the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan. And it was Carter's administration that encouraged Saddam
Hussein to attack Iran in 1980. Additionally, it was Carter's
administration that set up the Contras in Nicaragua in 1980.
And on another note, Jimmy Carter deregulated the airlines, something
for which most people either blame or credit Ronald Reagan.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
30 Sep 2007 05:18:21 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
I notice the author of that article thinks Ronald
Reagan was president in 1980. The fact of the
matter is that Jimmy Carter was president in
1980, and a lot of things happened that year.
Yes they did.
For instance, Jimmy Carter began arming the
Mujahadeen after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
There's a lot of speculation regarding that. Sources
don't agree on exactly what kind of aid Carter provided,
and how much.
And it was Carter's administration that encouraged
Saddam Hussein to attack Iran in 1980.
This is *****. Iraq never needed encouragement. Iraq
and Iran had been on the verge of a shooting war since
at least Nixon. Iran had isolated itself from the United
States, and wrecked it's military which had been built
and staffed by the Shah. It was the opportunity that
Iraq had been waiting for since BEFORE Saddam ever
took power.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
01 Oct 2007 06:52:38 PM |
|
|
On Sep 30, 3:18 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
I notice the author of that article thinks Ronald
Reagan was president in 1980. The fact of the
matter is that Jimmy Carter was president in
1980, and a lot of things happened that year.
Yes they did.
For instance, Jimmy Carter began arming the
Mujahadeen after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
There's a lot of speculation regarding that. Sources
don't agree on exactly what kind of aid Carter provided,
and how much.
The fact remains, it was the Carter administration that began the
arming of the Mujahideen after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
And it was Carter's administration that encouraged
Saddam Hussein to attack Iran in 1980.
This is *****. Iraq never needed encouragement. Iraq
and Iran had been on the verge of a shooting war since
at least Nixon. Iran had isolated itself from the United
States, and wrecked it's military which had been built
and staffed by the Shah. It was the opportunity that
Iraq had been waiting for since BEFORE Saddam ever
took power.
[quoting] There is much evidence that the Carter administration
encouraged Iraq to attack Iran in order to weaken the Islamic
revolution and protect its oil-sheikh allies. Carter's National
Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski felt that "Iraq was poised to
succeed Iran as the principal pillar of stability in the Persian
Gulf."
Author Kenneth R. Timmermann and former Iranian President Abol Hassan
Bani-Sadr argue separately that Brzezinski met with Hussein in July
1980 in Amman, Jordan, to discuss joint efforts to oppose Iran.
Hussein biographer Said Aburish writes that the Amman meeting did take
place, but that Hussein met with three CIA agents, not Brzezinski.
Former Carter official Gary Sick denies that Washington directly
encouraged Iraq's attack, but instead let "Saddam assume there was a
U.S. green light because there was no explicit red light." [end
quoting]
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=c33335175cc184e56416dbb1d1ebc595
[quoting] When the war broke out, the United States declared its
neutrality. But that did not stop the U.S. government from aiding
Iraq's war effort to keep Iran, which had humiliated the United States
in the hostage crisis, from prevailing. In fact, the American "tilt"
toward Iraq began before the invasion. The Carter administration
furnished Iraq, through Saudi Arabia, exaggerated reports of Iran's
military weakness as a way of encouraging Saddam to invade. Author
Dilip Hiro has written that according to then Iranian president Abol
Hassan Bani-Sadr, secret documents purchased by his government
described "conversations in France between several deposed Iranian
generals and politicians, Iraqi representatives and American and
Israeli military experts."
President Carter's hope was that Iran's dire need for spare parts
would force it to deal with the United States and free the 52 American
hostages it still held. When the war began, the Carter administration
criticized the invasion to "soften up" the Iranians. But the plan did
not work because Iran turned to Vietnam for parts, which the U.S.
military had left behind. [end quoting]
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
02 Oct 2007 04:30:41 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
The fact remains, it was the Carter administration
that began the arming of the Mujahideen after the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Depends on what you consider "Facts," now don't it?
The Saudi abmassador to the U.S. went on record
(on camera even) saying that bin Laden personally
thanked him for getting U.S. aid. Of course, bin Laden
wouldn't move to afghanistan until the Reagan years...
Clearly the Carter administration did aid the Afghan
rebels, but the nature and the extent of that aid was
far below anything seen under Reagan. Stinger
anti-aircraft missiles, which were decisive, arrived
rather late in the grand scheme of things... late under
Reagan. Prior to that they were armed with an
obsolete British model -- paid top dollar for them too --
which simply did not work.
This is *****. Iraq never needed encouragement. Iraq
and Iran had been on the verge of a shooting war since
at least Nixon. Iran had isolated itself from the United
States, and wrecked it's military which had been built
and staffed by the Shah. It was the opportunity that
Iraq had been waiting for since BEFORE Saddam ever
took power.
[quoting] There is much evidence that the Carter
administration encouraged Iraq to attack Iran in
order to weaken the Islamic revolution and protect
its oil-sheikh allies. Carter's National Security
Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski felt that "Iraq was poised
to succeed Iran as the principal pillar of stability in
the Persian Gulf."
So all you've got is speculation, and speculation that ignores
the entire history between Iraq & Iran.
Author Kenneth R. Timmermann and former Iranian
President Abol Hassan Bani-Sadr argue separately
that Brzezinski met with Hussein in July 1980 in
Amman, Jordan, to discuss joint efforts to oppose Iran.
"He said that he said that someone else said..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "kmiller" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
02 Oct 2007 04:38:30 AM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 5:30 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
The fact remains, it was the Carter administration
that began the arming of the Mujahideen after the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Depends on what you consider "Facts," now don't it?
The Saudi abmassador to the U.S. went on record
(on camera even) saying that bin Laden personally
thanked him for getting U.S. aid. Of course, bin Laden
wouldn't move to afghanistan until the Reagan years...
Clearly the Carter administration did aid the Afghan
rebels, but the nature and the extent of that aid was
far below anything seen under Reagan. Stinger
anti-aircraft missiles, which were decisive, arrived
rather late in the grand scheme of things... late under
Reagan. Prior to that they were armed with an
obsolete British model -- paid top dollar for them too --
which simply did not work.
This is *****. Iraq never needed encouragement. Iraq
and Iran had been on the verge of a shooting war since
at least Nixon. Iran had isolated itself from the United
States, and wrecked it's military which had been built
and staffed by the Shah. It was the opportunity that
Iraq had been waiting for since BEFORE Saddam ever
took power.
[quoting] There is much evidence that the Carter
administration encouraged Iraq to attack Iran in
order to weaken the Islamic revolution and protect
its oil-sheikh allies. Carter's National Security
Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski felt that "Iraq was poised
to succeed Iran as the principal pillar of stability in
the Persian Gulf."
So all you've got is speculation, and speculation that ignores
the entire history between Iraq & Iran.
Author Kenneth R. Timmermann and former Iranian
President Abol Hassan Bani-Sadr argue separately
that Brzezinski met with Hussein in July 1980 in
Amman, Jordan, to discuss joint efforts to oppose Iran.
"He said that he said that someone else said..."
You just might want to give 'consideration' to what you say here
'JTEM'.
[ Train Wreckage is great to see - but you wouldn't want to be part of
it.]
Just A Thought.
8< |
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
29 Sep 2007 04:14:57 AM |
|
|
On Sep 29, 4:51 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Hmm, written by a university student who
wasn't even born when the events he
mentions took place. How can you give him
any validity when he wasn't there? How
did he come by his knowledge? Why, he must
have read a book!
It's just plain bad. Not only does it ignore all
context, but it ignores the entire frigging world!
I agree that most of U.S. foreign policy towards
south & central America was heavily flawed --
unlike you -- but papers like this have no hope
of correcting those flaws, as they ignore the
context and present no realistic alternatives.
Need an example?
Well, all those south American revolutionaries
that the U.S. government was always afriad of,
you didn't think they picked their AK-47s off
of trees, did you?
Clue for the cluelss: The U.S. wasn't the only
foreign government into the whole "Nation
building" thing, the U.S. was merely the foreign
government that happened to be successful in the
two cases mentioned.
Boiling it down further: It was never a case
of U.S. intervention or no intervention. there
was never any "no foreign intervention" option.
There was never any option to promote things like education, proper
health care, economic reform or any political reform for the vast
numbers of poor, oppressed people in Latin America either.
Poverty and oppression motivates people to take up arms and throw off
their oppressors. They won't waste time looking for weapons on trees.
It was easier for us to throw off our oppressors 230 years ago because
the British were less competent at protecting their business interests
then than America has been over the last 120 years.
Self Determination: A Right or a Convenience? Ask Thomas Jefferson.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
30 Sep 2007 05:12:16 PM |
|
|
John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
Poverty and oppression motivates people to take up
arms and throw off their oppressors. They won't
waste time looking for weapons on trees.
This is true in every culture. It's even true in the U.S.
and Europe today. The people at the bottom are always
willing to fight, because they have nothing to lose.
This is why it's often stated that revolutions begin in
the middle class. The people on top are always
happy being on top, and the people on the bottom are
always eager to rise higher.
There isn't a country on earth where we couldn't
find a percentage of the population willing to rise
up in violent revolution. For a very long time the
nimrods who own the United stated lapped up all
the communist propaganda, believing that there had
to be something to Communism because they were
so successful at starting revolutions. Eventually it
happened, they figured it out, and realized that the
U.S. didn't need strongmen to keep back the
Communist, that we could foster counter revolutions
as easily as they could revolutions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
02 Oct 2007 12:27:09 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191190336.353168.52390@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
Poverty and oppression motivates people to take up
arms and throw off their oppressors.
No, it simply prods them to naively follow militant leaders who may or may
not end up oppressing them. Over and over in revolutions of humanity's
past, oppressive-repressive-suppressive authorities were replaced with
other forms of tyranny, such as the Bolsheviks -- who ended up in Stalin's
oppressive, brutal regime. Or, Cuba's 'revolution' under the direction of
Fidel Castro. Two of numerous examples where oppressors were replaced with
other oppressors. It is the the moral integrity of the revolutionaries,
and their organizational and leadership skills, that determines whether a
drive to rid themselves of oppressors is replaced with other tyrants.
They won't
waste time looking for weapons on trees.
This is true in every culture. It's even true in the U.S.
and Europe today. The people at the bottom are always
willing to fight, because they have nothing to lose.
Not necessarily, dreamer. They have their lives to lose, and whatever they
hold at the bottom as their properties. It is easy for a snail like you to
talk of the underclass having 'nothing to lose' because you've obviously
never had to risk your life for some ideological goal of general social
betterment. It's pie-eyed fart-knockers like yourself who dream of one
more 'liberating' war, such as your current orgasmic fascination with
attacking Iran. Armchair cowards who have never even said 'no' to their
***** supervisors for fear of risking their jobs like to spout about the
'poor' making the ultimate sacrifice. You think people should risk their
very lives for the shaky promise of something better, yet you'd be a
chicken to tell your next-door neighbor to his face to shut his loud
stereo down.
This is why it's often stated that revolutions begin in
the middle class. The people on top are always
happy being on top, and the people on the bottom are
always eager to rise higher.
No, not necessarily -- again. People at the bottom will continue to dwell
there to protect their lives and whatever they have as properties until
such a desperate time comes when they've lost their properties and their
lives no longer have anywhere to advance. And that takes a lot of
desperation, Johnny boy. The middle class is this culture live like fat
sassy pigs on fresh corncobs and taters, rolling in warm mud, oinking with
glee every day. Even in materially, comparatively deprived cultures like
Iraq and Aghanistan, the middle class is perfectly content with their
economic stations, and have little interest in risking life and limb and
whatever they possess in a violent confrontation for the faint promise of
something more. It is more likely that the quiet well-planned revolution
of Georgia, for example, where blood was not spilled for social
improvement, and where leaders wisely chose a judicial course of
'revolution', will meet with much more enthusiasm than militancy. They
have their children and their families to keep intact, and apparently
you've not figured in that sympathetic equation in your coarse zeal to
support violent revolutions.
There isn't a country on earth where we couldn't
find a percentage of the population willing to rise
up in violent revolution.
Basically, that's horseshit. If you're talking about a tiny percentage who
dream of violent revolution and act upon it, then that remark is basically
true. The great majority, though, have no interest in violent uprisings.
Such a small percentage often fails to overthrow a well entrenched tyranny
or inspire the rest of the populace to go along. Many more revolutions
fail than succeed for this reason. And, as I said, when they succeed, some
only lapse into another form of tyranny. The result of failed revolutions
is more tyranny and misery for the general populace. As you ***** around
with your Tivo, and gleefully play with your 'puter, Johnny boy, try to
imagine putting your pampered fairy butt on the line for what you believe
in -- and then failing, and taking the horrid consequences...life-long
imprisonment, torture and/or death. It's idiots like you, detached from
hard reality and mass suffering, that most often vociferously advocate
revolution and war as you munch on your chocolate covered cashews, and
amuse yourself with painting lil' faces on the head of your enzyte-swelled
*****. :))~
For a very long time the
nimrods who own the United stated lapped up all
the communist propaganda, believing that there had
to be something to Communism because they were
so successful at starting revolutions. Eventually it
happened, they figured it out, and realized that the
U.S. didn't need strongmen to keep back the
Communist, that we could foster counter revolutions
as easily as they could revolutions.
The American Revolution wasn't started up by excited patriots eager to
have more freedoms, but to save money, exempt from heavy taxation, gain
full property rights, and generally make more profit. They'd come from
Europe with a goal to have virtually tax-free investments and a more
abundant material existence. All this horseshit about 'em getting all
riled up over the 'British military rule' is largely to help Americans
feel less guilty about their materialistic, greedy motives in coming to
this land, and feel morally altruistic and filled with false
self-pride...even as they long cruelly treated the indigenous peoples here
as subhuman.
As usual, JTEM, you forked tongue, you're full of Texican cowpile methane
gas.
Doc :))~
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
02 Oct 2007 04:37:30 AM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
No,
Oh, monkey... monkey... monkey... monkey....
You're so eager to be like people. Problem is, you
can't understand that contradiction for the sake of
contradiction is pointless.
Dance, monkey. You can understand that. Dance,
my monkey.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
01 Oct 2007 05:12:06 PM |
|
|
On Sep 30, 6:12 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
Poverty and oppression motivates people to take up
arms and throw off their oppressors. They won't
waste time looking for weapons on trees.
This is true in every culture. It's even true in the U.S.
and Europe today. The people at the bottom are always
willing to fight, because they have nothing to lose.
Do you really want to compare the political and economic conditions
that have existed in Latin America for generations of campesinos with,
say, American Blacks and Hispanics?
Do you want us to find out how ignorant you really are about the
living conditions of the poor in Latin America?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
02 Oct 2007 04:35:16 AM |
|
|
John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
Do you really want to compare the political and
economic conditions that have existed in Latin
America for generations of campesinos with,
say, American Blacks and Hispanics?
What I said was:
: This is true in every culture. It's even true in the U.S.
: and Europe today.
Yeah, sure, if you want to get into some useless
***** fencing you can argue that it's all relative,
that "Bottom" here isn't the same as "Bottom"
there.... but it makes no difference.
You might as well claim that nobody can be unhappy
in South America, because they have it a lot better
than, say, the slaves of past centuries...
Please stop being an ignorant *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
02 Oct 2007 05:55:48 AM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 5:35 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
Do you really want to compare the political and
economic conditions that have existed in Latin
America for generations of campesinos with,
say, American Blacks and Hispanics?
What I said was:
: This is true in every culture. It's even true in the U.S.
: and Europe today.
Yeah, sure, if you want to get into some useless
***** fencing you can argue that it's all relative,
that "Bottom" here isn't the same as "Bottom"
there.... but it makes no difference.
It makes no difference unless you wish to deal with reality.
You might as well claim that nobody can be unhappy
in South America, because they have it a lot better
than, say, the slaves of past centuries...
This is just what we need. A totally inept Stevie Douglas.
Please stop being an ignorant *****.
Please stop pretending that you know what you're talking about.
What we have here is another uninformed yank with a knowledge of world
history that's 100 yards wide and 1/8" deep.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
03 Oct 2007 04:45:30 PM |
|
|
John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
Yeah, sure, if you want to get into some useless
***** fencing you can argue that it's all relative,
that "Bottom" here isn't the same as "Bottom"
there.... but it makes no difference.
It makes no difference unless you wish to deal with reality.
You're defeated by your very own slippery-slope.
After all:
You might as well claim that nobody can be unhappy
in South America, because they have it a lot better
than, say, the slaves of past centuries...
And this is true. Heck, being a slave in Brazil pretty much
amounted to a death sentence. So all the poor have it
relatively good today. No revolutions, not anywhere!
That's the logical conclusion to your position.
You're being ignorant. Stop that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
28 Sep 2007 03:06:47 AM |
|
|
On 28 Sep, 04:19, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 1:39 pm, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/publications/Students/04.2....
Hmm, written by a university student who wasn't even born when the
events he mentions took place. How can you give him any validity when
he wasn't there? How did he come by his knowledge? Why, he must have
read a book!
He must have read lots of books. And not only the fuckin' one sided
crap that you and your ilk read.
WH
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
29 Sep 2007 03:47:59 AM |
|
|
On Sep 27, 10:19 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 1:39 pm, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/publications/Students/04.2....
Hmm, written by a university student who wasn't even born when the
events he mentions took place. How can you give him any validity when
he wasn't there? How did he come by his knowledge? Why, he must have
read a book!
Odd, eh, that reading books can actually bring one to a clear
understanding of the truth.
Damn them facts, anyhow.
I'm sure Mark Casey hates America also.
Don't read, America. Don't miss American Idol, but don't ever read.
It's positively subversive.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
29 Sep 2007 09:11:30 AM |
|
|
On Sep 29, 1:47 am, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
On Sep 27, 10:19 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 1:39 pm, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/publications/Students/04.2....
Hmm, written by a university student who wasn't even born when the
events he mentions took place. How can you give him any validity when
he wasn't there? How did he come by his knowledge? Why, he must have
read a book!
Odd, eh, that reading books can actually bring one to a clear
understanding of the truth.
Damn them facts, anyhow.
I'm sure Mark Casey hates America also.
Don't read, America. Don't miss American Idol, but don't ever read.
It's positively subversive.
I do read (and I don't watch American Idol). It's your friend WH who
insists that reading alone is insufficient. One must actually
*experience* an event first-hand, or his knowledge of the event is
irrelevant (according to your friend WH).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
28 Sep 2007 10:58:07 AM |
|
|
On Sep 27, 4:39 pm, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/publications/Students/04.2....
You know what happens when you cast pearls amongst swine, don't you.
Stevie wallows in his ignorance like a Pig in *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
29 Sep 2007 03:48:58 AM |
|
|
On Sep 28, 11:58 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 4:39 pm, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/publications/Students/04.2....
You know what happens when you cast pearls amongst swine, don't you.
Stevie wallows in his ignorance like a Pig in *****.
We'll not that Stevie wasn't able to attack Mr. Casey's facts so he
attacked Chris instead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
29 Sep 2007 09:12:17 AM |
|
|
On Sep 29, 1:48 am, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
On Sep 28, 11:58 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 4:39 pm, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/publications/Students/04.2....
You know what happens when you cast pearls amongst swine, don't you.
Stevie wallows in his ignorance like a Pig in *****.
We'll not that Stevie wasn't able to attack Mr. Casey's facts so he
attacked Chris instead.
I attacked him? No, all I did was throw his own silly argument back at
him. A little slow today, are you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
28 Sep 2007 11:35:05 PM |
|
|
On Sep 28, 8:58 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 4:39 pm, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/publications/Students/04.2....
You know what happens when you cast pearls amongst swine, don't you.
Stevie wallows in his ignorance like a Pig in *****.
You see, eric, WH believes a writer can only be authoritative on a
subject matter if the writer himself has experienced what he is
writing about. Otherwise, all the writer has ever done is *read* about
it, and that's not the same as being there. So for WH to post an
article, written by a university student who was not yet born when the
events of his article took place, seems strangely hypocritical,
wouldn't you agree?
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting...hope the douglas parrot reads this |
29 Sep 2007 01:26:47 PM |
|
|
On Sep 29, 12:35 am, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 28, 8:58 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 4:39 pm, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/publications/Students/04.2....
You know what happens when you cast pearls amongst swine, don't you.
Stevie wallows in his ignorance like a Pig in *****.
You see, eric, WH believes a writer can only be authoritative on a
subject matter if the writer himself has experienced what he is
writing about. Otherwise, all the writer has ever done is *read* about
it, and that's not the same as being there. So for WH to post an
article, written by a university student who was not yet born when the
events of his article took place, seems strangely hypocritical,
wouldn't you agree?
There's more than one article, dumbass. Try reading a book. Ever
read Chomsky? No. I didn't think so.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
