The details were handed off to Obama, who was quick to claim his success in ending the war. Obama negotiated no successful pact in the next 3 years…So why does smh among others not recognize this as a failure? [/quote]
Halt.
…He does.
He simply recognizes Bush’s failure too.
Which is the same failure.
(Throw it on Bush’s “Iraq failures” pile–if you can toss that high.)
We have come to a fork in the road. Either it must be shown that Bush did indeed negotiate and finalize a security-remnant agreement with the Iraqis, or it must be acknowledged that Bush, despite trying, managed the same security-remnant agreement as managed by Obama–i.e., none–and therefore, by the most fundamental dictates of human reason, is as responsibility for his failure to win the necessary concession as Obama is for his own failure to do the same.
I hate the whole “why should our soldiers die fighting for their freedom if they are unwilling to fight for it”
Your soldiers are not fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people, they are fighting for private interests who pushed a false war and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people and thousands of US infantry grunts died and were maimed for life in horrible ways so a few hyper wealthy capitalists and corporations could make trillions bombing and then rebuilding.
The reason the Iraqi people will not fight insurgents is because they support them over the Americans. I remember watching a great documentary talking to an Iraqi immigrant who fled to another country. He said that when the Americans came him and everyone he knew hated the Dictatorship of Sadam and pointed out how ridiculous it was that a nation that armed Sadam and whose intelligence services colluded in rounding up Iraqi dissidents overseas were now invading their nation to defend them from sadam.
I am very much a libertarian with very open liberal views but make no mistake if a newly strong Germany invaded my country and overthrew the government they ahd been allies with and said they were giving us freedom while laying waste to my community, killing and turning our children into vegetables and lowering living standards way lower than they were under (sadam in iraq) my previous government, I would join practically any resistnce I could to remove a foreign body from my homeland and protect my community.
The Iraqi people are not mostly extremists, or fanatics, they are simply supporting or joining the only viable resistance to American Imperialism, which has killed around 10 million people directly since 1945.
People who think this was supposed to amke America safer and just went wrong are falling into the idea that this had good intentions. It was never meant to help people, George Bush is not incompetent, he is just serving the interests of him and his class.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Just for the sake of accuracy, this is what I came in to refute:
[quote]pat wrote:
Obama really, seriously fucked up this time. The pull out was his idea and it has blown up in his face. [/quote]
Since Pat wrote this, we have learned that:
Bush tried to negotiate a remnant security force, failed, and signed an agreement prescribing a complete withdrawal by December 2011.
Obama, in a bid to re-negotiate Bush’s agreement with the addition of a remnant security force (as Bush had originally wanted), discussed with Maliki in the summer of 2011 an agreement of up to 10,000 and as few 3,500 American troops. Exactly as Bush had, Obama failed, and we followed the withdrawal timeline signed in Bush’s SOFA–a timeline that both Bush and Obama offered to nix in favor of a provision for a stay-behind force that would have had direct impact on Iraq’s current situation.
Unless somebody can prove that any of this was misreported–by AP, by the NYT, by the WSJ, by the WashPost, by the National Journal, by Huffpo, by Reuters, by AFP–or that there is some evidence, of which the rest of us are not aware, proving that it was Obama’s plan not to supply the troops he offered to Maliki in 2011, my work here is done.[/quote]
Again:
His idea, his fuck up. He says so…[/quote]
I’ve dismantled this point a dozen times now. It seems to me that you didn’t have the facts when you wrote that this was all Obama’s idea, oh how it’s blown up on him. You didn’t know that Bush had tried and failed to win the provision of a security force. You didn’t know that Bush had signed an agreement prescribing a complete withdrawal by December 2011 because he failed to get the SOFA that he needed to get. You didn’t know that Obama had tried to renegotiate that same agreement, to win the provision of that same American troop presence, and, just like Bush, had failed. You couldn’t have called the whole thing Obama’s idea if you’d known that he’d tried for the same thing Bush had tried for and was denied by Maliki as Bush had been. You didn’t know that, at the time of the withdrawal, conservative media made the point that, despite Obama’s rhetoric, the withdrawal was a loss for him, because he’d wanted to do different and he’d failed. You didn’t know all of this.
Which is fine. What’s not fine is that now you do know these things–unless you’re literally ignoring the evidence–and, instead of adjusting your opinions in order to align them with reality, you’re doubling down on the above folly [u]which relies on the ludicrous implication that “Obama said X” is a valid and sufficient argument in favor of X’s truth. Indeed, it’s even superior to documentation in the hierarchy of evidence.[/u]
Just how bad is this line of reasoning? Well, let’s see.
So:
–If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.
–Obamacare is good for the middle class, and it’s fiscally responsible.
–It’s giving the American people economic security, and that’s something to be proud of.
–It’s working.
–It’s helping people everywhere.
–And, last but not least, critics of the law are mad at the idea of folks having health insurance.
Well then, I guess that’s settled, yeah*?
*Posted in the Obamacare thread for good measure[/quote]
Why do Americans have a made up class called the middle class? There is the worker who works for a wae while producing surplus value and the capitalist who starts buisness and owns the productive infrastructure and then hires workers to produce commodities with those means of production and makes surplus value off their labour, hence capitalism.
There is no middle class. This is a term that has no basis in reality, It does not matter if you earn 15 million a year or 5 thousand a year, if you generate surplus value you are working class.
I love Americanisms and American culture but this whole middle class thing is really absurd. Ive even started hearing a few people use it here too, but they can not show me any material basis for a third class.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Just for the sake of accuracy, this is what I came in to refute:
[quote]pat wrote:
Obama really, seriously fucked up this time. The pull out was his idea and it has blown up in his face. [/quote]
Since Pat wrote this, we have learned that:
Bush tried to negotiate a remnant security force, failed, and signed an agreement prescribing a complete withdrawal by December 2011.
Obama, in a bid to re-negotiate Bush’s agreement with the addition of a remnant security force (as Bush had originally wanted), discussed with Maliki in the summer of 2011 an agreement of up to 10,000 and as few 3,500 American troops. Exactly as Bush had, Obama failed, and we followed the withdrawal timeline signed in Bush’s SOFA–a timeline that both Bush and Obama offered to nix in favor of a provision for a stay-behind force that would have had direct impact on Iraq’s current situation.
Unless somebody can prove that any of this was misreported–by AP, by the NYT, by the WSJ, by the WashPost, by the National Journal, by Huffpo, by Reuters, by AFP–or that there is some evidence, of which the rest of us are not aware, proving that it was Obama’s plan not to supply the troops he offered to Maliki in 2011, my work here is done.[/quote]
Again:
His idea, his fuck up. He says so…[/quote]
I’ve dismantled this point a dozen times now. It seems to me that you didn’t have the facts when you wrote that this was all Obama’s idea, oh how it’s blown up on him. You didn’t know that Bush had tried and failed to win the provision of a security force. You didn’t know that Bush had signed an agreement prescribing a complete withdrawal by December 2011 because he failed to get the SOFA that he needed to get. You didn’t know that Obama had tried to renegotiate that same agreement, to win the provision of that same American troop presence, and, just like Bush, had failed. You couldn’t have called the whole thing Obama’s idea if you’d known that he’d tried for the same thing Bush had tried for and was denied by Maliki as Bush had been. You didn’t know that, at the time of the withdrawal, conservative media made the point that, despite Obama’s rhetoric, the withdrawal was a loss for him, because he’d wanted to do different and he’d failed. You didn’t know all of this.
Which is fine. What’s not fine is that now you do know these things–unless you’re literally ignoring the evidence–and, instead of adjusting your opinions in order to align them with reality, you’re doubling down on the above folly [u]which relies on the ludicrous implication that “Obama said X” is a valid and sufficient argument in favor of X’s truth. Indeed, it’s even superior to documentation in the hierarchy of evidence.[/u]
Just how bad is this line of reasoning? Well, let’s see.
So:
–If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.
–Obamacare is good for the middle class, and it’s fiscally responsible.
–It’s giving the American people economic security, and that’s something to be proud of.
–It’s working.
–It’s helping people everywhere.
–And, last but not least, critics of the law are mad at the idea of folks having health insurance.
Well then, I guess that’s settled, yeah*?
*Posted in the Obamacare thread for good measure[/quote]
Why do Americans have a made up class called the middle class? There is the worker who works for a wae while producing surplus value and the capitalist who starts buisness and owns the productive infrastructure and then hires workers to produce commodities with those means of production and makes surplus value off their labour, hence capitalism.
There is no middle class. This is a term that has no basis in reality, It does not matter if you earn 15 million a year or 5 thousand a year, if you generate surplus value you are working class.
I love Americanisms and American culture but this whole middle class thing is really absurd. Ive even started hearing a few people use it here too, but they can not show me any material basis for a third class.[/quote]
And where is “here?”[/quote]
At the moment in the UK. However I see no reason why that would be relevant to my analysis of the term middle class and its basis in reality as a tangible thing that exists.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Just for the sake of accuracy, this is what I came in to refute:
[quote]pat wrote:
Obama really, seriously fucked up this time. The pull out was his idea and it has blown up in his face. [/quote]
Since Pat wrote this, we have learned that:
Bush tried to negotiate a remnant security force, failed, and signed an agreement prescribing a complete withdrawal by December 2011.
Obama, in a bid to re-negotiate Bush’s agreement with the addition of a remnant security force (as Bush had originally wanted), discussed with Maliki in the summer of 2011 an agreement of up to 10,000 and as few 3,500 American troops. Exactly as Bush had, Obama failed, and we followed the withdrawal timeline signed in Bush’s SOFA–a timeline that both Bush and Obama offered to nix in favor of a provision for a stay-behind force that would have had direct impact on Iraq’s current situation.
Unless somebody can prove that any of this was misreported–by AP, by the NYT, by the WSJ, by the WashPost, by the National Journal, by Huffpo, by Reuters, by AFP–or that there is some evidence, of which the rest of us are not aware, proving that it was Obama’s plan not to supply the troops he offered to Maliki in 2011, my work here is done.[/quote]
Again:
His idea, his fuck up. He says so…[/quote]
I’ve dismantled this point a dozen times now. It seems to me that you didn’t have the facts when you wrote that this was all Obama’s idea, oh how it’s blown up on him. You didn’t know that Bush had tried and failed to win the provision of a security force. You didn’t know that Bush had signed an agreement prescribing a complete withdrawal by December 2011 because he failed to get the SOFA that he needed to get. You didn’t know that Obama had tried to renegotiate that same agreement, to win the provision of that same American troop presence, and, just like Bush, had failed. You couldn’t have called the whole thing Obama’s idea if you’d known that he’d tried for the same thing Bush had tried for and was denied by Maliki as Bush had been. You didn’t know that, at the time of the withdrawal, conservative media made the point that, despite Obama’s rhetoric, the withdrawal was a loss for him, because he’d wanted to do different and he’d failed. You didn’t know all of this.
Which is fine. What’s not fine is that now you do know these things–unless you’re literally ignoring the evidence–and, instead of adjusting your opinions in order to align them with reality, you’re doubling down on the above folly [u]which relies on the ludicrous implication that “Obama said X” is a valid and sufficient argument in favor of X’s truth. Indeed, it’s even superior to documentation in the hierarchy of evidence.[/u]
Just how bad is this line of reasoning? Well, let’s see.
So:
–If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.
–Obamacare is good for the middle class, and it’s fiscally responsible.
–It’s giving the American people economic security, and that’s something to be proud of.
–It’s working.
–It’s helping people everywhere.
–And, last but not least, critics of the law are mad at the idea of folks having health insurance.
Well then, I guess that’s settled, yeah*?
*Posted in the Obamacare thread for good measure[/quote]
Why do Americans have a made up class called the middle class? There is the worker who works for a wae while producing surplus value and the capitalist who starts buisness and owns the productive infrastructure and then hires workers to produce commodities with those means of production and makes surplus value off their labour, hence capitalism.
There is no middle class. This is a term that has no basis in reality, It does not matter if you earn 15 million a year or 5 thousand a year, if you generate surplus value you are working class.
I love Americanisms and American culture but this whole middle class thing is really absurd. Ive even started hearing a few people use it here too, but they can not show me any material basis for a third class.[/quote]
And where is “here?”[/quote]
At the moment in the UK. However I see no reason why that would be relevant to my analysis of the term middle class and its basis in reality as a tangible thing that exists.[/quote]
Firstly, “middle class” is a term widely used in the UK. Secondly, your understanding and exposition of Marxian class theory is incomplete. As well as the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, Marx described a third class: the petite bourgeoisie. They own means of production but do not purchase labour. However, this thread is about the crisis in Iraq; not the international workers’ struggle comrade.
“Middle Class” is just a classification. To say the Middle Class classification doesn’t exist is ridiculous. That’s like saying an inch doesn’t exist because you use the metric system.
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
Your soldiers are not fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people[/quote]
You have no idea why our soldiers fight or who they fight for. [/quote]
Yes I do. Like I know who German soldiers fought for during the expansion of the third reich. Like I know who british soldiewrs fought for when they were starving millions of indians and slaughtering rebels in Africa in the name of civilisation.
What soldiers think they fight for and what they actually fight for are not the same and every relative I have had serve over there comes back saying the same thing, we are not wanted there, we are killing people for rich peoples profit.
And a statement like yours implies such bias and faith wothout reasoning I can see you are not open to viewing the facts about the war with an unbiased view, so I won’t invest too much in a rational follow up from you.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Just for the sake of accuracy, this is what I came in to refute:
[quote]pat wrote:
Obama really, seriously fucked up this time. The pull out was his idea and it has blown up in his face. [/quote]
Since Pat wrote this, we have learned that:
Bush tried to negotiate a remnant security force, failed, and signed an agreement prescribing a complete withdrawal by December 2011.
Obama, in a bid to re-negotiate Bush’s agreement with the addition of a remnant security force (as Bush had originally wanted), discussed with Maliki in the summer of 2011 an agreement of up to 10,000 and as few 3,500 American troops. Exactly as Bush had, Obama failed, and we followed the withdrawal timeline signed in Bush’s SOFA–a timeline that both Bush and Obama offered to nix in favor of a provision for a stay-behind force that would have had direct impact on Iraq’s current situation.
Unless somebody can prove that any of this was misreported–by AP, by the NYT, by the WSJ, by the WashPost, by the National Journal, by Huffpo, by Reuters, by AFP–or that there is some evidence, of which the rest of us are not aware, proving that it was Obama’s plan not to supply the troops he offered to Maliki in 2011, my work here is done.[/quote]
Again:
His idea, his fuck up. He says so…[/quote]
I’ve dismantled this point a dozen times now. It seems to me that you didn’t have the facts when you wrote that this was all Obama’s idea, oh how it’s blown up on him. You didn’t know that Bush had tried and failed to win the provision of a security force. You didn’t know that Bush had signed an agreement prescribing a complete withdrawal by December 2011 because he failed to get the SOFA that he needed to get. You didn’t know that Obama had tried to renegotiate that same agreement, to win the provision of that same American troop presence, and, just like Bush, had failed. You couldn’t have called the whole thing Obama’s idea if you’d known that he’d tried for the same thing Bush had tried for and was denied by Maliki as Bush had been. You didn’t know that, at the time of the withdrawal, conservative media made the point that, despite Obama’s rhetoric, the withdrawal was a loss for him, because he’d wanted to do different and he’d failed. You didn’t know all of this.
Which is fine. What’s not fine is that now you do know these things–unless you’re literally ignoring the evidence–and, instead of adjusting your opinions in order to align them with reality, you’re doubling down on the above folly [u]which relies on the ludicrous implication that “Obama said X” is a valid and sufficient argument in favor of X’s truth. Indeed, it’s even superior to documentation in the hierarchy of evidence.[/u]
Just how bad is this line of reasoning? Well, let’s see.
So:
–If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.
–Obamacare is good for the middle class, and it’s fiscally responsible.
–It’s giving the American people economic security, and that’s something to be proud of.
–It’s working.
–It’s helping people everywhere.
–And, last but not least, critics of the law are mad at the idea of folks having health insurance.
Well then, I guess that’s settled, yeah*?
*Posted in the Obamacare thread for good measure[/quote]
Why do Americans have a made up class called the middle class? There is the worker who works for a wae while producing surplus value and the capitalist who starts buisness and owns the productive infrastructure and then hires workers to produce commodities with those means of production and makes surplus value off their labour, hence capitalism.
There is no middle class. This is a term that has no basis in reality, It does not matter if you earn 15 million a year or 5 thousand a year, if you generate surplus value you are working class.
I love Americanisms and American culture but this whole middle class thing is really absurd. Ive even started hearing a few people use it here too, but they can not show me any material basis for a third class.[/quote]
And where is “here?”[/quote]
At the moment in the UK. However I see no reason why that would be relevant to my analysis of the term middle class and its basis in reality as a tangible thing that exists.[/quote]
Firstly, “middle class” is a term widely used in the UK. Secondly, your understanding and exposition of Marxian class theory is incomplete. As well as the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, Marx described a third class: the petite bourgeoisie. They own means of production but do not purchase labour. However, this thread is about the crisis in Iraq; not the international workers’ struggle comrade.[/quote]
I know what the Petite bourgeoisie are, but again they are not middle class, which would imply you lack an understanding of the things said, not me.
Petite bourgeoisie is the smaller player within the capitalist class that operates its own small buisness and hires workers and extracts surplus value but also work and struggle themselves on the periphery of the proletariat, constantly being dragged back down as the two camps intensify and polarise, the working class grows and expands and the capitalist class becomes ever tinier and wealth more consolidated.
And you can’t analyse anything without a consistent theory, otherwise you would have completely contradictory stances because your analysis isnt rooted in anything concrete.
Petite bourgeoisie refers to buisness owners who are in one class but are precariously in danger of sliding into the working class, the key being they own the means of production of a small enterprise.
Middle class is a term originated in America to refer to people who work for a wage but earn an ok wage. That is not a real class, it has no basis in economic theory. It is a term that does not correlate to the real world.
Normal people - ie, people who don’t subscribe to Marxism - don’t define “class” in Marxian terms. In the UK, historically “class” was used to describe social class: ie, “upper class” - aristocrats and landed gentry(not necessarily wealthy) and “commoners” - generally people who did not attend a “public school”. In more recent times, class is used to define the level of wealth of an individual - lower class/working class, middle class or upper class. Then there’s “Guardianista” - tossers who subscribe to radical left-wing ideologies, wear sandals and are held in contempt by all classes.
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
And a statement like yours implies such bias and faith wothout reasoning[/quote]
Lol, because you’re not bias at all, right?
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
I can see you are not open to viewing the facts about the war with an unbiased view, so I won’t invest too much in a rational follow up from you.[/quote]
That’s fine by me. You have no idea what you are talking about anyway.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
oh boy… Is our favorite collegiate with a loose understanding of collectivism armed with leftist talking points back under a new name?
[/quote]
Well you know, us “soldiers,” just fight for Halliburton’s bottom line…
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Just for the sake of accuracy, this is what I came in to refute:
[quote]pat wrote:
Obama really, seriously fucked up this time. The pull out was his idea and it has blown up in his face. [/quote]
Since Pat wrote this, we have learned that:
Bush tried to negotiate a remnant security force, failed, and signed an agreement prescribing a complete withdrawal by December 2011.
Obama, in a bid to re-negotiate Bush’s agreement with the addition of a remnant security force (as Bush had originally wanted), discussed with Maliki in the summer of 2011 an agreement of up to 10,000 and as few 3,500 American troops. Exactly as Bush had, Obama failed, and we followed the withdrawal timeline signed in Bush’s SOFA–a timeline that both Bush and Obama offered to nix in favor of a provision for a stay-behind force that would have had direct impact on Iraq’s current situation.
Unless somebody can prove that any of this was misreported–by AP, by the NYT, by the WSJ, by the WashPost, by the National Journal, by Huffpo, by Reuters, by AFP–or that there is some evidence, of which the rest of us are not aware, proving that it was Obama’s plan not to supply the troops he offered to Maliki in 2011, my work here is done.[/quote]
Again:
His idea, his fuck up. He says so…[/quote]
I’ve dismantled this point a dozen times now. It seems to me that you didn’t have the facts when you wrote that this was all Obama’s idea, oh how it’s blown up on him. You didn’t know that Bush had tried and failed to win the provision of a security force. You didn’t know that Bush had signed an agreement prescribing a complete withdrawal by December 2011 because he failed to get the SOFA that he needed to get. You didn’t know that Obama had tried to renegotiate that same agreement, to win the provision of that same American troop presence, and, just like Bush, had failed. You couldn’t have called the whole thing Obama’s idea if you’d known that he’d tried for the same thing Bush had tried for and was denied by Maliki as Bush had been. You didn’t know that, at the time of the withdrawal, conservative media made the point that, despite Obama’s rhetoric, the withdrawal was a loss for him, because he’d wanted to do different and he’d failed. You didn’t know all of this.
Which is fine. What’s not fine is that now you do know these things–unless you’re literally ignoring the evidence–and, instead of adjusting your opinions in order to align them with reality, you’re doubling down on the above folly [u]which relies on the ludicrous implication that “Obama said X” is a valid and sufficient argument in favor of X’s truth. Indeed, it’s even superior to documentation in the hierarchy of evidence.[/u]
Just how bad is this line of reasoning? Well, let’s see.
So:
–If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.
–Obamacare is good for the middle class, and it’s fiscally responsible.
–It’s giving the American people economic security, and that’s something to be proud of.
–It’s working.
–It’s helping people everywhere.
–And, last but not least, critics of the law are mad at the idea of folks having health insurance.
Well then, I guess that’s settled, yeah*?
*Posted in the Obamacare thread for good measure[/quote]
Why do Americans have a made up class called the middle class? There is the worker who works for a wae while producing surplus value and the capitalist who starts buisness and owns the productive infrastructure and then hires workers to produce commodities with those means of production and makes surplus value off their labour, hence capitalism.
There is no middle class. This is a term that has no basis in reality, It does not matter if you earn 15 million a year or 5 thousand a year, if you generate surplus value you are working class.
I love Americanisms and American culture but this whole middle class thing is really absurd. Ive even started hearing a few people use it here too, but they can not show me any material basis for a third class.[/quote]
And where is “here?”[/quote]
At the moment in the UK. However I see no reason why that would be relevant to my analysis of the term middle class and its basis in reality as a tangible thing that exists.[/quote]
Firstly, “middle class” is a term widely used in the UK. Secondly, your understanding and exposition of Marxian class theory is incomplete. As well as the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, Marx described a third class: the petite bourgeoisie. They own means of production but do not purchase labour. However, this thread is about the crisis in Iraq; not the international workers’ struggle comrade.[/quote]
I know what the Petite bourgeoisie are, but again they are not middle class, which would imply you lack an understanding of the things said, not me.
Petite bourgeoisie is the smaller player within the capitalist class that operates its own small buisness and hires workers and extracts surplus value but also work and struggle themselves on the periphery of the proletariat, constantly being dragged back down as the two camps intensify and polarise, the working class grows and expands and the capitalist class becomes ever tinier and wealth more consolidated.
And you can’t analyse anything without a consistent theory, otherwise you would have completely contradictory stances because your analysis isnt rooted in anything concrete.
Petite bourgeoisie refers to buisness owners who are in one class but are precariously in danger of sliding into the working class, the key being they own the means of production of a small enterprise.
Middle class is a term originated in America to refer to people who work for a wage but earn an ok wage. That is not a real class, it has no basis in economic theory. It is a term that does not correlate to the real world.[/quote]
Actually no, the three tier class system originated with the German sociologist Max Weber. If you’re going to be a political crackpot please develop an understanding of the basics first.
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
There is no middle class. This is a term that has no basis in reality, It does not matter if you earn 15 million a year or 5 thousand a year, if you generate surplus value you are working class.
[/quote]
…According to the addled Marxist model you apparently use in assigning meaning to words you speak and hear.
Thing is, I use a different model. And it’s a lot simpler (simpler, in this case, being an antonym of “more simplistic”): There is a poorest person in the United States, a richest person in the United States, and a person whose financial circumstances put her squarely between them. If your bank account and material quality of life resemble one of these three archetypes more than either of the other two, you belong to, respectively, the lower, upper, or middle class. If you’re sort of in between two of them, you belong to either the lower-middle or the upper-middle class.
Here’s the important part, in the form of a question: Can you prove that my definition is wrong, and yours is right? Objectively, I mean.
Because if you can’t, then you’ll have to go back and qualify almost everything you wrote in your original post in this thread.
“Dr. Sallama Al Khafaji, a member of the Iraq High Commission for Human Rights, told AINA that on Saturday, June 21 ISIS began demanding a poll tax (jizya) from Christians in Mosul (AINA 2014-06-21). In one instance, ISIS members entered the home of an Assyrian family in Mosul and demanded the poll tax (jizya). When the Assyrian family said they did not have the money, three ISIS members raped the mother and daughter in front of the husband and father. The husband and father was so traumatized that he committed suicide.” - Gateway Pundit
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
There is no middle class. This is a term that has no basis in reality, It does not matter if you earn 15 million a year or 5 thousand a year, if you generate surplus value you are working class.
[/quote]
…According to the addled Marxist model you apparently use in assigning meaning to words you speak and hear.
Thing is, I use a different model. And it’s a lot simpler (simpler, in this case, being an antonym of “more simplistic”): There is a poorest person in the United States, a richest person in the United States, and a person whose financial circumstances put her squarely between them. If your bank account and material quality of life resemble one of these three archetypes more than either of the other two, you belong to, respectively, the lower, upper, or middle class. If you’re sort of in between two of them, you belong to either the lower-middle or the upper-middle class.
Here’s the important part, in the form of a question: Can you prove that my definition is wrong, and yours is right? Objectively, I mean.
Because if you can’t, then you’ll have to go back and qualify almost everything you wrote in your original post in this thread.[/quote]
But smh my econ professor at UK community college told me so!!
Kurdistan Leader Barzani Calls for Kurdish Independence:
“It is the time now for the Kurdistan people to determine their future, and the decision of the people is what we are going to uphold,” Massoud Barzani said in an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, the strongest statements he has made regarding independence.
“During the last 10 years we did everything in our ability, we made every effort and we showed political stability in order to build a new democratic Iraq, but unfortunately the experience has not been successful they way that it should have,” he said.
“That’s why I believe that after the recent events in Iraq it has been proven that the Kurdish people should seize the opportunity now,” he pointed out.
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
There is no middle class. This is a term that has no basis in reality, It does not matter if you earn 15 million a year or 5 thousand a year, if you generate surplus value you are working class.
[/quote]
…According to the addled Marxist model you apparently use in assigning meaning to words you speak and hear.
Thing is, I use a different model. And it’s a lot simpler (simpler, in this case, being an antonym of “more simplistic”): There is a poorest person in the United States, a richest person in the United States, and a person whose financial circumstances put her squarely between them. If your bank account and material quality of life resemble one of these three archetypes more than either of the other two, you belong to, respectively, the lower, upper, or middle class. If you’re sort of in between two of them, you belong to either the lower-middle or the upper-middle class.
Here’s the important part, in the form of a question: Can you prove that my definition is wrong, and yours is right? Objectively, I mean.
Because if you can’t, then you’ll have to go back and qualify almost everything you wrote in your original post in this thread.[/quote]
But smh my econ professor at UK community college told me so!![/quote]
Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your brains!