[quote]mica617 wrote:
And if you watch the Rodney King tape backwards, you will see the nice officers help Mr King get up and send him on his way…
It’s all in the spin-doctoring…[/quote]
Actually, if you watch the Rodney King video in its entirity you will see ole’ Rodney give those cops one heck of a fight! If memory serves me I think he was beating up 3 of them before they took him down.
(off topic but interesting)
Baby Al- the sandbox is still too big for you kid. Austria wasn’t dominating anything before WWI. It was barely trying to hold on to what it had.
Don’t put Wagner into any kind of moral-cultural high and mighty sense. He was a vicious and virulent anti-Semite, something that Naziism was built on. In fact one could argue that Germany’s sogenannte cultural elitism was in the end its downfall, once the elite bought into the various idiotic theories bandied about at the time.
Browne legitimizes so very unlibertarian behavior by that poor mis-understood soul Saddam to make the US look bad. I’m sure he would have been able to spout off his views in that pre-invasion Eden.
Calling yourself superior and taking your marbles home from the international game isn’t going to get anyone outside the US the ability at age seventeen to rant on about their anarchist-libertarian views and not have to suffer dearly for it. You ain’t that special kid. Now go and do as your mommy and daddy or guardian tell you to.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
This article is such crap it’s funny. All you need is a little knowledge of the Austrio-Hungarian Empire at that time to start laughing right at the beginning with the claims of its domination of Europe, and you won’t stop until the end.
Al Shades wrote:
The Austro-Hungarian empire may have been rapidly deteriorating in the years leading up the first World War, but it DID dominate most of central and eastern Europe, in geo-political terms. Ultimately, this proved to be the cause of it’s demise - and it is this salient point that Browne uses in his piece. So I strongly disagree with your assertion that the article is “garbage.”[/quote]
The only way one could possibly come to the conclusion “In 1914 Austria dominated Europe the way the U.S. dominates the world today” is if his sole understanding of the time period was based on looking at a map with a date on it.
The fact that what this article puts forth as “history” is in a larger article, the purpose of which is to criticize others for misusing history, is both amusing and pathetic. Puh-leeze.
Schrauper/JeffR
Great job.
Al,
Come on son…stay down.
Liberalism, Democrats, I mean you can argue the pro’s and con’s but anarchy in the year 2005 ,come on. It’s like supporting fuedalism because the serfs were better off. It’s just a waste of time isn’t it.
A lot of folks support Libertarian views but Brown isn’t exactly a classic Libertarian.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Schrauper/JeffR
Great job.
Al,
Come on son…stay down.
Liberalism, Democrats, I mean you can argue the pro’s and con’s but anarchy in the year 2005 ,come on. It’s like supporting fuedalism because the serfs were better off. It’s just a waste of time isn’t it.
A lot of folks support Libertarian views but Brown isn’t exactly a classic Libertarian.[/quote]
NO NO NO!
Shit, he’s some of the best entertainment we have!
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
hedo wrote:
Schrauper/JeffR
Great job.
Al,
Come on son…stay down.
Liberalism, Democrats, I mean you can argue the pro’s and con’s but anarchy in the year 2005 ,come on. It’s like supporting fuedalism because the serfs were better off. It’s just a waste of time isn’t it.
A lot of folks support Libertarian views but Brown isn’t exactly a classic Libertarian.
NO NO NO!
Shit, he’s some of the best entertainment we have![/quote]
ahh true!
Your first mistake is affixing the liberal ideology tag to someone who is more conservative than you will likely ever be - a man who would eliminate all functions of the federal government unauthorized by the Constitution swiftly and permanently, including but not limited to it’s welfare state, it’s fraudulent social security system, it’s ridiculous war on drugs, it’s propagandized public education system, it’s robbery in the form of taxes, and yes, it’s imperial armies stationed around the world. Harry Browne would like America to have a national defense instead of a national offense, in his own words. Being unsupportive of Bush and/or the Republican party does not a liberal or Democrat make. Once you understand this incredibly basic yet salient point, we can go further.
[quote]hedo wrote:
So those poor Germans were the real victims of those Two world Wars?
And the poor Middle Eastern Terrorists. We are responsible for their actions?[/quote]
Statements such as these show your general ignorance regarding this subject, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of Mr. Browne’s piece.
It’s not about identifying victims or even placing blame - it’s about avoiding the avoidable in order to prevent catastrophes from happening again.
Both WWII and 9/11 could have been avoided if this nation didn’t pursue a foreign policy of aggression and imperialism. That’s the central theme of this article, and that’s what you should be responding to. Anything else, and you’re off in your own territory, unrelated to this discussion.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Hey al, if you can spare a sec from your busy scedule of hating America you should read a book called 'Spare Parts", it talks about first hand acounts of Iraqi abuse of Kuwati’s. Not in hospitals, but right in their own homes, in front of other family members.[/quote]
In every single war waged by the United States in the 20th century, lies and propaganda were used to convince the public into passive submission. This is a fact. There isn’t a single counter-example. After Gulf War I, as after every other war, many of these lies and ficticious claims were exposed. You can undoubtedly find sources to back up some of the allegations made by the government - after all, they get their propaganda from somewhere - but that doesn’t change the fact that the war was sold and propped up primarily on lies. More importantly, no matter HOW much authenticity there is to these allegations, the UNITED STATES HAS NO AUTHORITY, vested from within or out, to act as the world’s policeman. It’s not authorized by the Constitution, it goes against all of the ideals set forth by the founding fathers, and most importantly - IT JUST DOESN’T WORK. There ARE and ALWAYS will be dictatorships in the world - many of which the United States supports and bribes with tax payer money. To go after the likes of Iraq while funding Turkey, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Israel, and many others, is pure hypocrisy - plain and simple.
It doesn’t matter how many thousands or millions of “poor, innocent Kuwaiti’s” were killed by Saddam’s army - the United States had absolutely no right to invade that country. Nor did the war do ANYTHING to improve the situation of that region. If you want to bring up unverified allegations of Iraqi atrocities, let’s also talk about the U.S.-imposed food and medicine embargo on Iraq, which, according even to the Western media, resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of women and children.
Harry Browne isn’t a joke. You are. For subscribing to the very ideals of ignorance that he so eloquently refutes in his article.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The only way one could possibly come to the conclusion “In 1914 Austria dominated Europe the way the U.S. dominates the world today” is if his sole understanding of the time period was based on looking at a map with a date on it.[/quote]
So, in other words, if he was speaking about geo-political domination, which he was, as I already pointed out. Next?
[quote]schrauper wrote:
“In 1914 Austria dominated Europe the way the U.S. dominates the world today.”
Kid, you said that you are 17. You are way too young to even comprehend the vastness of your own ignorance, and that is why you would post such comical nonsense as historical fact.
Austria didn’t even dominate the German-speaking parts of Europe, let alone the whole damn continent. In fact the Hapsburgs were just about at the end of their rope. Why do you think that when the Austrians tried to settle the score in the Balkans the Germans had to back them up against the Russians, who were allied with the French? Austria was Germany’s bitch, as you kids might say today. DUH.[/quote]
You should have saved yourself the trouble of “teaching” me what I already knew - and specifically addressed earlier on the thread:
“The Austro-Hungarian empire may have been rapidly deteriorating in the years leading up the first World War, but it DID dominate most of central and eastern Europe, in geo-political terms. Ultimately, this proved to be the cause of it’s demise - and it is this salient point that Browne uses in his piece.”
I guess that flew right over your head.
I’m not your son, I’m not trying to “rebel,” in the classic sense of the word, and you know nothing about my financial situation or whose dime it is that I’m living on. Why bring age into this? That’s a typical crutch used by the weak. If you can’t beat me on the field of battle, then you can’t beat me, period.
[quote]schrauper wrote:
The way that a so-called champion of freedom treats non-US dictators would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. If the takedown of a dictator who murders hundreds of thousand results in the loss of a morsel of money or liberty, then fuck em. Not exactly a winning political proposition.[/quote]
I never claimed to be a champion of freedom. If I am, it is of my own freedom - noone else’s. But that’s not the point. Coercion doesn’t produce results. What you simply fail to understand is that the world’s problems CANNOT be fixed by invading some shit-hole, 3rd world country every time there’s an allegation of human rights abuse. This is the most primitive, childish belief that I can possibly think of. It is FLAT OUT WRONG - regardless of any and all moral quanderies that might go along with it.
[quote]schrauper wrote:
Don’t get me wrong kid, I’m no fan of coercion and big government and all of the stupidity it brings to the world either. But you gotta have at least some sense of the real world and the possibilites therein.[/quote]
But you are a fan of coercion and big government - no matter what you say about the subject directly. Ask people if they would mind being robbed regularly, and the overwhelming majority will say they’d never stand for it. But look at the number of idiots who defend the income tax, which is theft by the government. It’s no different with you and your views about big government. No Democrat or Republican politician has ever ran on a platform with the stated intent of expanding government - yet every single one of them over the past century (or earlier) has done it. The masses can’t read between the lines, and neither can you.
[quote]schrauper wrote:
As a rule of thumb, people who are so self righteous about such specific beliefs have something to hide. Did your mommy scold you in front of your friends for wetting the bed one time too many or something like that?[/quote]
How am I self righteous? What specific beliefs? I have no idea what you might be referring to. All I know is that you’re supremely clueless and arrogant. Your reasoning is on the same level as that of a 5-year-old, “kid”.
[quote]hedo wrote:
A lot of folks support Libertarian views but Brown isn’t exactly a classic Libertarian.[/quote]
Let’s see you give some examples of what you believe to be “Libertarian views” AND tie them into the mainstream Republican movement in this country, if you can. Hell, I’d pay money to see that. The former “conservative” movement has turned fascist, and today’s Republicans are all big government liberals - the one exception being Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, who has been marginalized by the Republican party as a bothersome relic of the past.
Hey kid- quit quaffing the Kool-Aid from your Ayn Rand mug and deliver me please a devasting riposte, or I shall take your silence as an admission of defeat.
Of course if you choose to attempt to refute what I have said, trust me, it ain’t going to be pretty.
It’s already done. The only thing that isn’t pretty is your flagrant ignorance, coupled with your superiority complex . It’s disgusting.
Al: One little problem with the whole “America creates its own monsters” idea. You see, I agree with the “WW2 thing is our fault” from a certain point of view. I think we should have stormed into Germany and created a democracy there after WW1, and then Hitler wouldn’t have had a chance that way either. You see pal, we just DIDN’T GO FAR ENOUGH. As we can all plainly see, we are not making that same mistake in Iraq nowadays. In fact, I think our actions and their consequences are speaking volumes in the world political arena, and I imagine that other nations who harbor the terrorists we are supposedly creating according to the dicksuck author you posted at first will think twice now.
I would say that we as a nation have learned our lesson quite well from our other wars, and we will continue to fuck anybody up who dares to oppose us. If you have a problem with living in a powerful nation, then I suggest you take up hockey and head north.
Just a friendly suggestion. We’ll still hang out with you here, if you don’t wanna leave. We understand.
Al Shades,
“Your first mistake is affixing the liberal ideology tag to someone who is more conservative than you will likely ever be - a man who would eliminate all functions of the federal government unauthorized by the Constitution swiftly and permanently”
That’s not a conservative, that’s a radical.
“Harry Browne would like America to have a national defense instead of a national offense, in his own words.”
It is not possible to sit and wait on threats to materiallize and beat them back past our beaches when the belligerent armies arrive. That’s not the way war is fought nowadays. Given the nature of asymmetric warfare - ie, terrorism - and range of missile war, old-fashioned ‘sit and wait’ tactics can be renamed to ‘sit, wait, and get eliminated post-haste’.
After all, in a ‘sit and wait’ posture, we could always just prosecute terrorists after the fact. But then Western justice might be seen as too cruel and unjust to our enemies, and in your pathological victimology, create more mini-Hitlers?
And, if we were to be completely isolationist, the argument that we would have fewer enemies is hogwash. The current enemy of the West doesn’t hate the West for its meddling - it hates the West for what it is. After all, Islamists wanted to blow up the red-light district in the Netherlands - was it because imperialist potheads were oppressing Arabs somewhere?
Nope. The old rules never change. They want power and conquest. Waiting on them to come to our borders and attack our cities is suicide. Being purely isolationist in Harry Browne’s world is nothing short of a national death sentence.
"It’s not about identifying victims or even placing blame - it’s about avoiding the avoidable in order to prevent catastrophes from happening again. "
Of course it is about placing blame. Don’t castigate the policy and then offer up some sniveling excuse. Browne - and you - blame American ‘imperialism’ for the dangers we face.
But the Soviet Union didn’t want to crush the US because we were imperialists - legitimately. They wanted our rival form of society to be snuffed out. At no point had we oppressed them - the opposite was true, in WWII, we aided them quite a bit from Hitler’s attempts to conquer the Russians - but they were one of our most notorious enemies of the 20th century (see the Cold War).
“Both WWII and 9/11 could have been avoided if this nation didn’t pursue a foreign policy of aggression and imperialism.”
Nonsense. WWII may have been avoided if nations actually enforced the Versailles treaty. To blame the tragedy of WWII on the US is selective, revisionist history at its most naked. Lay it at the feet of a genocidal madman with a dream of world conquest. Trying to give the Germans cover by saying ‘it’s not your fault, we hurt your feelings in WWI’ belies even what modern Germans say about the catastrophe of WWII.
Besides, where does this victimology begin and end? Why can’t the US ever claim it?
“In every single war waged by the United States in the 20th century, lies and propaganda were used to convince the public into passive submission. This is a fact.”
Prove it. The entire public? Passive submission? I can’t wait for the data.
“There isn’t a single counter-example. After Gulf War I, as after every other war, many of these lies and ficticious claims were exposed.”
You mean in Gulf War I, Iraq didn’t invade Kuwait? Egad.
“More importantly, no matter HOW much authenticity there is to these allegations, the UNITED STATES HAS NO AUTHORITY, vested from within or out, to act as the world’s policeman.”
Nope, but it does have the right to protect its own national security and wage war. The grant is broad. I am not here to suggest that I think every war has been a stellar idea, but war powers are quite expansive.
Don’t forget, James Monroe was a coveted Founding Father - but it was he that began the Monroe Doctrine - which, by your definition, would be imperialism.
Founding Fathers and imperialism? More on that later.
“There ARE and ALWAYS will be dictatorships in the world”
No one refutes this and it is not US policy to try and take out all of them.
“Harry Browne isn’t a joke.”
Harry Browne is a naive utopian who couldn’t be trusted to provide the kind of leadership needed for a Girl Scout Cookie drive. Unfortunately, Browne has no sense of how the world is - you and Harry keep talking about the Founding Fathers - are you prepared to give up the land you live on, Al Shades, to the people it was taken from before the Europeans landed here? After all, the culmination of all this wretched imperialism was the landing at Plymouth Rock - right? If you’re going to view the world in extremes and absolutes, I expect you to hold yourself to the same standard, abandon your fidelity to a government set up by imperialists, and give your house/apartment to the next Native American you can find.
Else, I brand you a hypocrite.
“Next?”
Heh.
Anyway, Browne is the political equivalent of the crazy uncle you don’t let near heavy machinery. Browne and his silly utopian blueprints are best kept at arm’s length away from any serious-decision making.
Al,
You are a real treat!!! I look forward to seeing you as one of Jay Leno’s examples of clueless youth.
"You should have saved yourself the trouble of “teaching” me what I already knew - and specifically addressed earlier on the thread:
“The Austro-Hungarian empire may have been rapidly deteriorating in the years leading up the first World War, but it DID dominate most of central and eastern Europe, in geo-political terms. Ultimately, this proved to be the cause of it’s demise - and it is this salient point that Browne uses in his piece.”
I guess that flew right over your head."
It didn’t fly anywhere. That comment fell flat. It was a fitting preamble to the other misinformation to follow.
Please read SOMETHING about the period.
“I’m not your son,”
Good point. If you were, you would not be so misinformed.
“I’m not trying to “rebel,” in the classic sense of the word,”
You actually ARE the classic “rebel without a cause.” When your mind has been seasonsed by experience, you will cringe at some of the crap that you have written.
“and you know nothing about my financial situation or whose dime it is that I’m living on.”
Are you living on my dime?
“Why bring age into this?”
For most of the posters (including myself) you are a painful reminder of what we were (and weren’t) at age 17. I have to admit, I was more informed than you. However, like you, I did labor under the delusion that I knew more than I did.
“That’s a typical crutch used by the weak.”
No crutch. Just experience.
“If you can’t beat me on the field of battle, then you can’t beat me, period.”
I’d like to get you and POX together. There would be a ton of hot air being expelled.
I could see it now. Pox would be posturing around thinking things like, “Nothing makes white folks more afraid than an angry, loud black man.”
Al would be roaming around thinking: “I may be small, but I’m wiry. I’ll make sure POX can see my black brief case with my throwing stars.”
“I never claimed to be a champion of freedom. If I am, it is of my own freedom - noone else’s.”
How altruistic of you.
“But that’s not the point. Coercion doesn’t produce results.”
There was a very successful election in Afghanistan and Iraq recently. Perhaps you noticed them? I’m glad Saddam decided to step down on his own. Further, the Taliban was very considerate when they decided to step aside.
Such nice people!!!
“What you simply fail to understand is that the world’s problems CANNOT be fixed by invading some shit-hole, 3rd world country every time there’s an allegation of human rights abuse.”
How special. “Allegation” Maybe it was the armless, eyeless, and hopeless Iraqi’s who stood in the Oval Office in front of W. I’m glad he finally made the call.
“This is the most primitive, childish belief that I can possibly think of.”
I can go one better: Anarchy.
“It is FLAT OUT WRONG - regardless of any and all moral quanderies that might go along with it.”
I’m looking forward to your book. With the passing of Dr. Seuss, there’s a void that you could fill.
“But you are a fan of coercion and big government - no matter what you say about the subject directly.”
Can you also predict the future? I’d like to know which horse to back at the Preakness.
“Ask people if they would mind being robbed regularly, and the overwhelming majority will say they’d never stand for it.”
Your mind is like a razor.
“But look at the number of idiots who defend the income tax, which is theft by the government.”
Let me guess, NO TAXATION!!! Anarchy!!! We’ll all work together to patrol, light, and clean the streets!!! Why? Because we are all altruistic characters.
Wait a minute, you just said that you only really believe in your self-preservation. Damn.
"It’s no different with you and your views about big government. No Democrat or Republican politician has ever ran on a platform with the stated intent of expanding government "
FDR.
“- yet every single one of them over the past century (or earlier) has done it. The masses can’t read between the lines, and neither can you.”
You are fantastic!!!
“How am I self righteous? What specific beliefs? I have no idea what you might be referring to. All I know is that you’re supremely clueless and arrogant. Your reasoning is on the same level as that of a 5-year-old, “kid”.”
Didn’t you say not to bring age into this? Then a few paragraphs later, the 5-year old comment.
As the self-appointed defender of all five year olds, I object to your characterization!!! As opposed to you, most five year olds could figure out the need for taxation and public services.
That makes them more insightful and erudite than you!!!
Al, you are one of my favorite posters!!! Please keep posting!!!
JeffR
[quote]schrauper wrote:
Hey kid- quit quaffing the Kool-Aid from your Ayn Rand mug[/quote]
haha, classic
hey Al,
you forgot to blame the US for causing WWI, the great depression, and extinction of the dodo bird.
Speaking of leaving out bits of history, no one has mentioned the pre-emptive bombing of Iraqi aspirin factories in 1998.
Don’t let this hijack the thread, I just wanted to chime in. I’ll go back to lurking now.
I forgot to add this quote to my last post
“Those who support the pacifist ideal, inevitably support efforts to conquer the world to its fullest.” -Adolf Hitler, from William Machester’s ‘The Glory and The Dream’
back to lurking
Al “the kid” shades is going down in history with Squat1000 as one of the progenitors of a classic thread. Storied company my friend!
[quote]Al Shades wrote:
“The Austro-Hungarian empire may have been rapidly deteriorating in the years leading up the first World War, but it DID dominate most of central and eastern Europe, in geo-political terms. Ultimately, this proved to be the cause of it’s demise - and it is this salient point that Browne uses in his piece.”
I guess that flew right over your head.
[/quote]
Ahem.
dom.i.nate:
1- To control, govern, or rule by superior authority or power: Successful leaders dominate events rather than react to them.
2- To exert a supreme, guiding influence on or over: Ambition dominated their lives.
3- To enjoy a commanding, controlling position in: a drug company that dominates the tranquilizer market.
What the fuck does it even MEAN to say that they dominated in a “geo-political” sense? Nothing. It means nothing. Especially when coupled with the fact that Brown EXPLICITLY compares the Austria of 1914 to the US of today, as a dominant power. Work on your critical thinking skills.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
The only way one could possibly come to the conclusion “In 1914 Austria dominated Europe the way the U.S. dominates the world today” is if his sole understanding of the time period was based on looking at a map with a date on it.
Al Shades wrote:
So, in other words, if he was speaking about geo-political domination, which he was, as I already pointed out. Next?[/quote]
No, he wasn’t. Look above and see the quote – actually, it was there before and it didn’t help you any. But here it is again, just in case:
“In 1914 Austria dominated Europe the way the U.S. dominates the world today.”
You think he was simply referring to the amount of territory on the map? Then why would he use the U.S. as the comparison country? Why not use the biggest country in North America, Canada, which is obviously “geo-politically dominating” North America and the piddly little U.S. of A?
If you are going to a private school, I suggest demanding a refund.
[quote]Al Shades wrote:
It’s already done. The only thing that isn’t pretty is your flagrant ignorance, coupled with your superiority complex . It’s disgusting. [/quote]
Pot calling the kettle black isn’t it son?
The hilarious thing is that you have been refuted on just about every point you tried to make…by a variety of posters, and still don’t acknowledge it.
That is the difference between an adult and a child.