Little History... Dangerous Thing-Harry Browne

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

You people are completely clueless of what’s going on the world as well as your own country today. It’s useless to try and enlighten you about long-forgotten events of the past, such as the Communist revolution and the great split in the party with the Stalinists on one side and Lenin/Trotskyites on the other. There is no better indication of Stalin’s relative isolationism than the charges made against him by the latter group, as I have repeatedly pointed out. Considering these people advocated the very ideals of world revolution, wouldn’t you presume that their denunciation of Stalin would indicate a thing or two about his world view?

Ah, but here I am, lapsing into clear-cut logic and rational thinking again - two concepts that have absolutely no place on a board filled with neo-conservative, islamo-fascist, pro-war, pro-state, 100% liberal and Republican chickenhawks. Yeah, I just called you guys neocons, 100% liberals and Republicans in the same sentence. No, it’s not a contradiction. From now on I’ll just stick to refuting all of the grossly inaccurate statements you put forth, and ignoring the rest of the ad hominem bull.

122

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
You people are completely clueless of what’s going on the world as well as your own country today.
Ah, but here I am, lapsing into clear-cut logic and rational thinking again - two concepts that have absolutely no place on a board filled with neo-conservative, islamo-fascist, pro-war, pro-state, 100% liberal and Republican chickenhawks. Yeah, I just called you guys neocons, 100% liberals and Republicans in the same sentence. No, it’s not a contradiction. From now on I’ll just stick to refuting all of the grossly inaccurate statements you put forth, and ignoring the rest of the ad hominem bull.[/quote]

So where was the clear cut logic and rational thinking? Cause all I saw was a bunch of little kid potty tantrum stuff.
And please stop with the “ad hominem” crap.

123

tiny al:

  1. Unprovoked invasion of Poland near the end of the German campaign.

  2. The long-planned and multiple attempts to annex Finland, also unprovoked.

Two “iron-clad” examples of why Stalin was not an isolationist. All of this before the Soviets were attacked by Germany. We’re all really glad that you read Animal Farm. Now to move on past the piggies and the sheep.

JeffR posted a nice list for you to start with of countries invaded and/or overthrown by Stalin. Maybe the US should conquer Europe and say that we need the continent as a “buffer zone” between us and the Middle East, would that make you feel like we were less imperialistic?

Speaking of not having any frame of reference, what other countries have you lived in? You should try travelling the rest of the world, in the most destitute parts of sub-Sharan Africa you would almost be normal-sized for a full grown man. When you call America imperialist, who are you comparing them to? Ever read any history of imperialist nations?

Please post pics.

124

Al Shades appears to be the new and improved version of “Limbic” to me.

125

Al,

Among your raging litany of stupid remarks, this sticks out:

“…neo-conservative, islamo-fascist, pro-war, pro-state, 100% liberal and Republican chickenhawks. Yeah, I just called you guys neocons, 100% liberals and Republicans in the same sentence.”

Followed by this act of pure genius:

“From now on I’ll just stick to refuting all of the grossly inaccurate statements you put forth, and ignoring the rest of the ad hominem bull.”

So, ad hominem is a perfectly viable weapon for you - see previous paragraph?

As is, anyone who self-promotes and self-congratulates as much as you on your ‘infallible logic’ and ‘masterful refutations’ is an empty, scared, insecure pedant. Not even internet anonymity can hide that.

Rule #1: the good ones let other people sing their praises. If your arguments were half as good as you proclaim them to be, you wouldn’t have to spend so much time telling us how great they are - they’d stand on their own merits. Since you not only boast, but you make impossible claims of ‘infallibility’ and ‘mastery’, not a person here thinks you have any credibility.

The fact that no one is championing you but you should be a message, loud and clear.

126

I think Al is a creation of TC to give us something to play with.
Thanks TC!

127

[quote]JeffR wrote:

WHAT ABOUT TAKING HALF OF POLAND IN 1939?

OR FINLAND IN 1940?

Come on!!!

JeffR
[/quote]

I wrote:

“I don’t equate small conflicts over disputed territory as being an imperialist (I’m also not condoning it).”

Both were territorial disputes going back generations, if not longer.

Please see what Al wrote about the Communist Party splt with Stalin on one side and the world revolution Lenins and Trotskys on the other side.

128

After “dominating” this thread the way that the Austrians “dominated” Europe, its appears that Baby Al is taking his marbles and playing elsewhere. I’ll need to search for easy laughs elsewhere. Were gonna miss ya kiddo, you little lug you.

Love,

Dickhead

129

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Al,

Among your raging litany of stupid remarks, this sticks out:

“…neo-conservative, islamo-fascist, pro-war, pro-state, 100% liberal and Republican chickenhawks. Yeah, I just called you guys neocons, 100% liberals and Republicans in the same sentence.”

Followed by this act of pure genius:

“From now on I’ll just stick to refuting all of the grossly inaccurate statements you put forth, and ignoring the rest of the ad hominem bull.”

So, ad hominem is a perfectly viable weapon for you - see previous paragraph?[/quote]

But there was nothing ad hominem about the statements of mine which you cited. In the first place, every term I used was a political description, rather than a personal insult (how you choose to recieve it is not my concern), and in the second, those descriptions fit you and every other person on here, with the obvious exceptions noted, to a T. If you wish to dispute the validity of the labels, it is another matter entirely. But know that all of them were made on the basis of logic and reasoning - as it occured to me - rather than my personal considerations of you and other posters. This is in keeping with the definition of ad hominem, which I now reference for your convenience:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=ad%20hominem

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As is, anyone who self-promotes and self-congratulates as much as you on your ‘infallible logic’ and ‘masterful refutations’ is an empty, scared, insecure pedant. Not even internet anonymity can hide that.[/quote]

Can you point out a few instances of my self-congratulation? I don’t seem to remember doing it quite as often as you indicate, if at all. What I DO remember doing was countering some of the statements made by others who basically said that I was a naive imbecile whose arguments held no substance. What is insecure or pedantic about countering such aggressive charges with an equally vociferous defense? Throughout all of the insults and venomous accusations made on this thread, I never once began to doubt that the truth was still on my side. To do so would have been to give in to these attempts at intimidation and reward my detractors for their viciousness. I thus made it perfectly clear in my responses to these attacks that this had not occured, nor would I ever allow it to occur. I established that I would not be intimidated by shouting and name calling, thus forcing my opponents to conduct a full frontal assault of the nearly-impenetrable arguments which I had presented. The knowledge of this positively enraged them and led some to declare faux-victories over me on false grounds, which were, in effect, admissions of defeat.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Rule #1: the good ones let other people sing their praises. If your arguments were half as good as you proclaim them to be, you wouldn’t have to spend so much time telling us how great they are - they’d stand on their own merits. Since you not only boast, but you make impossible claims of ‘infallibility’ and ‘mastery’, not a person here thinks you have any credibility.

The fact that no one is championing you but you should be a message, loud and clear. [/quote]

Once again, I do not agree with the observations you have made. But even if they were to be taken at face value, there is a far more important point to consider, and it is this: If more people on this thread had chosen to attack my arguments directly (as characterized by the “full frontal assault” strategy mentioned above) rather than myself, Harry Browne, or libertarians in general, then I wouldn’t have been forced to rebuke their claims by “singing my own praises,” or repeating the merits of my own position.

Here is the bottom line, as I see it: All personal rebukes aside, I think the numerous arguments I presented on this thread stand for themselves in terms of intellectual fortitude, and the tendancy of my opponents to avoid commenting on these arguments in favor of spewing ad hominem garbage is a great indicator of their superiority. Thus, I not only see myself as entirely justified in my behavior on this thread, but ultimately, right on every topic discussed since the beginning.

130

yup he’ll be here the whole week…no cover…don’t forget to tip…

131

Al,

Time is short, and the value of this thread has become low, but a quick reply.

“Can you point out a few instances of my self-congratulation?”

No, it’s right there for you to see you. Pleading ignorant now won’t do you any good. And I won’t do the work for you and cut and paste your comments.

“What I DO remember doing was countering some of the statements made by others who basically said that I was a naive imbecile whose arguments held no substance.”

Your arguments have been under fire since you presented them, by a number of people here.

Secondly, mostly all you have done is presented Harry Browne’s arguments, so it’s mostly been Harry Browne under fire.

“I never once began to doubt that the truth was still on my side.”

And that’s a problem - you have no capacity for debate. You are convinced you have a monopoly on truth and refuse to do the back-and-forth that gets to the truth. To act that way at any age is foolish; to do so at 17 is exceptionally stupid and that is why there is little respect for your commentary.

“…thus forcing my opponents to conduct a full frontal assault of the nearly-impenetrable arguments which I had presented.”

Such pretense. This is what we’re all talking about. Although, in fairness, you have moved from ‘infallible logic’ to ‘nearly-impenetrable’ in your shameless self-praise - so humble.

See what I mean, Al?

“The knowledge of this positively enraged them…”

No one here is enraged by you - we all think you are a fool. We’re not angry, we’re amused, and then we are annoyed.

“If more people on this thread had chosen to attack my arguments directly (as characterized by the “full frontal assault” strategy mentioned above) rather than myself, Harry Browne, or libertarians in general, then I wouldn’t have been forced to rebuke their claims by “singing my own praises,” or repeating the merits of my own position.”

You are extremely sensitive, aren’t you? Go peruse the thread. Folks countered your - I should say Browne’s - arguments on both historical and cultural/materialist grounds.

If you had a ‘rebuke’, it would stand on its own. You didn’t, so you started talking about how your logic was unassailable and how people were just mad because you were so right, blah blah blah. That’s a sure sign you’ve run out of ammo.

As is, I think I am done with this thread.

132

5’10", 145 lbs…

PLEASE POST PICS!

133

Infant Al- In 1936, when Stalin was running the place, did or did not the Soviet Union send men and material to Spain during a Civil War, and recieve the Spanish gold stock. It that or is that not the work of someone who is “purely an isolationist?”

Let me give you a hint, kid, yes and no.

BTW, what would have happened if the Frogs had the balls to pre-emptively march into the Rhineland in 1936? Even Adolf knew that would be the end. But he also knew that the French were too weak and self-involved to do so. Kind of like a poster around here, and too immature to see what was right in front of them as well.

I need a good laugh, imp, to fire away.

Dickhead

134

[quote]Cream wrote:
5’10", 145 lbs…

PLEASE POST PICS!

[/quote]

5’9-5’10, ~150. No pics at the moment, maybe later. If you’re so eager to see me, why don’t you come on up to Boston? I’d be happy to meet up with anyone from this board for a day of training or whatnot.

135

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
… why don’t you come on up to Boston? I’d be happy to meet up with anyone from this board for a day of training or whatnot. [/quote]

This is priceless.

136

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
“Can you point out a few instances of my self-congratulation?”

No, it’s right there for you to see you. Pleading ignorant now won’t do you any good. And I won’t do the work for you and cut and paste your comments.[/quote]

Well that’s a shame because I’m not pleading ignorant and there’s nothing for me to see. Your stance does nothing to address my last post, which was a reply to similiar charges.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
“What I DO remember doing was countering some of the statements made by others who basically said that I was a naive imbecile whose arguments held no substance.”

Your arguments have been under fire since you presented them, by a number of people here.[/quote]

Let’s get specific: They’ve been under fire by a minority of the people here. And even those who chose to address them directly often riddled their retorts with ad hominem nastiness.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Secondly, mostly all you have done is presented Harry Browne’s arguments, so it’s mostly been Harry Browne under fire.[/quote]

Actually, I presented his arguments to begin with (which were also my own - it’s not a physical impossibility, you know) and then greatly elaborated on them with my own knowledge and insight.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
“I never once began to doubt that the truth was still on my side.”

And that’s a problem - you have no capacity for debate. You are convinced you have a monopoly on truth and refuse to do the back-and-forth that gets to the truth. To act that way at any age is foolish; to do so at 17 is exceptionally stupid and that is why there is little respect for your commentary.[/quote]

That’s completely incorrect. Proper debate doesn’t necessitate giving way to your opponent if you are sound in your convictions. And if you aren’t, then you shouldn’t be debating in the first place. To debate is to present your own beliefs while challenging those of your opponents, all the while addressing any challenges posed to you. All of this, I have done. I’m one of the only people on this thread who knows how to debate, contrary to your assertion. You’re free to interpret that as more “shameless self-praise”, but you’ll be wrong, as usual.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
“…thus forcing my opponents to conduct a full frontal assault of the nearly-impenetrable arguments which I had presented.”

Such pretense. This is what we’re all talking about. Although, in fairness, you have moved from ‘infallible logic’ to ‘nearly-impenetrable’ in your shameless self-praise - so humble.[/quote]

Yeah, get over it - they’re just words, and as accurate as anything else I’ve written on this thread. There’s a mountain of evidence and logic to stand behind them, and what do you do? Scribble graffiti on the gate while ignoring the mountain that lies behind it.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
See what I mean, Al?
[/quote]

You don’t want me to answer that question. The reason being that either I do, indeed, see what you mean - and you’re flat out wrong - or I genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No one here is enraged by you - we all think you are a fool. We’re not angry, we’re amused, and then we are annoyed.[/quote]

You don’t know that any more than I do. But you haven’t presented nearly as much evidence as I have to back up your assumptions. Hop to it.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You are extremely sensitive, aren’t you? Go peruse the thread. Folks countered your - I should say Browne’s - arguments on both historical and cultural/materialist grounds.[/quote]

And you think I didn’t notice this? Perhaps YOU had better go and peruse THIS thread, bub. I’m well aware of what other people said and what they didn’t. The first 2-3 pages were devoted almost entirely to fierce attacks against Browne for his usage of a single word which may have been inaccurate in some context, though certainly not his own. These were hardly examples of countering his argument.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
If you had a ‘rebuke’, it would stand on its own. You didn’t, so you started talking about how your logic was unassailable and how people were just mad because you were so right, blah blah blah. That’s a sure sign you’ve run out of ammo.[/quote]

Now that’s outright bullshit; a reflection of pure ignorance characterized by an outright refusal to read the thread, or calculated slander. If the former applies, I urge you to find just ONE instance in which I responded to an actual, on-topic argument - rather than a personal critique of myself or Browne - with the type of “self-serving” tripe that you alluded to. Go ahead, then.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Time is short, and the value of this thread has become low, but a quick reply.[/quote]

Perhaps you should fashion a more thorough reply when you have the time. You definetly should have held off on this one. For my own part, I can say that there are still quite a few arguments on this thread which I have yet to address, and it’s not for my unwillingness to deal with them. Rather, I’m still in the process of writing out my lengthy replies. Expect them to be up within the coming days.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Al Shades wrote:
… why don’t you come on up to Boston? I’d be happy to meet up with anyone from this board for a day of training or whatnot.

This is priceless.[/quote]

It’s true, though! Would nobody be willing to take up my offer? I know exactly what I’m doing in the gym; I follow an advanced bodybuilding regiment of my own creation. I came to this site not to discuss politics, but to read about the sport. I think the PLing/BBing articles here are fantastic.

137

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
Rather, I’m still in the process of writing out my lengthy replies. Expect them to be up within the coming days.[/quote]

oh, goody!

138

[quote]schrauper wrote:
In 1936, when Stalin was running the place, did or did not the Soviet Union send men and material to Spain during a Civil War, and recieve the Spanish gold stock. It that or is that not the work of someone who is “purely an isolationist?”[/quote]

As far as I know, the Soviet Union did all of what you mentioned in Spain, and it could hardly be characterized as the work of someone who was “purely an isolationist”. But does that mean that my claim about Stalin was wrong? No, because it was presented in the same vein as Stalin’s leftist cohorts and the worldwide worker’s revolution which they endorsed. You really need to take this into account before you launch into yet another ill-concieved barrage against my “isolationist” line.

[quote]schrauper wrote:
BTW, what would have happened if the Frogs had the balls to pre-emptively march into the Rhineland in 1936? Even Adolf knew that would be the end.[/quote]

The end for him, perhaps, but not for Germany and the German people. What would, indeed, have happened in such a scenario? Germany would have been occupied for a period of time and thus oppressed for even longer than she already had been. But there would be no predictable fundamental change to the equation of oppression, defeat, and lust for revenge, except that the coefficient of the latter would likely have been increased several times over. If anything, it would have merely postponed WWII. The Frogs would have eventually left, and a bitter Germany would’ve resumed it’s course down the very same path it was destined for after Versailles. This is the only logical assumption that could be made. Anything else is pure speculation. And if you want to speculate, I’ll give you a juicy morsel to chew on:

With Hitler having been taken out of the equation, Germany would have fallen to the Communists. Backed by the Soviet Union, it would have driven out the French - provided they hadn’t already left - and then likely proceeded to consolidate it’s power in wars against other nations. Poland would have fallen, followed by Czechoslavakia, and…sound familiar? Coercion never produces positive results. You can’t change history for the better by starting a war. “Pre-emptive” strategies can, at best, only delay the onset of the inevitable, and, at worst (as is the case with current U.S. policy) spawn new enemies and conflicts right in front of you.

139

Kid- like I said before, all it takes is a few words and BAM- there you go.

You can’t cherrypick history to make a counterfactual argument and have it stick.

You wrote what you wrote, and claiming after the fact that’s really not what you meant’ ain’t gettin’ the job done, son. All of them Rooskie-type commies were expansionists of one type or the other. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Trotsky’s dreams weren’t going to be reality in the near future. So you go to plan B and then on.

As “purely an islationist,” Stalin wouldn’t have been backing anything. You contradict yourself to ‘prove’ your argument. You’re funny kid, in ways you don’t even know. Your counterfactual is far, far fetched, to say the least. You see, people react.

Coercion produced positive results in Germany and Japan. Both regimes needed to be bashed in. And I don’t recall either of them causing the world a whole lot of trouble lately.

Enough with that this is “the only logical conclusion” crap. You are ignorant of the internal situation of Germany at the time. There were many cross-currents going on, and to pick one out and run with it is juvenile. Somehow I doubt that the army would have sat pat and not re-organized the Frei Corps while the Reds took control. They tried it before in Bayern-didn’t work too well.

Harry Browne can’t make idiotic statements up front and pick out the juicy bits of the story to make it fit and expect to be taken seriously. At 17, though, with a frontal lobe that is not quite all there yet, you can be expected to buy into them and make a fool of yourself defending them, for our amusement of course.

You’re young kid, don’t waste your time on this crap. You ain’t changing a damn thing either way. There is an army of guys on this site that will give you all the advice you need not to make the regular idiotic mistakes of youth and really live it up, and you continue on like it matters. If you want to do this for our amusement, fine.

I studied this stuff in depth literally before you know how to read anything on it. I laugh at your simplistic arguments. Whatever, here’s a counterargument- power abhors a vaccum.

140

[quote]schrauper wrote:
Kid- like I said before, all it takes is a few words and BAM- there you go.

You can’t cherrypick history to make a counterfactual argument and have it stick.

You wrote what you wrote, and claiming after the fact that’s really not what you meant’ ain’t gettin’ the job done, son. All of them Rooskie-type commies were expansionists of one type or the other. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Trotsky’s dreams weren’t going to be reality in the near future. So you go to plan B and then on.

As “purely an islationist,” Stalin wouldn’t have been backing anything. You contradict yourself to ‘prove’ your argument. You’re funny kid, in ways you don’t even know. Your counterfactual is far, far fetched, to say the least. You see, people react.

Coercion produced positive results in Germany and Japan. Both regimes needed to be bashed in. And I don’t recall either of them causing the world a whole lot of trouble lately.

Enough with that this is “the only logical conclusion” crap. You are ignorant of the internal situation of Germany at the time. There were many cross-currents going on, and to pick one out and run with it is juvenile. Somehow I doubt that the army would have sat pat and not re-organized the Frei Corps while the Reds took control. They tried it before in Bayern-didn’t work too well.

Harry Browne can’t make idiotic statements up front and pick out the juicy bits of the story to make it fit and expect to be taken seriously. At 17, though, with a frontal lobe that is not quite all there yet, you can be expected to buy into them and make a fool of yourself defending them, for our amusement of course.

You’re young kid, don’t waste your time on this crap. You ain’t changing a damn thing either way. There is an army of guys on this site that will give you all the advice you need not to make the regular idiotic mistakes of youth and really live it up, and you continue on like it matters. If you want to do this for our amusement, fine.

I studied this stuff in depth literally before you know how to read anything on it. I laugh at your simplistic arguments. Whatever, here’s a counterargument- power abhors a vaccum.
[/quote]

Schrauper, how much more condescending can you be? I don’t know how many times I’ve seen you guys disagree with Al, call him arrogant and/or ignorant, and then make your own arrogant comment or personally attack his opinions.

I’m not sure who Harry Browne is, but if he criticises the current oligarchy here in the U.S.,which is laughingly referred to as a two-party system, then I welcome his opinions, even if I don’t agree with all he says.

Yes, you can. That is what debate is. That is what historians do. They state their thesis and they look to past events to prove their point.

Actually, Al has shown a solid understanding of the general political and social atmosphere in Germany between the wars. You haven’t done much besides belittle and make personal attacks.

As far as Stalin being an isolationist, there are historians who’ve labled him as such. I’ve come across a few of them while doing research for my senior thesis in college. Compared to his soviet comrades, Stalin was an isolationist. That is all I will say about that as I’ve touched on it repeatedly in this thread.

Al’s or anyother board member’s age is irrelevant to debate. The attempts to appear “superior” because one happens to be older than another board member are lame and unnecessary.

I like historical debate, there’s no need to make it personal.

Dustin