Little History... Dangerous Thing-Harry Browne

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

I sincerely agree with Dustin here. I might not agree with Al’s views, but to continuously tell him that he is young and dumb, does not exactly show maturity either.

One more point - with his outsider status here and taking bashings from the older (and bigger) guys in the playground, getting his nose beaten every single time, he always stands up again. Pretty much a T-quality, isn’t it, standing up for what he believes, even in the face of massive adversity?

In other words, argue with him, refute his arguments, get angry, but stay civil - educate him, if you must, by example not pressure.

Makkun

142

Dustin- make it stick would be the operative part.

Call it what you will. Recent work does indeed show that the frontal lobe in 17 year old for the most part isn’t fully developed. Google it.

Al Shades is seventeen. I started reading about material central to the Browne piece in 1993 for a thesis on Weimar Hyperinflation. You tell me the odds of a Dick and Jane-type reader discussing the subject? I’d say they are about zero.

Al Shades, to anyone who has gone deep in the stacks and read lots about inter-war Germany, has a superficial at best understanding of the subject. The Kaiser wasn’t stable in pre-war Germany, and that is one of the reasons why they are stuck with the hapless Austrians as allies. So much for that assumption as well. If you’d like, I can take you by the hand and show you the books and point out the juicy parts.

“Austria dominated Europe the way the US dominates the world today.” That is a vastly idiotic statement that stands on its own. Period.

Age is a factor in the debate. He simply hasn’t had the time to study in depth all of the issues he and Harry Browne bring up.

Who is arrogant and condescending anyway? Harry Browne isn’t? Was is the opening tone of the piece? Let me drop some knowledge on you barely read simpletons by opening with Austrian domination of Europe. Hookay, sure- please tell me more.

And Baby Al? All this ranting about perfect and infallible logic and such- please.

Both of you pulled the same stunt. Stalin is an isolationist. Really- how 'bout Spain and this and that. Um, uh, well compared other Commies has wasn’t. Great, but that’s not what you said originally. And bullshit anyway, he wasn’t.

I don’t go into doctors’ offices and offer to treat patients. I don’t go to engineers and offer to solve the equations. I’ve studied pre and post- bellum Germany before Al Shades knew how to read. That is a fact. It is in fact arrogant and condescending to suggest that he is going to correct me when he hasn’t done the work.

And what the hell is wrong with telling the kid that if he asks for it, many an older member will gladly give him the benefit of hard earned lessons driven home from that harsh, unforgiving teacher called experience? But I guess you have to have lived a little to understand that. All of that talk about one’s own infallible logic and being undefeated on the “battlefield” will get him, or you, nowhere in a hurry.

We weren’t always old, and see alot of that cocksure, hardheadedness in our younger selves. Learn the hard way, or don’t.

143

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
Cream wrote:
5’10", 145 lbs…

PLEASE POST PICS!

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. [/quote]

Al… I know you have a high opinion of yourself. However, there would be no good options for you. Once we got to my second warmup weight in any compound lift you would get stapled to the floor. As your knees were at your ears, I would take the opportunity to lecture you about your civic responsibilities, the heroism of Abraham Lincoln, and why manorexics should learn to control their silliness, even on the Internet.

As for the “what not”, I outweigh you by over 100 lean pounds. You would show up with your bo staff and throwing stars and you would probably beat me senseless while I was rolling around on the ground laughing. So in fear for my health I will have to pass this up. Ditch the trench coat and start eating and squatting.

POST PICS!

144

[quote]schrauper wrote:
Dustin- make it stick would be the operative part.

Call it what you will. Recent work does indeed show that the frontal lobe in 17 year old for the most part isn’t fully developed. Google it.

Al Shades is seventeen. I started reading about material central to the Browne piece in 1993 for a thesis on Weimar Hyperinflation. You tell me the odds of a Dick and Jane-type reader discussing the subject? I’d say they are about zero.

Al Shades, to anyone who has gone deep in the stacks and read lots about inter-war Germany, has a superficial at best understanding of the subject. The Kaiser wasn’t stable in pre-war Germany, and that is one of the reasons why they are stuck with the hapless Austrians as allies. So much for that assumption as well. If you’d like, I can take you by the hand and show you the books and point out the juicy parts.

“Austria dominated Europe the way the US dominates the world today.” That is a vastly idiotic statement that stands on its own. Period.

Age is a factor in the debate. He simply hasn’t had the time to study in depth all of the issues he and Harry Browne bring up.

Who is arrogant and condescending anyway? Harry Browne isn’t? Was is the opening tone of the piece? Let me drop some knowledge on you barely read simpletons by opening with Austrian domination of Europe. Hookay, sure- please tell me more.

And Baby Al? All this ranting about perfect and infallible logic and such- please.

Both of you pulled the same stunt. Stalin is an isolationist. Really- how 'bout Spain and this and that. Um, uh, well compared other Commies has wasn’t. Great, but that’s not what you said originally. And bullshit anyway, he wasn’t.

I don’t go into doctors’ offices and offer to treat patients. I don’t go to engineers and offer to solve the equations. I’ve studied pre and post- bellum Germany before Al Shades knew how to read. That is a fact. It is in fact arrogant and condescending to suggest that he is going to correct me when he hasn’t done the work.

And what the hell is wrong with telling the kid that if he asks for it, many an older member will gladly give him the benefit of hard earned lessons driven home from that harsh, unforgiving teacher called experience? But I guess you have to have lived a little to understand that. All of that talk about one’s own infallible logic and being undefeated on the “battlefield” will get him, or you, nowhere in a hurry.

We weren’t always old, and see alot of that cocksure, hardheadedness in our younger selves. Learn the hard way, or don’t.[/quote]

Schrauper-

Keep up the good work! There is nothing wrong with adults scolding the misbehaving children.

Hopefully Al will learn a lesson from his intellectual ass kicking before he tries this crap with someone in person.

145

Point Schrauper. But please, you don’t have to post shirtless pictures of yourself to give some weight to arguments about interwar European history. That’s idiotic.

146

Ouch. The owning is getting so bad around here it’s starting to hurt ME. Stay down, Al! Stay down! For the love of God, please…

I guess when he said a little history is dangerous – he meant it.

147

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Al,

"The war probably could have ended in 1917. Both sides were devastated and seeking an armistice. But America, under no threat of attack by the Germans or Austrians, entered the war that year ?

No threat!!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

See Luisitania. Oh wait, I forgot, you are a proponent of pure isolationism. Don’t honor alliances or free trade!!! Cool.

Yeah, there were Americans on the Lusitania, but this ship was fired upon because it was suspected of carrying ENGLISH troops and ammunition.

148

It is quite likely the big explosion that sank the Lusitania was caused by the torpedo detonating the artillery shells being “smuggled” to England.

I am not sure if there were significant British troops on the Lusitania. After all it was coming fron NYC. I don’t know where the troops would have come from.

How dare the US assist England when they needed us most? Europe would have been much better off under German rule. Just ask those that lived in occupied Europe 30 some years after the sinking of the Lusitania how pleasant it was.

149

My apologies. Perhaps there were no illegal munitions on board. At least the secondary explosion looks like it did not involve the phantom munitions.

http://www.pbs.org/lostliners/lusitania.html

150

T-Chick,

Did you miss the whole “UNRESTRICTED SUBMARINE WARFARE” thing?

That means ANY American or other nationality at risk.

Or is that thing OK with you?

If it is, I’d love to see what would be prohibited under a T-Chick maritime law doctrine.

Thanks,

JeffR

151

Dustin 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."

Am I understanding your premise correctly?

Russia claimed half of Poland prior to 1939?

That is your idea of a “territorial dispute?”

If so, anyone could decide that they wanted some land and declare it a “terrortorial dispute.”

How about, the American colonists helped liberate Canada in 1763. Therefore, we deserve all (or half) of Canada.

Is that OK with you?

According to Al (you?) we would still qualify as isolationist.

Morons.

JeffR

152

[quote]Al Shades wrote:

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]

Al, “it’s” means “it is”, “its” is the possessive pronoun.

Yay, I feel so smart now! :-/

153

Schrauper, I’ve never seen an idiot who could talk (or write) so much while saying so little as you do. This must be the reason why you’ve earned the respect of your intellectual peers on this forum. Just for fun, I’m going to skim through both of your lengthy posts and attempt to identify all of the statements made in support of your position on this topic.

Post #1:
“All of them Rooskie-type commies were expansionists of one type or the other.”

“As ‘purely an islationist,’ Stalin wouldn’t have been backing anything.”

“Coercion produced positive results in Germany and Japan. Both regimes needed to be bashed in.”

“There were many cross-currents going on, and to pick one out and run with it is juvenile.”

“power abhors a vaccum”

That’s it for the first post. Now the second:

“The Kaiser wasn’t stable in pre-war Germany, and that is one of the reasons why they are stuck with the hapless Austrians as allies.”

“‘Austria dominated Europe the way the US dominates the world today.’ That is a vastly idiotic statement that stands on its own. Period.”

That about covers it. Those entire posts you made could have been reduced to those few lines, since they were the only ones which came remotely close to addressing the topic of discussion on this thread, rather than touting your purported wisdom and knowledge and debasing my own with no justification whatsoever. And where you did bother to express your views on the pertinent subject matter, you certainly didn’t back them up - not even once. For such a titanic display of ignorance and self-delusion, your comrades in arms elevate you to the status of a hero and proclaim ultimate victory. This is pure comedy gold. I consider you the biggest joke on this forum.

154

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
…I consider you the biggest joke on this forum.[/quote]

Said the pot to the kettle :slight_smile:

155

Ohh, a quaint one-liner. How charming. I am proud to be labeled a joke by people who couldn’t compose a substantial argument if their life depended on it.

156

Baby Al-you are indeed stupid and ignorant, which we expect from a 17 year old. You do, however, come across in the electronic medium as thinking extremely highly of yourself, which could quite well mean that in person it’s just the opposite. One could also suspect that’s especially true in front of the opposite sex. Whatever.

Write what you will now, but you can’t change what you wrote, and you can’t go back and say you really mean’t something else. The real world don’t work that way, sonny boy.

BTW, for one who claims to be so self-involved, you sure do respond to what others say about you. I mean, come on, showing picture of your ass? Why, to make a complete ass of yourself to people whose opinions don’t matter to you? Riiight.

Reply as you will. I, and many others, have watched as you have made an idiot of yourself time and time again. Trying to save face as you have, well, what else can us older, more seasoned, and wiser members expect out of an insecure teenage boy? Of course I’m no sage, but it don’t take much at all to be wiser than you.

My guess is that you will swing one eighty in your mid-twenties and be wearing a Chairman Mao cap while handing out pamphlets extoling the virtues of Trotsky while the girls passing by pay you about as much attention as they do now.

In the big picture, who really cares what we write on this forum. Life will slap the punk right out of you or grind you down. You just can’t know it yet.

Best of luck in bulking up,
Dickhead

PS on that other forum, where you posted the pics, I think that they should call you Car Wreck. I, and apparently many others, just can’t help but look in macabre fascination as you make a complete fool of yourself. And on the particulars, I’m right and you’re wrong, but too ignorant to know it.

157

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
Ohh, a quaint one-liner. How charming. I am proud to be labeled a joke by people who couldn’t compose a substantial argument if their life depended on it. [/quote]

Said the pot to the kettle :slight_smile:

158

You got any more Al? I’m here 'till 7am.

159

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
Ohh, a quaint one-liner. How charming. I am proud to be labeled a joke by people who couldn’t compose a substantial argument if their life depended on it. [/quote]

what’s the definition of “substantial argument”?

160

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
Ohh, a quaint one-liner. How charming. I am proud to be labeled a joke by people who couldn’t compose a substantial argument if their life depended on it. [/quote]

Al, I have easily and concisely refuted a few of your arguments.

I have chosen not to shred your belief system for three main reasons.

  1. Too many people here on the forum are already trashing you.

  2. I do not have enough time in the day to sift through all your ramblings.

  3. I actually feel sorry for you. You are a terribly confused kid. You are perceptive enough to recognize the bullshit you see in life, but you are not mature enough to handle it, so you get angry. You appear to be rejecting society, family and everything else.

I hope you find real direction before you get too far down this false path.