17 Jul 2009, 8:01 am
yes, because we all know wikipedia figures are ever so accurate. 
also, you seem to be proud of your small mind for some reason. allow me to explain, you can whine all you want, the america in your head does not exist thankfully. We tried your way and you know what? It sucked quite badly! Isolationism will not work for the modern america for one simple reason, a lot of our money is made from import/export. You be a complete dick to every other country and no one will trade with you, not to mention it is people like you who caused the last 8 years of asshattery.
17 Jul 2009, 12:50 pm
17 Jul 2009, 1:20 pm
17 Jul 2009, 4:33 pm
18 Jul 2009, 12:29 am
18 Jul 2009, 1:27 am
you do know wikipedia can be edited by anyone, right? I could go in and put the KKK is a massive group of black sodomites who engage in public gay orgies. Would it be right? No, but it would be on wikipedia. Also, if you implented your dumbass ideas, the only thing that would happen is crumbling of america due to stagnation. Look at the middle east, before it was a theocracy, it gave us algebra, Astronomy, and the like, after Islamic clerics took over, it stagnated and turned into the s**t hole it is today. In every country ruled by people like you, no innovation happens because their is no incentive! Take Einstein, he worked with the german goverment on nuclear research until Hitler started his "Final Solution." Einstein fled Germany to the very open arms of America and he worked with the US Goverment to prevent the nazis from getting the nuclear bomb first. Thanks to him, we now have nuclear weapons, nuclear power, radiation treatments, radaition testing of welds, pipes and the like and ton of other inventions. IF you throw out all the "Aryan" people, guess what, it will just be you and a couple of inbred hicks left and nothing happens, because all the smart people leave to better places, its called brain drain and everytime a fascist regime comes to power, it happens, the reason China is so behind on jet engine tech is because the Cultural revoultion destroyed all the educated people! And because of this, you are a traitor to your country and the most unpatrotic person I know! You should be ashamed of wanting to destroy america you terrorist coddler! WE ALL KNOW YOUR AN AL QUIDA SLEEPER!
18 Jul 2009, 3:04 am
18 Jul 2009, 3:10 am
18 Jul 2009, 10:43 am
Pretty open minded of you Rox. :p I try to be somewhat like that too. 
(except it's mostly as an outsider's view, since i'm not really practicing or believing in my christian faith very much these past years)
18 Jul 2009, 4:09 pm
noted makuranososhi
as a brief preamble - brusilov said
Quote:
Islam and 3rd-world immigration is the greatest threat facing us today. We have to send them all back at once. We can't let their cancer keep growing and spreading. Their goal is to force us all to worship Allah at the point of a sword. They will bring a new Dark Ages upon is if we don't act now.
followed by
Quote:
I didn't say it was an armed invasion or an organized attempt to colonize..... It is only like an armed invasion. You are right...... They don't have the strength to invade by force of arms, so they do the next best thing and try and flood us with millions of boat people.
hence why I said you were contradicting yourself. What else is an armed invasion but the use of violence? What else does 'at the point of the sword' mean but the use of violence? what else can the above posts mean but an invasion? what else resembles an armed invasion other than colonisation supported by violence, which is an armed inavsion?? how can they one minute use the sword to convert us then simply swamp us with more boat people? (I thought boat people were non-muslim asians? don't know much about that) Herein lies you self-contradiction. Violent then non-violent. Which is it?
Despite my almost insulting lack of intelligence, metaphors are not beyond my understanding thank you.
And my Marxism (and most geunine Marxists) is often born out of and driven by being sick to death of feeding the indolent.
Quote:
My knowledge of history would crush yours.
I'm waiting.
Quote:
Socialism, Communism, Marxism........ Make up your mind.
Brusilov I thought you said you knew all about Marxism? If this were really the case you would know that as a Marxist I am both a socialist and a communist, the former being the precursor to the latter.
Quote:
I think you are confusing ignorance of Marxism with the fact that I am not a Marxist. As if I read enough Marxist tracts or whatever, eventually I would "convert." Not that anything you ever said to me would turn me into a Marxist anyway, or I that even give two $h!t$ what you think. I suppose you feel if you bombarded me with enough of your hairbrained propaganda, I would suddenly subscribe to your Fellow-traveler ideology.
You needn't worry, I'm embarrassed to share a language with you , much less anything else. Though offering opinions, much less completely denouncing, something you simply do not understand nor have any knowledge of seems.....illogical.
Quote:
I am not ignorant of Lenin's Russia, but that was based around a cult of personality based around Lenin and only existed in the Post-WWI power vacuum in the first place. And that is not to say that Lenin's Russia was a great place to live by any stretch of the imagination. You should be aware that this brief window of history was characterized by the implimentation of War Communism, in which the government basically commandeered all national resources and turned the populace into virtual slaves, keeping the country running on a hand-to-mouth program that was hardly conducive for long-term national health or prosperity. In layman's terms(the only thing you understand,) the government imposed total control and stripped the country bare to keep things afloat for a short period of time. Anyway, I have no time to lecture you, and as you seem rather thick, limited, and single-minded, I doubt you would adsorb much.
Jesus brusilov come on. *sigh of boredom*
Cult of personailty - no. where the hell did you get that idea? nor was there a power vacuum. there was the provisional government which was powerful enough to launch a military offensive, kill a couple of hundred people by machine gunning a peaceful protest, destroy the Bolshevik HQ and printing press and dissolve the workers+soldiers Soviets. certainly no vacuum.
I am aware of war communism. To paraphrase Trotsky there wasn't an ounce of socialism in this, nor could there have been, the economy was absolutely shattered by years of war. War communsim was the economic policy of a fortress under siege, to get the railways working again, to get food growing, to get factories open. The period of war communism was also characterised by civil war and intervention. Hence war communism. 'hand-to-mouth' as you put it was because agriculture was being absolutely devestated by the civil war, the allied naval blockade cut import/exports down to less than 1% and the country was invaded by intervention forces from the UK, the US, France, Japan and Germany amongst several others. All things which are not exactly conducive to national health or prosperity. Yes they 'took control', because the revolution, the peasants who seized land of the aristocracy and capitalsits, the workers who revolted, would have suffered the fate of the Paris Commune if they had not. They 'stripped the country bare' as you put it (that is the strip of land from Petrograd to Moscow to Astrakhan, not much given the scale of Russia) because the population behind the Red lines would have starved or frozen to death otherwise. Nor where they 'slaves', not even virtual ones.
Dear god Brusilov who the hell do you think you are trying to lecture a Marxist on the Russian Civil War? Where is this crushing weight of knowledge you sabre rattled at me? Seeing as how this thick and limited individual can quite adequately defend his ground against you this does not bode well for estimations of your own intellect, for which you have something of an inflated opinion. So far you have offered very little to absorb my friend.
again my apologies for going off topic.
My point in asking why other members continue in arguing with Brusilov (which I am also doing, doh!) being that he clearly comes from a position from which he is completely closed to any possibility of being reasoned with. On the evidence of this thread he has been thoroughly innoculated by his 'schooling', if you may call it that, and will present only those facts that suit his world view and in such a way that they confirm his world view, irrespective of whether they do or not, within their actual context, or not; so long as the internal logic of his position is sustained. For individuals such as this there needs to be something far more than what words can be offered here to shake his world view and he will only persist in this brand of anachronistic bigotry (American History X kinda captures this sort of process). He has had his chance to offer his opinion why not leave it at that and expend time on debate which is constructive with someone reasonable?
18 Jul 2009, 5:35 pm
18 Jul 2009, 8:40 pm
I'm not defending Brusilov in the least, but seriously don't piss on wikipedia people. 
cognito wrote:
you do know wikipedia can be edited by anyone, right? I could go in and put the KKK is a massive group of black sodomites who engage in public gay orgies. Would it be right? No, but it would be on wikipedia.
Yes, and shockingly enough most vandals are equally untalented. The issue of Wikipedia's reliability has been addressed as far up as Nature goddamn it and claims that it is a woefully unreliable source have failed to materialize outside of the hypothetical realm (anyone can do something is a possibility, it is not an observation of the actual state of the encyclopedia). If a given piece of info on the encyclopedia is wrong, then you can either 1) trace the source and refute it, or 2) dismiss the fact as uncited. Attacking Wikipedia is a complete red herring when practically everything on there is cited from someplace else, frequently easily traceable.
20 Jul 2009, 7:54 am
TitusLucretiusCarus wrote:
noted makuranososhi
as a brief preamble - brusilov said
followed by
hence why I said you were contradicting yourself. What else is an armed invasion but the use of violence? What else does 'at the point of the sword' mean but the use of violence? what else can the above posts mean but an invasion? what else resembles an armed invasion other than colonisation supported by violence, which is an armed inavsion?? how can they one minute use the sword to convert us then simply swamp us with more boat people? (I thought boat people were non-muslim asians? don't know much about that) Herein lies you self-contradiction. Violent then non-violent. Which is it?
Despite my almost insulting lack of intelligence, metaphors are not beyond my understanding thank you.
And my Marxism (and most geunine Marxists) is often born out of and driven by being sick to death of feeding the indolent.
I'm waiting.
Brusilov I thought you said you knew all about Marxism? If this were really the case you would know that as a Marxist I am both a socialist and a communist, the former being the precursor to the latter.
You needn't worry, I'm embarrassed to share a language with you , much less anything else. Though offering opinions, much less completely denouncing, something you simply do not understand nor have any knowledge of seems.....illogical.
I am not ignorant of Lenin's Russia, but that was based around a cult of personality based around Lenin and only existed in the Post-WWI power vacuum in the first place. And that is not to say that Lenin's Russia was a great place to live by any stretch of the imagination. You should be aware that this brief window of history was characterized by the implimentation of War Communism, in which the government basically commandeered all national resources and turned the populace into virtual slaves, keeping the country running on a hand-to-mouth program that was hardly conducive for long-term national health or prosperity. In layman's terms(the only thing you understand,) the government imposed total control and stripped the country bare to keep things afloat for a short period of time. Anyway, I have no time to lecture you, and as you seem rather thick, limited, and single-minded, I doubt you would adsorb much.
Jesus brusilov come on. *sigh of boredom*
Cult of personailty - no. where the hell did you get that idea? nor was there a power vacuum. there was the provisional government which was powerful enough to launch a military offensive, kill a couple of hundred people by machine gunning a peaceful protest, destroy the Bolshevik HQ and printing press and dissolve the workers+soldiers Soviets. certainly no vacuum.
I am aware of war communism. To paraphrase Trotsky there wasn't an ounce of socialism in this, nor could there have been, the economy was absolutely shattered by years of war. War communsim was the economic policy of a fortress under siege, to get the railways working again, to get food growing, to get factories open. The period of war communism was also characterised by civil war and intervention. Hence war communism. 'hand-to-mouth' as you put it was because agriculture was being absolutely devestated by the civil war, the allied naval blockade cut import/exports down to less than 1% and the country was invaded by intervention forces from the UK, the US, France, Japan and Germany amongst several others. All things which are not exactly conducive to national health or prosperity. Yes they 'took control', because the revolution, the peasants who seized land of the aristocracy and capitalsits, the workers who revolted, would have suffered the fate of the Paris Commune if they had not. They 'stripped the country bare' as you put it (that is the strip of land from Petrograd to Moscow to Astrakhan, not much given the scale of Russia) because the population behind the Red lines would have starved or frozen to death otherwise. Nor where they 'slaves', not even virtual ones.
Dear god Brusilov who the hell do you think you are trying to lecture a Marxist on the Russian Civil War? Where is this crushing weight of knowledge you sabre rattled at me? Seeing as how this thick and limited individual can quite adequately defend his ground against you this does not bode well for estimations of your own intellect, for which you have something of an inflated opinion. So far you have offered very little to absorb my friend.
again my apologies for going off topic.
My point in asking why other members continue in arguing with Brusilov (which I am also doing, doh!) being that he clearly comes from a position from which he is completely closed to any possibility of being reasoned with. On the evidence of this thread he has been thoroughly innoculated by his 'schooling', if you may call it that, and will present only those facts that suit his world view and in such a way that they confirm his world view, irrespective of whether they do or not, within their actual context, or not; so long as the internal logic of his position is sustained. For individuals such as this there needs to be something far more than what words can be offered here to shake his world view and he will only persist in this brand of anachronistic bigotry (American History X kinda captures this sort of process). He has had his chance to offer his opinion why not leave it at that and expend time on debate which is constructive with someone reasonable?
as a brief preamble - brusilov said
Quote:
Islam and 3rd-world immigration is the greatest threat facing us today. We have to send them all back at once. We can't let their cancer keep growing and spreading. Their goal is to force us all to worship Allah at the point of a sword. They will bring a new Dark Ages upon is if we don't act now.
followed by
Quote:
I didn't say it was an armed invasion or an organized attempt to colonize..... It is only like an armed invasion. You are right...... They don't have the strength to invade by force of arms, so they do the next best thing and try and flood us with millions of boat people.
hence why I said you were contradicting yourself. What else is an armed invasion but the use of violence? What else does 'at the point of the sword' mean but the use of violence? what else can the above posts mean but an invasion? what else resembles an armed invasion other than colonisation supported by violence, which is an armed inavsion?? how can they one minute use the sword to convert us then simply swamp us with more boat people? (I thought boat people were non-muslim asians? don't know much about that) Herein lies you self-contradiction. Violent then non-violent. Which is it?
Despite my almost insulting lack of intelligence, metaphors are not beyond my understanding thank you.
And my Marxism (and most geunine Marxists) is often born out of and driven by being sick to death of feeding the indolent.
Quote:
My knowledge of history would crush yours.
I'm waiting.
Quote:
Socialism, Communism, Marxism........ Make up your mind.
Brusilov I thought you said you knew all about Marxism? If this were really the case you would know that as a Marxist I am both a socialist and a communist, the former being the precursor to the latter.
Quote:
I think you are confusing ignorance of Marxism with the fact that I am not a Marxist. As if I read enough Marxist tracts or whatever, eventually I would "convert." Not that anything you ever said to me would turn me into a Marxist anyway, or I that even give two $h!t$ what you think. I suppose you feel if you bombarded me with enough of your hairbrained propaganda, I would suddenly subscribe to your Fellow-traveler ideology.
You needn't worry, I'm embarrassed to share a language with you , much less anything else. Though offering opinions, much less completely denouncing, something you simply do not understand nor have any knowledge of seems.....illogical.
Quote:
I am not ignorant of Lenin's Russia, but that was based around a cult of personality based around Lenin and only existed in the Post-WWI power vacuum in the first place. And that is not to say that Lenin's Russia was a great place to live by any stretch of the imagination. You should be aware that this brief window of history was characterized by the implimentation of War Communism, in which the government basically commandeered all national resources and turned the populace into virtual slaves, keeping the country running on a hand-to-mouth program that was hardly conducive for long-term national health or prosperity. In layman's terms(the only thing you understand,) the government imposed total control and stripped the country bare to keep things afloat for a short period of time. Anyway, I have no time to lecture you, and as you seem rather thick, limited, and single-minded, I doubt you would adsorb much.
Jesus brusilov come on. *sigh of boredom*
Cult of personailty - no. where the hell did you get that idea? nor was there a power vacuum. there was the provisional government which was powerful enough to launch a military offensive, kill a couple of hundred people by machine gunning a peaceful protest, destroy the Bolshevik HQ and printing press and dissolve the workers+soldiers Soviets. certainly no vacuum.
I am aware of war communism. To paraphrase Trotsky there wasn't an ounce of socialism in this, nor could there have been, the economy was absolutely shattered by years of war. War communsim was the economic policy of a fortress under siege, to get the railways working again, to get food growing, to get factories open. The period of war communism was also characterised by civil war and intervention. Hence war communism. 'hand-to-mouth' as you put it was because agriculture was being absolutely devestated by the civil war, the allied naval blockade cut import/exports down to less than 1% and the country was invaded by intervention forces from the UK, the US, France, Japan and Germany amongst several others. All things which are not exactly conducive to national health or prosperity. Yes they 'took control', because the revolution, the peasants who seized land of the aristocracy and capitalsits, the workers who revolted, would have suffered the fate of the Paris Commune if they had not. They 'stripped the country bare' as you put it (that is the strip of land from Petrograd to Moscow to Astrakhan, not much given the scale of Russia) because the population behind the Red lines would have starved or frozen to death otherwise. Nor where they 'slaves', not even virtual ones.
Dear god Brusilov who the hell do you think you are trying to lecture a Marxist on the Russian Civil War? Where is this crushing weight of knowledge you sabre rattled at me? Seeing as how this thick and limited individual can quite adequately defend his ground against you this does not bode well for estimations of your own intellect, for which you have something of an inflated opinion. So far you have offered very little to absorb my friend.
again my apologies for going off topic.
My point in asking why other members continue in arguing with Brusilov (which I am also doing, doh!) being that he clearly comes from a position from which he is completely closed to any possibility of being reasoned with. On the evidence of this thread he has been thoroughly innoculated by his 'schooling', if you may call it that, and will present only those facts that suit his world view and in such a way that they confirm his world view, irrespective of whether they do or not, within their actual context, or not; so long as the internal logic of his position is sustained. For individuals such as this there needs to be something far more than what words can be offered here to shake his world view and he will only persist in this brand of anachronistic bigotry (American History X kinda captures this sort of process). He has had his chance to offer his opinion why not leave it at that and expend time on debate which is constructive with someone reasonable?
for a simple reason, I am just trying to see if he will drop a slur (Money is on the N word) and get his naive butt banned.
20 Jul 2009, 12:18 pm
20 Jul 2009, 1:12 pm
twoshots wrote:
I'm not defending Brusilov in the least, but seriously don't piss on wikipedia people.
Yes, and shockingly enough most vandals are equally untalented. The issue of Wikipedia's reliability has been addressed as far up as Nature goddamn it and claims that it is a woefully unreliable source have failed to materialize outside of the hypothetical realm (anyone can do something is a possibility, it is not an observation of the actual state of the encyclopedia). If a given piece of info on the encyclopedia is wrong, then you can either 1) trace the source and refute it, or 2) dismiss the fact as uncited. Attacking Wikipedia is a complete red herring when practically everything on there is cited from someplace else, frequently easily traceable.
cognito wrote:
you do know wikipedia can be edited by anyone, right? I could go in and put the KKK is a massive group of black sodomites who engage in public gay orgies. Would it be right? No, but it would be on wikipedia.
Yes, and shockingly enough most vandals are equally untalented. The issue of Wikipedia's reliability has been addressed as far up as Nature goddamn it and claims that it is a woefully unreliable source have failed to materialize outside of the hypothetical realm (anyone can do something is a possibility, it is not an observation of the actual state of the encyclopedia). If a given piece of info on the encyclopedia is wrong, then you can either 1) trace the source and refute it, or 2) dismiss the fact as uncited. Attacking Wikipedia is a complete red herring when practically everything on there is cited from someplace else, frequently easily traceable.
And that's why Citizendium rox your sox.
I personally use Wikipedia and Britannica, but I only contribute to Citizendium. It's the best solution to the encyclopedia wars.
Btw, as I wrote this post, I was hearing a crazy mullah shouting over the microphone (from the mosque which is nearby, there are 7 near my home) about Muslims being killed by the infidels and such, their lands being occupied, their women forced to 'become naked' by being forced to remove their headscarves, their resources being stolen, and neo-colonialism taking place.
He says that the infidels are the biggest threat to peace, stability, and harmony.
I wonder what they're up to at 11:50 PM. O_O
20 Jul 2009, 2:00 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Republicans Lash Out At Marjorie Taylor-Greene Over Threat |
22 Mar 2024, 3:21 pm |
| House Intelligence Chairman - National Security threat |
14 Feb 2024, 4:18 pm |
