An Appeal to the Intelligentsia

[M2]

Bullshit. There were at least six, maybe seven. Cain and Abel each had twin sisters.

What a fucking idiot.

[Goober McTuber]

Bullshit. There were at least six, maybe seven. Cain and Abel each had twin sisters.

What a fucking idiot.

Do some research, you cum-drunk ren-fairy.

[DC Smackmaster]

cum-drunk ren-fairy.

[M2]

Bullshit. There were at least six, maybe seven. Cain and Abel each had twin sisters.

What a fucking idiot.

Do some research, you cum-drunk ren-fairy.

I'm not old enough to believe in fairy tales.


Link me up with some FACTS.... grandpa.


I'll be waiting.

[Smackie Chan]

According to Midrashic tradition, Cain and Abel each had twin sisters, whom they were to marry. The Midrash records that Abel's promised wife was the more beautiful. Cain would not consent to this arrangement. Adam proposed to refer the question to God by means of a sacrifice. God rejected Cain's sacrifice, signifying His disapproval of his marriage with Aclima, and Cain slew his brother in a fit of jealousy.

There are other sources, too. Genesis is not the only account of Cain & Abel. Not saying they're not fairy tales, but Goobs isn't making this shit up.

[M2]

According to Midrashic tradition, Cain and Abel each had twin sisters, whom they were to marry. The Midrash records that Abel's promised wife was the more beautiful. Cain would not consent to this arrangement. Adam proposed to refer the question to God by means of a sacrifice. God rejected Cain's sacrifice, signifying His disapproval of his marriage with Aclima, and Cain slew his brother in a fit of jealousy.

There are other sources, too. Genesis is not the only account of Cain & Abel. Not saying they're not fairy tales, but Goobs isn't making this shit up.

... and Santa Claus delivers presents to all the kids in the world while jumping into a chimney on the 25th of Dec.

[R-Jack]

According to Midrashic tradition, Cain and Abel each had twin sisters, whom they were to marry. The Midrash records that Abel's promised wife was the more beautiful. Cain would not consent to this arrangement. Adam proposed to refer the question to God by means of a sacrifice. God rejected Cain's sacrifice, signifying His disapproval of his marriage with Aclima, and Cain slew his brother in a fit of jealousy.

There are other sources, too. Genesis is not the only account of Cain & Abel. Not saying they're not fairy tales, but Goobs isn't making this shit up.

... and Santa Claus delivers presents to all the kids in the world while jumping into a chimney on the 25th of Dec.

..........and a white running back was a varsity starter his freshman year. What's your point?

[Smackie Chan]

I'll be over here smelling my toenail clippings if you guys need me.

Doesn't really matter if you're doing that or treating ashy elbows. This sordid clambake will ALWAYS need you.

[Smackie Chan]

I don't qualify as part of the intelligentsia

Bullshit.

Wish I had time to reply to your responses, but I don't. Tune into chat radio tomorrow night & I'll discuss on mic.

[M2]

..........and a white running back was a varsity starter his freshman year. What's your point?

Not a starter my freshman year... but, when we played for the North Coast Section Championship in Eureka as a soph.

[Dinsdale]

PS - Try copying just a few lines of the first post, and you will see where it all came from. Some of "us" are smart.

I did -- it came from you being a fucking idiot.

[BSmack]

Do they teach the American Revolution in Canada?

Hence the introduction of taxation?

This is a loaded topic, all Smackie's definitions are opened to debate, no one can agree on a starting point. And yes we are taught the revolution, but it falls under British history. Franklin was a lying cunt who could have had representation if he wanted it and you're treacherous, self-serving, assholes who wouldn't pay your fucking bills and dressed it up in high-minded language.

You said...

British troops performed because they actually got paid, Britain's credit was impeccable. Bearded bums vs grenadiers didn't work out very well, you learned quick.

My retort was that the troops who fought for America in the Revolution NEVER got their due reward.

And they still managed to rope a dope the Brits long enough to get the French involved. Ever hear of Saratoga? Oriskany? And even after the French got involved, those underpaid, underfed, ragtag Continentals managed to give the finest army yet known to the world at that time absolute utter fits, DESPITE the Continental Congress continually failing to supply or pay them adequately.

As for keeping a standing army after the war? Not so much. Like mvscal said, even at the dawn of WWII, after having already fought and won (sort of) WWI, our military was horribly undermanned. And even after we passed Selective Service in 1940, we were training the conscripts with wooden rifles and jeeps with the word "tank" painted on their side to represent actual tanks. Seriously, the efficiency of our fighting men was one of the LAST things the worried the US. Need more proof? Read up on the War of 1812 sometime. We hadn't learned shit even 30 years after the end of the Revolution.

[Van]

the finest army yet known to the world at that time

If that one doesn't make Dins's head explode, nothing will.

[Dr_Phibes]

Yet Hamilton's experiences in the war and with de-mobbed militias were pivotal in the formation of a strong centralised government, which is supposedly the crux of all your problems. I'm not saying I agree with it, but from a government bad/market good perspective, that's your starting point. It seems to me, to fly in the face of everything you identify with.

Defining socialism is more cultural here, you have to be careful with it. Your motto is 'live free or die' or 'hell in a handbasket' or something like that, in Canada it's 'peace, order and good government'. Southern heroes are Barnacle Cowpoke Bill, northern are Mounted Police.

And one British grenadier =/= five militiamen. 1812 is right

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Phibes goes 5-hole on our southern cousins...

[BSmack]

Yet Hamilton's experiences in the war and with de-mobbed militias were pivotal in the formation of a strong centralised government, which is supposedly the crux of all your problems. I'm not saying I agree with it, but from a government bad/market good perspective, that's your starting point. It seems to me, to fly in the face of everything you identify with.

What drove the movement to a strong federal government was the utter chaos that followed the evacuation of the British regulars. If Hamilton's wartime experiences had anything to do with it, they would have had the Constitutional Convention in 1783, not 4 years later. Considering that 13 independent states ALL agreed to cede a whole lot of sovereignty to this newly founded federal government, I'd say the reasons for our current system go way beyond even Hamilton's influential opinions.

Defining socialism is more cultural here, you have to be careful with it. Your motto is 'live free or die' or 'hell in a handbasket' or something like that, in Canada it's 'peace, order and good government'. Southern heroes are Barnacle Cowpoke Bill, northern are Mounted Police.

And one British grenadier =/= five militiamen. 1812 is right

"Live Free or Die" is New Hampshire's state motto. Although "Live Free or Die" is a reflection of the national spirit, our actual motto is, "In God We Trust." Personally I prefer "E. Pluribus Unum," Latin for "Out of many, one," as something far more reflective of our actual history.

[Dr_Phibes]

Nice one B.

I'm evolving a theory and the best place to start is always the beginning. I think I've identified the table you've hit your collective heads on as children, I'm just trying to figure out which corner made contact. Every national experience is unique, every attitude has its origins.
I understand that the reaction to government comes from a early trauma with the British Empire, just as the war on schoolteachers and civil servants is a natural consequence of the cold war - socialism as an anathema. You can't go through fifty years of hysterical newspaper headlines without it having some unusual effect.

[mvscal]

Yet Hamilton's experiences in the war and with de-mobbed militias were pivotal in the formation of a strong centralised government,

We didn't form a strong, centralized government, you fucking idiot. Hamilton lost.

[Dr_Phibes]

Well you've got one now twatty, it's a chain of events.

[mvscal]

Well you've got one now twatty, it's a chain of events.

No, it isn't.

[Dr_Phibes]

Is too.

[mvscal]

[Terry in Crapchester]

Just a few random thoughts, in no particular order . . .

Like Van, I see the realization that one often has no ready answers, as well as the realization that certain topics such as politics are complex rather than simple, as a sign of intelligence, not stupidity.

There is no such thing as a free market. Even mvscal seems to agree with me on that point. If you disagree, go out and apply for a job -- when you really need one, that is -- then get back to me as to whether you think your bargaining power was anywhere near equal to that of your prospective employer.

I don't consider myself a socialist, although I acknowledge that my definition of socialism probably differs from that employed by the overwhelming majority of the board. To me, socialism entails collective ownership of the means of production. No one here is advocating for that -- well, maybe Marty and Phibes are, but that's it.

Speaking of socialism, a few points. It has occurred to me that the overwhelming majority of this board doesn't really understand Marxism. If they did, examples such as the Soviet Union, China, Soviet-bloc states and other nations in East Asia and Southeast Asia would not come into play in this discussion. Fwiw, I do have some familiarity with Marx -- given that I was a PoliSci major in college, and the Cold War was kindasorta a big deal back then, it only made sense to have at least some passing familiarity with Marx. Anyway, Marx considered capitalism a nonnegotiable prerequisite to the sort of socialism he advocated. So it stands to reason that if Marx had been alive, he would have predicted the ultimate failure of the Soviet Union, China, et al. The closest actual example to what Marx advocated is found in modern day Western Europe and Canada, rather than the Soviet Union and Maoist China. But the model that Marx set up was, much like a free market, a largely hypothetical example that probably will never be replicated with 100% accuracy in the real world.

Smackie's point about the infallibility of the Founding Fathers is intriguing, although if anyone actually sees things in those terms, it's a gross oversimplification. The Constitution has survived for over 200 years, but there have been a number of modifications along the way, some of which were pretty significant. As just one (but by no means the only) example, slavery is now prohibited under the U.S. Constitution, whereas that prohibition did not exist at the time of the initial ratification of the Constitution.

I believe that individual rights should be maximized subject to limitations as set by our collective, (for lack of a better term) moral consensus. Note that by use of the word "moral," I'm referring to stuff like murder, rape, robbery, assault, larceny, etc. rather than limitations on consensual sexual behavior, gambling, drug use, etc. I realize that the overwhelming majority of the board probably disagrees with me on this, but I think American history shows that state governments and big business have been bigger threats to individual liberties, as a whole, than has the federal government. And much of the expansion of the powers of the federal government has been necessary in order to keep the powers of the state governments and big business in check in that regard.

[smackaholic]

I believe that individual rights should be maximized subject to limitations as set by our collective, (for lack of a better term) moral consensus. Note that by use of the word "moral," I'm referring to stuff like murder, rape, robbery, assault, larceny, etc. rather than limitations on consensual sexual behavior, gambling, drug use, etc. I realize that the overwhelming majority of the board probably disagrees with me on this, but I think American history shows that state governments and big business have been bigger threats to individual liberties, as a whole, than has the federal government. And much of the expansion of the powers of the federal government has been necessary in order to keep the powers of the state governments and big business in check in that regard.

I think the overwhelming majority probably agree that what consenting adults do in their bedroom is their bidness.

I am also afraid of big business, but for reasons opposite to yours.

Big business by itself ain't so scary. It can't lock me away for not paying it. Where it gets scary is when it gets in collusion with government, particularly the fed. government.

[R-Jack]

I for one am still waiting for Rog to prove his claims of plagerism.

[Dr_Phibes]

Anyway, Marx considered capitalism a nonnegotiable prerequisite to the sort of socialism he advocated. So it stands to reason that if Marx had been alive, he would have predicted the ultimate failure of the Soviet Union, China, et al.

That just shows a shaky grasp of Marxism. The mode of production in Russia before the revolution was capitalist, but not sufficiently industrialised, communism is post-industrial.

No true change in social relations is possible until capital has exhausted it productive capacity - but that does not preclude the existence of socialism in one country, set apart from the global revolution. There is no big bang theory.
Marx said very little about actual socialism. You, yourself have posted his definition, how did the Soviet Union fail to qualify? Its very existence proves you wrong.
Marx said virtually nothing about Asia, other than hints of the Asiatic mode of production. He acknowledged the path of European history could not be applied to Asia.

[Goober McTuber]

Just a few random thoughts, in no particular order . . .

Oh, cool. Terry gave suckaholic his password.

[mvscal]

There is no such thing as a free market. Even mvscal seems to agree with me on that point. If you disagree, go out and apply for a job -- when you really need one, that is -- then get back to me as to whether you think your bargaining power was anywhere near equal to that of your prospective employer.

What the fuck does that have to do with a free market, you goddamn idiot? Just shut up and take out the trash before you get brained with a ham bone.

[Terry in Crapchester]

There is no such thing as a free market. Even mvscal seems to agree with me on that point. If you disagree, go out and apply for a job -- when you really need one, that is -- then get back to me as to whether you think your bargaining power was anywhere near equal to that of your prospective employer.

What the fuck does that have to do with a free market, you goddamn idiot?

I used it as an example of the "free" market. Obviously, the job application process is not a "free" market situation.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Just a few random thoughts, in no particular order . . .

Oh, cool. Terry gave suckaholic his password.

Be quiet, Goober, grownups are talking. If you want to fling your poop around, do it somewhere else, mmkay?

[Terry in Crapchester]

Anyway, Marx considered capitalism a nonnegotiable prerequisite to the sort of socialism he advocated. So it stands to reason that if Marx had been alive, he would have predicted the ultimate failure of the Soviet Union, China, et al.

That just shows a shaky grasp of Marxism. The mode of production in Russia before the revolution was capitalist, but not sufficiently industrialised, communism is post-industrial.

You're seriously arguing that pre-Communist Russia was capitalist? Seems you may need a little history lesson.

http://www.johndclare.net/Basics_Russia.htm

The economy was backward (mainly peasant farmers) and could barely produce enough food to feed people; where industry was developing, in towns such as St Petersburg, living and working conditions were so awful that the workers were angry and rebellious.

See also http://www.rpfuller.com/gcse/history/7.html

b. Social – In 1900, Russia was a sprawling landmass stretching across Europe and Asia. Its peasant population was uneducated and superstitious and differed in race and religion. The Tsar refused to introduce education, he preferred the local nobility to control the serfs and he censored the press. Furthermore, people who did not belong to his Orthodox Church suffered in pogroms (e.g. Jews). He continued to Russify his lands, offending the subject races in Finland, Poland, Turkistan and the Ukraine. The Tsar called this policy, ‘one Tsar, one god, one nation.’ He could have used his energy to create more wealth for Russia.

c. Economic – Russian farming was feudal (primitive), resources were unexploited and industrial output was low.



Country

Coal

Pig Iron

Steel



USA

212

13.8

10.2



GB

228

9

5



Germany

149

7.5

6.7



Russia

16.2

2.9

1.5


(Figures are output, in millions of tons, in 1900)

The only economic reforms of the Tsar were the building of the Trans-Siberian railway, which reached Vladivostok in 1901, and a treaty with Germany was made to set up banks in Russia. He allowed no rights for workers, who were low-paid and living in hovels.

Gotta go, more later.

[smackaholic]

Be quiet, Goober, grownups are talking. If you want to fling your poop around, do it somewhere else, mmkay?

Grownups?

Goobs is more grownup than the rest of us, collectively. He was grown up before most of us were born. In fact, he and wolfman actually invented growing up. They held patents on it, but, they expired during the Eisenhower administration.

Of course they are different types of grown up.

Wolfie is the kind old grandfatherly type that helps neighborhood kids fix their bikes. Goobs is the bitter "get off my lawn" kinda grownup.

I don't have to worry about being that type. Last time a kid ventured into my yard, he was never seen again. Word travels fast around here, so it shouldn't be a problem in the future.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Last time a kid ventured into my yard, he was never seen again.

Last time a landscaper ventured into your backyard, he was never seen again.

[smackaholic]

I dare landscapers to go into my backyard.

[Dr_Phibes]

Anyway, Marx considered capitalism a nonnegotiable prerequisite to the sort of socialism he advocated. So it stands to reason that if Marx had been alive, he would have predicted the ultimate failure of the Soviet Union, China, et al.

That just shows a shaky grasp of Marxism. The mode of production in Russia before the revolution was capitalist, but not sufficiently industrialised, communism is post-industrial.

You're seriously arguing that pre-Communist Russia was capitalist? Seems you may need a little history lesson.

http://www.johndclare.net/Basics_Russia.htm

The economy was backward (mainly peasant farmers) and could barely produce enough food to feed people; where industry was developing, in towns such as St Petersburg, living and working conditions were so awful that the workers were angry and rebellious.

You're showing that Russia wasn't sufficiently industrialised, that's what I said. You're equating capitalism with efficiency, it's inefficient, therefore not capitalism. The existence of a peasantry doesn't preclude capitalism, the peasantry were selling their crops on commercial terms, they shifted away from barter as the primary method of exchange ages ago. Their feudal period had essentially ended.

The existence of a peasantry factored into all of Marx's revolutionary theory, he didn't anticipate a world without them, they constituted a 'reactionary force' and that proved true in Lenin's time. In China, they proved a revolutionary force; the peasant's formed the revolution, reinforcing his idea that Asia couldn't function on a European model, 'The Asiatic Mode Of Production'.

See : The Development of Capitalism in Russia


The only contradiction between Lenin/Mao and orthodox Marxist theory, is that of industrialisation. That's an attack that developed in the west in the early sixties, you're regurgitating it and it's shaky ground. It doesn't consider Marxist theory as a whole. Again, there is no big bang theory in social development. It isn't a rigid and inflexible bible study, it's an evolving body of work built on certain cornerstones.
It did concern some of the early Russian Marxists, they actually wanted to support the Tsar on industrial projects to 'speed up the course of history'.

[R-Jack]

I dare landscapers to go into my backyard.

As well you should. Stupid is supposed to hurt.

[Roger_the_Shrubber]

I am high, so I just hit the high(get it)lites of this thread,

So:

Apparently communists are bad, Capitalists are worse, and Terry is in a SERIOUS need of blowjob.

I vote for Papa Willie.

seconded?

[R-Jack]

Did you catch the part where you backed up your bullshit claim of plagerism?

Oh, it wasn't there?

[Goober McTuber]

Just a few random thoughts, in no particular order . . .

Oh, cool. Terry gave suckaholic his password.

Be quiet, Goober, grownups are talking.

Rack that like totally fresh smack.