I hope the Prez don't suspect me of anything
- Thread starter snorbury
- Start date
Major Tom said:
I know, its not about right or wrong but about power and who retains this power.
I know its about feelings of hoplessness, about countries unable to control their destinies.
But you live in a country where the Prime Minister is voted into office by the voters. And the next British PM will probably be Gordon Brown or some Tory. More of the same. But the Britis are responsible for who they vote into power.
No use in getting angry at the US over it. We don't pick your leaders.
you must know its not that simple. Only a priveleged few are in the running to be leader, and they are chosen by as candidates by the elite. We the people get to choose between two of these candidates, as right wing as each other. Mostly our governments are elected by a minority, but our skewed system allows them to rule. There's also a massive secretive element of the state that infliltrates and sabatoges any "threat" to the status quo - I've seen it at first hand first in the left of the Labour Party - demonised and inflitrated by twin forces of secret state and pro-elite media; and then I saw the Green movement shattered by police infiltration, threats etc. negative press, and said skewed electoral system.mears said:
I'm not angry over the US for it - I'm angry at our back-stabbing politicians, our biased press, and our apathetic people sitting on their fat arses and consuming, or just being generally apathetic.
I consider the US to be an increasing threat to world peace, however, especially the current government. What the US does to other countries makes me angry.
The Natos wanted to bring down the "Evil Empire", and had the capability of attacking it on various fronts. 1979 saw the fall of the Shah of Iran. I suspect the US/Mujahadeen involvement in Afghanistan prior to the Russian invasion was an attempt to build some sort of bridgehead, something the Russians had good reason to be fearful of. But alas, as today, politicians and miltary men could not speak freely or truthfully, for obvious tactical reasons. You know that, don't you Mears.mears said:
Jean-Bertrand Aristide
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
cemertyone said:
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
dilute micro said:Well first of all it's not 'revisionist'. As you saw it was fully documented by people then and by people from every opinion and by people from different countries and by people from different ideologies. It's left to you to form a theory on how they all could have conspired to create a lie, a lie that in some cases undermined their own ideology. You however had no such support for your claims about what I said. You're not well read on the matter anyhow. Just out of curiosity, what books have you read on the subject since? And like I said, I don't have to defend myself against your charges of racism. You should have been around when Diesel was here. You'd have a hard time explaining my posts to him with your charge of me being racist.
Notice this nino,... first you claim in this thread I said, "[slavery] wasn't that bad because not all slaves worked under an overseer". After reading your post I pointed out that I said no such thing. Then you came back and revised your first claim by saying I said, "not all slaves worked under and overseer". You then say I argued it made the institution of slavery more humane. No I simply offered it as an example of how popular ideas regarding history can be different than how they actually were. I used the 1860 U.S. census to show that not all slaves worked under an overseer and that most overseers at that time were black slaves themselves. This is something that most people would have not guessed but is supported by the 1860 US Federal census. I made no effort to 'support' slavery as you claimed. I merely described it with historical fact instead of popular history. And I don't care if people on Urban give one shit about it. I was talking to you and JC, mainly. ....but that was another thread. This is a different topic thread.
But I do appreciate you demonstrating your classic MO again. You did the very same thing in that thread too. There you accused me, ...["And, yes , you did say that "not all slaveowners were bad". That amounts to defence of slavery and you can deny that as much as you like, Dixie Boy."- Nino]
Then you revised as usual.
["In the first paragraph of this post you have lied. You did claim that "not all slaveowners were bad" or at least in not so many words." - Nino, post 408]
Notice how you forgot your first lie?You adhere to the strategy of blasting a lie at someone and expecting that person to defend it. Your lying is childish and isn't even sophisticated enough to be consistent.
First, this is the wrong thread for your vendetta. Second, you have put forward a revisionist narrative based upon your emotional attachment to the Confederacy, that is supported by 'research' conducted by the soi-disant libertarian think tank, The Mises Institute..
Here, you're making it up
You said that "not all slaves worked under an overseer". The thread has been archived but I intend to find it. I have a very good memory and I always remember those with whom I have had battles. I have a good memory for an enemy. You would do well to remember that, you lying sack of shite. The reason you said that was to present the institution of slavery as benign - which it clearly wasn't. It is possible that you used this as a diversion. Whatever the case, it's dishonest.
You also have a problem with information too. I noticed that you will only accept something that has been copied verbatim from a book and even then, it has to be the right book; that is to say, acceptable to your ideological pov. If The Soulds Of Black Folk exists on the web, I would rather copy and paste that than sit and type out the words from the book, just to please you. You have used this method to control the discourse because you recognise your thesis is likely to cause trouble. In other words, it's racist.
Here, you try the same trick again.
It may have been a "historical fact" but why mention it, if not to claim that slavery was humane because of this?
You also mentioned Booker T Washington, as if he singlehandedly advanced the cause of black people. He did not and it was largely because of him that blakcs were continued to be perceived as good for nothing but physical labour. This is from The Souls of Black Folks
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/to...modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=3&division=div1
Here's another interesting quote.
According to you, Booker T Washington was a great leader. The truth is, he was great leader as far as the white establishment was concerned.
You never once attacked Jim Crow laws but, instead, suggested that these were the result of Reconstruction. Really? So it took 100 years to get rid of these laws because of what? Come again? It was the efforts of people like Paul Robeson, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King who swept away Jim Crow. If left to the state governments of the south, Jim Crow laws would have remained on the statute books much longer than they did. Btw, i already know about Jim Crow in the north but we are talking about the South, which clung onto such laws much, much longer.
You should think before you engage the keyboard, Dixie Boy. Better still, if you want to lie, do it somewhere else.
I actually tried to engage you without resorting to abuse and ad hominems but when you started patronising me, it was obvious that you had one thing in mind. Furthermore, your attitude towards me was typical unreconstructed Dixie. As you sow, so shall you reap.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
mears said:cemertyone said:
Talking to yourself again, mears?
Major Tom said:
I have worked on Capitol Hill in Washington DC. I never saw any "massive secret element" of the "state" going around demonising and infiltrating different groups. But he US is not the UK of course.
Maybe your political thinking is part of the minority in Great Britian. What person could you support for PM of the UK?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
mears said:
This is a narrativisation. The Afghan government actually invited the USSR into the country. Get your facts right.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
In your whole thread you didn't even mention my point that I took so much time looking up. That point was how you not only tell lies about what people say, but also that you lack much sophistication at all evidently because you can't maintain the same lie within a single thread.nino_savatte said:
I'm going to disagree that you "tried to engage me without resorting to abuse". I think you're all about it. It's your method of confrontation. If you can't argue you slander. You didn't really blow up in that thread until I started citing sources, many different sources and pointed out that you're not well read on the topic. Then as usual you get hyper and deliver a barrage of lies and accusations. It's your MO.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
dilute micro said:
You forced my hand, Dixie Boy. You were patronising and you were abusive. I responded in kind.
Oh, and how have I defamed you? You claimed that I slandered you. Proof please.
This is an example of your arrogance.
I'm better read on the topic than you think I am. It is only because you cannot accept the fact that your revisionism has been identified that you have chosen to abuse and patronise me . This is your way of dismissing any counter-arguments: claim that the other person is not as well read or that the information has been "googled". It's cheap and it smacks of the control of discourse. Because that is what this is about: you controlling discourse in order to disseminate a fairly vile thesis...and you will not be challenged on it. I will not be dictated to by the likes of you.
There's an auld maxim: people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You would do well to remember that, Dixie Boy.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Your tag line says that you're an "upper class facsist" (your spelling not mine). For someone who likes to think of himself as the intellectual superior of others, it would seem that you hve no idea when it comes to the ideologies of the 20th century. But then you would claim that this is meant to be "ironic"...which is odd given the fact that irony is lost on most Americans.
This is so weak...and you reckon you're my intellectual superior? You're a joke.
Country is (or at least, was) referred to as "white man's blues", what's the problem with that? I am tempted to apply some psychoanalytic theory to your posts but I shall leave it for the time being. Oh, and I do like some country music - what's wrong with that?
As for some overseers being black, I don't ever recall you mentioning this and if you were referring to Josiah Henson, you narrativised the account - didn't you?
This is so weak...and you reckon you're my intellectual superior? You're a joke.
Country is (or at least, was) referred to as "white man's blues", what's the problem with that? I am tempted to apply some psychoanalytic theory to your posts but I shall leave it for the time being.
Oh, and I do like some country music - what's wrong with that?As for some overseers being black, I don't ever recall you mentioning this and if you were referring to Josiah Henson, you narrativised the account - didn't you?
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Great read on the troubles in Afghanistan - lots of resistance all over the country according to this report - well worth the read.
The Battle Spreads in Afghanistan - http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HE26Df01.html
The Battle Spreads in Afghanistan - http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HE26Df01.html
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
I'd say the Russian invasion was a tactical mistake. If the Russians had secured Afghanistan it would have been strategically very important, but they didnt really stand a chance. Equally the Natos invasion was a mistake (vietnam here we go), unless of course they invade Iran and quit Afghanistan at the same time. I don't really get my kicks from Nato style shiney militarism, but can see their overall plan clearly, that is to surround Russia and put her out of business, suceed where the Nazis failed, if you like.mears said:
What concerns me is the brutality of the Natos (and to a lesser extent, how you and sp prefer to support this brutality rather than show some compassion and seem to prefer death and destruction to life and creativity)
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
snorbury said:What concerns me is the brutality of the Natos (and to a lesser extent, how you and sp prefer to support this brutality rather than show some compassion and seem to prefer death and destruction to life and creativity)
Here's a really sad reality - both sides are going to continue attacking and blowing each other up. Nothing is going to stop them. All we can do is sit back and help the people.
The UN is the only relief/humanitarian organization in the country. Everyone else has left - too much violence. The UN has just issued a food alert for next winter. If they can't find extra money, Aghanistan will have to start diverting some of the funds earmarked for reconstruction.
Here is a warning from Palestine, Let’s not lose Afghanistan again -
dilute micro
esse quam videri
Defamed me?....well I could argue that. But you're a sideshow. I'm just making a point. You accuse other people of anything you can think of without looking at yourself.nino_savatte said:
No you're not well read on the topic. And no for me it's not a way of dismissing a counter-argument. You call it 'control' because that's how you see it. You've done only a tiny bit of investigation into the subject and it shows as it would with anybody on any subject with similar complexity. There are a handful of competing and conflicting ideologies concerning the subject. Some are similar to each other and diverge only on a few key things and for particular reasons. From the outside it seems like only two conflicting ideas, but there are more than just two teams. And from what I've seen discussing it with people here they tend to not be aware of anything else but two sides. I've had one person explain that it's 'ABC', meaning that it's very simple. Obviously I take the subject seriously because it is my history. I'm sure you'll be offended when I tell you that the opinions of the people who have discussed it with me on this forum are less important to me than, say, my neighbor. But discussing it with you and the others is helpful. It's not arrogance; it's a fact. It is hypocritical for you and others to demand that you've done a sufficient amount of homework on the subject when you haven't. I can't see what you have on your bookshelf so to speak. But just as anybody I can detect your understanding of it. It becomes clear when you and whoever fail to comprehend and/or understand demarkations in a particular argument you're making and where it leads and why it exists in the first place (the history of a part of an argument). I don't believe at all that you take the subject seriously. I'm willing to bet that after you're done with the thread on the message board it pretty much ends with you there. Of course you can claim to be well read to refute what I said.
Look at you, getting uptight about a few insults while there are innocent civilians being killed by Natos, using what looks very much like Nazi war tactics, no wonder the world's so sick. I seem to remember, the Nazis were very strict on manners in conversation, but little else.dilute micro said:
dilute micro
esse quam videri
I don't think I'm intellectually superior to others, not even to you. That's why I expect more from you than what you do, which is nothing more than walking around with a 2x4 of vitriol and swinging it at the head of the nearest target. You're not serious but pretend to be. And as for the overseer question, maybe you don't recall because you were so busy with your barrage of hatred. What I said then was that at the time of the U.S. 1860 census most overseers were themselves slaves.nino_savatte said:Your tag line says that you're an "upper class facsist" (your spelling not mine). For someone who likes to think of himself as the intellectual superior of others, it would seem that you hve no idea when it comes to the ideologies of the 20th century. But then you would claim that this is meant to be "ironic"...which is odd given the fact that irony is lost on most Americans.
This is so weak...and you reckon you're my intellectual superior? You're a joke.
Country is (or at least, was) referred to as "white man's blues", what's the problem with that? I am tempted to apply some psychoanalytic theory to your posts but I shall leave it for the time being.
As for some overseers being black, I don't ever recall you mentioning this and if you were referring to Josiah Henson, you narrativised the account - didn't you?
dilute micro
esse quam videri
"Innocent civilians being killed" ....this must be something new. From now on I won't post in any other forum or any other topic until this stops.snorbury said:
Thanks for telling me. But shouldn't the rest of U75 know too?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
dilute micro said:
You brought up the subject of slander, go back and look at your post (or do you want me to that for you?). But true to form, dilute, true to form...as arrogant as ever, you come here and you tell me that I am "not well read on the topic". That's according to you and who the hell are you? I'll tell you who you are: you're someone who comes along and tells others that they are wrong simply because you don't like to be contradicted. That is the issue here.
I've already told you that I don't accept the popular narrative of the history of the Civil War and its aftermath, yet you persist with this notion that I am ignorant of the facts. You are nothing but a bully (like your slave-owning ancestors).
I remember my first encounter with you when I first joined Urban 3 years ago. On a thread about black persons convicted of crime in the US and their access to justice. I remember saying that poor black and Hispanic people cannot afford justice, and that justice is for those with money...or words to that effect. But it was the manner by which you responded that was most revealing of the way you view issues of ethnicity. On that occasion, I believed you to be a racist. I have not changed my view nor do I intend to.
I don't think you will get many people here on Urban to support your views. So if you are thinking of trying to isolate me, forget it.
Finally, the root cause of the Civil War was slavery. Like it or not, that is a fact. The Confederate States seceded from the Union because they wanted to continue the practice of slavery, unmolested by the Federal Government. That is a fact. Reconstruction happened, whether you like it or not and no amount of revision is going to reanimate the cadaver of your beloved Confederacy nor will itapply a coat of 'slap' to the ugly face of southern style racism. Those are the facts. I have some more if you're interested...but you're not..the ears are closed and the eye..the one eye, is blind.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
I can see a whip in your hand, dilute.
Didn't you say that you had "friends of African descent"? Perhaps I should translate that for the viewers...he means to say "some of my best friends are black".
Didn't you say that you had "friends of African descent"? Perhaps I should translate that for the viewers...he means to say "some of my best friends are black".
Just to clear things up, I'm not saying the Natos are the Nazis, I'm trying to show that the Natos tactics and strategy are similar to the Nazis. Strategically they are trying to dominate Russia. Tactically they are using revenge killings as a psychological weapon,and also, the terrorist threat ( the bolshevik threat) has blown out of all proportion and uesd as a guise for militarization. apologies to sp who seems somewhat confused www.nancysteinbockposters.com/military/images/bolschewismus.jpg
www.nancysteinbockposters.com/military/images/bolschewismus.jpg
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
dilute micro said:
I think you should have a look back at your posts. I find the tone to be patronising and rather "I know it all and you know nothing". If you have to browbeat others into accepting your 'knowledge' then you are obviously hiding something; but then you are nothing but an arrogant wee bully who has a problem with contradicting knowledge.
There is a hidden discourse behind what you say and I for one, refuse to buy it. You have consistently sought to justify lynchings by claiming that all you are doing is providing 'facts'. That is one of the auldest tricks in the book. Been there, seen that, done it. You can accuse me of "vitriol" and "hatred" but that's all you have in response to my knowledge.
It's funny how you suddenly turned up on this thread though, isn't it? It's also rather interesting how you hijacked it. It's also interesting how I never saw you on my "Neo confederacy" thread either.
Have you got something to hide, dilute?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
I guess you'll be telling me that not only was slavery a benign institution but the so-called 'revolution' was waged not by businessmen with serious grievances, but by an entire nation of rebels fed up with British oppression.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Finally
The use of words like "vitriol" and "hatred" have taken the place of "uppity nigger" here. Black people were accused of pretty much the same things when they were fighting for their rights in the early part of the 20th century. Another accusation levelled at black folks was that they were being "aggressive" or "emotional". Much of this attitude is reflected in dilute's responses to me yet he thinks this sort of thing has never been done before. More fool him.
The use of words like "vitriol" and "hatred" have taken the place of "uppity nigger" here. Black people were accused of pretty much the same things when they were fighting for their rights in the early part of the 20th century. Another accusation levelled at black folks was that they were being "aggressive" or "emotional". Much of this attitude is reflected in dilute's responses to me yet he thinks this sort of thing has never been done before. More fool him.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
back on topic
Serious rioting in Kabul. So much for freedom and democracy - eh?
Hamid Karzai is the Mayor of Kabul. The US and its allies think he is the President of Afghanistan....tell that to the warlords.
Serious rioting in Kabul. So much for freedom and democracy - eh?
Hamid Karzai is the Mayor of Kabul. The US and its allies think he is the President of Afghanistan....tell that to the warlords.
Similar threads
