This is topic Profile of a Leader in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=045177

Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
 
I just completed this as a class assignment and I am so curious as to who Jatraqueros would choose.

If you had to write a profile of any leader, who would you pick and why?
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
What kind of leader are you thinking of? Do we have to have sources? [Smile]
 
Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
 
It has to be someone outside your personal circle of life. So Mom, third grade teacher, don't count.

No scholarly sources necessary [Smile]
 
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 
Robert E. Lee. Because I find him one of the most fascinating people in history. I can't explain why really. Probably because I identify with his concept of honour and the code he lived his life by. I wish I could emulate it and also emulate the response he got.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove:
Robert E. Lee. Because I find him one of the most fascinating people in history. I can't explain why really. Probably because I identify with his concept of honour and the code he lived his life by. I wish I could emulate it and also emulate the response he got.

And lead a damned rebellion striving for states rights over the federal government!? [Wink]

I sometimes wonder if Robert E Lee was as golden as he is portrayed but I honestly have yet to see any reason to doubt it.
 
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 
Ahmed.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
The Roosevelts.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Steve Jobs

Brigham Young
 
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
George S. Patton, Jr.
 
Posted by citadel (Member # 8367) on :
 
Gandhi
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Frances Kelsey: Where did the drive and the strength to buck such a huge system come from?

VI Lenin: Why did people follow him down such a radical and terror-filled road?

David Ben-Gurion: How did he manage to marshal so much power and energy to get so far with a goal in one lifetime?

Margaret Sanger: How did she (internally) and others (externally) make sense of and deal with so many deep contradictions within one person and one broad movement?
 
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
 
Bill Adama or Caesar.
 
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi, because I know the outlines of his life, but would like to delve deeper into his writings, his "campaigns", and his motivations.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
I think it's interesting (but not really surprising) that we seem drawn to study "good" leaders or people we admire more often than "bad" leaders, or people we disapprove of. At least for me, I would find spending the time and energy to really profile someone rather hard to stomach if I disliked him or her, my interest in Lenin notwithstanding.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
Adlai Stevenson, John Steinbeck, and Hubert Humphrey, all three exhibited clear and compelling moral vision.
 
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 
Blackblade, a friend of mine got me "The Recollections and Memoirs of Robert E. Lee" for my birthday. It's a collection of his letters, etc, and is incredibly interesting. It's not so much his cause that I'm interested in, but rather how he went about supporting it, and his character.
 
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
A few men stand above the rest:

Ataturk— how can anyone change an entire nation in such a short time. Sure, he did some truely awful things, but also some really great ones.

Churchill— A person I would rather emulate than Lee, even more outstanding in his personal life than his public life.

MLK— an intellectual who never ceased to be the peoples' man, while not appealing to their baser instincts.

Caesar and Napoleon— both lusted for power, both were dictators and murderers, but their capacity to lead men, and to lead themselves, cannot be questioned.
 
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
 
Ronald Reagan, his leadership and vision led to the dismantling of the USSR, the greatest threat to, and violator of, human rights and personal liberty in the 20th Century.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
Richard Branson.

Actually, I did give a presentation about him in entrepreneurship.

-pH
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I second Churchill. I'm reading his books about the Second World War right now.
 
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 
Pel, are you saying that Churchill's personal life was more outstanding than Lee's? Because I will have to respectfully disagree with you there.
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Benjamin Franklin has always fascinated me. But I don't know if you would say he was a leader. But he sure impacted a lot of things. The lives of Franklin and also that of Da Vinci have always been a fascination, (because they knew such a wide variety of things) and I wish could have met them.
 
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
 
I second Robert. E Lee. Not only did he have an interesting career, he had an interesting personality.
 
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
 
I second Churchill, and I can't believe I forgot to mention George Washington, without whom there'd probably be no United States today.
 
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 
I was going to say Da Vinci also, but I didn't know if he qualified as a leader. Certainly one of the more fascinating individuals in history though.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Churchill, Yammamoto Isokuro(sp?), Erwin Rommel, Sir Willfred Laurier (Prime Minister of Canada wiki "Tin Pot Navy") all possess alot of charisma and as such the encredible ability to lead men through both the good times and bad times. If only Lenin hadn't have died so soon, and Mao haven't had died so late.
 
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
 
Abraham Lincoln is the name that comes first to my mind.
 
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
"Pel, are you saying that Churchill's personal life was more outstanding than Lee's?"

A thousand times yes. Lee was a man who could be admired but never liked, Churchill could be, and was, both. Churchill had a very interesting— in a good way— personal life, particularly during the wilderness years. He was a kind, funny, ceaslessly energetic man.
 
Posted by Dasa (Member # 8968) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Lenin, Mao, [...] all possess alot of charisma and as such the encredible ability to lead men through both the good times and bad times.

I think this should be lead through good times and into bad times.
 
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 
To each his own I suppose. Churchill had charisma while Lee had honour. I personally would choose honour over charisma, but, as I said, to each his own.
 
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
Lee's "honour" led him to behave like an idiot and fight for a reprehendible cause in which he did not even believe.

So, Lee had honour and Churchill morals. I choose the later.
 
Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
 
Churchill and Hitler, comparision.
 
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 
Ooouuu boy you gettin my hackles up. You obviously have not studied Lee. I confess, I haven't studied Churchill nearly to the extent I have studied Lee, but trust me, you reveal your ignorance to call him an idiot without morals.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
John Adams, without whom there would have been no United States.

-o-

quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, . . . all possess alot of charisma and as such the encredible ability to lead men through both the good times and bad times.

That's not charisma, that's guns.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
hahaha which history book did you read last I check ALL OF THEM were heavily outnumbered AND outgunned in their worst moments it took charisma and the ability to lead and inspire confidence inthose who followed them to achieve victory against all odds.

Mao: in 1945 500,000 vs 4 Million
Lenin: Had to deal not only with the White Russians but the Americans, Brittish, French and throw in the Poles for good measure.
Castro: The Cuban governemnt under Batista also outnumbered him and achieveing the ire of the USA I think also stackd things agsinst him.
Ho Chi Minh: Taking on first the Japanese, then the French and then the Americans takes balls and quite frankly even if manpower wise he had more "guns" the total amount of firepower possessed by the Americans totally outnumbered anything the North Vietnamese Army could field with Chinese and Soviet help.
 
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
...and, if you pay attention, you can hear the gentle "clak-clak-clak" as the rollercoaster approaches the summit...

This thread's going to get fun. I can tell.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, . . . all possess alot of charisma and as such the encredible ability to lead men through both the good times and bad times.

That's not charisma, that's guns.
[Laugh] Icarus
 
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nighthawk:
...and, if you pay attention, you can hear the gentle "clak-clak-clak" as the rollercoaster approaches the summit...

This thread's going to get fun. I can tell.

Wow, Nighthawk, I'm impressed. That was downright literary. I want to use it in a story or something!
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Great Civil War trivia question: Who is the only person to ever graduate from West Point without a single demerit?

Robert E. Lee. Considering that the whole system is designed to mete out demerits, it's surprising that anyone ever managed it, and shows the respect Lee got even at a young age.

I would pick Hannibal. For 2000 years generals have been trying to reprise Hannibal's tactical triumph at Cannae, mostly with limited sucess. I would like to do some research and see if it was just a fluke.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Castro: The Cuban governemnt under Batista also outnumbered him and achieveing the ire of the USA I think also stackd things agsinst him.

Actually, the US stacked the deck in his favor in many ways, not the least of which was the weapons embargo it placed on Batista when he was fighting against Castro. ADDED: The US did not turn against Castro until well after he took power.

Also, Batista's army was inexperienced and ill-trained, and virtually never confronted Castro's troops in anything other than small numbers. Castro had a few hundred men who hid in the mountains and conducted guerrilla raids. Batista had no idea how to respond to this tactic, and when the town of Santa Clara was captured by Castro's forces, he panicked and left. (Keep in mind that Batista had been forced out of power one or two times before, with the aid of the US, and had returned. Like most Cubans, he did not believe Castro's victory would be permanent.)

Che Guevara in particular has a wildly overblown reputation as a military tactician. He almost single-handedly lost Castro the war, his attempts at fomenting revolution in Argentina and Mexico were abject failures, and in the end he walked into a trap set by his friend and comrade, Fidel Castro.

I don't have to read about this in history books, Blayne. This is my family history. My grandfather was the head of an anti-Batista political party, and a presidential candidate, and he served time in prison for trying to overthrow Fidel Castro.

I am, as always, disgusted by the murderers and thieves you choose to idolize.

[ September 29, 2006, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
 
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
Wheeeeeeee!!!!
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
*thwap*
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
You must be <this high> [Laugh]
to go on this thread.
 
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
*gets out the pot*

(No, not that kind of pot! I'm cooking bean soup tomorrow, I have to soak the beans overnight.)
 
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Takes cracking a few eggs to make an omlett. The loss of human lives is genraly overrated or exaggerated depending on ones point of view, also what happens had he succeeded in overtrowing Castro and someone else's grandfather was in prison or executed? How would you possibly predict how a counter revolution wouldve ended as? Plenty o leaders order people to be executed and somedays they don't but theives is hardly an accurate description of any of the Communist leaders I have named and as such displaying your ignorance on not only this topic but a general ignorance of the flow of history as a whole, history is clas struggle of revolutions and ocunter revlutions, Castro was originally a Cuban who simply wanted to overthrow Batista turning Marxist when i was apparent Eisenhower had no intention of being friendly to Cuban interests.

Ho Chi Minh even BlackBlade has respect for despite our quarrels, and frankly its pointless to discuss Mao in this forum.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
You calling me ignorant when it comes to Cuba is the funniest thing on Hatrack today.

[ September 29, 2006, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I like being a comedian.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
The loss of human lives is genraly overrated or exaggerated depending on ones point of view
By "point of view," I think you mean "viewing angle." If you're looking UP the barrel, the loss of human life is a very important consideration.
 
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
For me, Jamal Nasser would be an interesting one to start with.
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bokonon:
Honestly I think most people, most of the time, don't think very abstractly about people at all, myself included.

Blayne is one exception:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Takes cracking a few eggs to make an omlett. The loss of human lives is genraly overrated or exaggerated depending on ones point of view

Wow, this explains a lot. [Frown] [Angst]
In Mao's case, the quote should read "Takes cracking a few million eggs to make an omlette."

No, there's no point in discussing a genocidal leader like Mao with someone who believes what you just wrote. [Wall Bash]
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
No, you don't argue or discuss with clowns. You just laugh at them.
 
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
Man... this ride sucks...

Guess I'll have to find other more entertaining thrill rides in this park.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I am not a clown so unless you have something to say thats intellegen and not an ad hominen shut the hell up.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Here's a non-ad hominem statement, Blayne:

Murdering millions of people through policies designed to further your political aims is reprehensible. It is in fact so reprehensible that it is considered almost universally reprehensible. People who justify mass murder of this sort as "breaking a few eggs" are likely to be perceived as either running dogs of a given ideology or actual sociopaths.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
not one of the leaders I named intentionally murdered millions of people cite even one reference where even one deliberate ordered millions of deaths.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Tom didn't say they deliberately ordered millions of deaths, Blanye. He said they murdered millions of people through policies designed the further their own political aims. Which is different from sending someone to a death squad, but no less reprehensible.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
There I disagree. Even so I do not recall anyone critisizing Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Lenin for millions of deaths, and they hardly acted as thieves. Only Mao is critizied for it and as I had explained before birth rates, standard of living, and overall steel production had overall increased as a result of the Great Leap Forward and the population incresed from 450-600 millions hardly the example of 80 million deaths s Chang Jung would want you to think. These coupled with inadequate statistical methods utilized by the west and the unreliability of the Chinese archives themselves (Since Deng Xiaopeng had far more to profit by diminishing Maos importance to achieve his political goals agaisnt the hardliners) casts serious doubt at the 80 mil figure and at th 30 mil figure frankly it is far more likely of 5-10 million and because of mostly poor agricultural policies inacted just BEFORE a series of the worst natural disasters in Chinese History occured. Floods, droughts, etc. Even then the PRC imported grain from Canada and Venuezala to take up the slack Stalin had exported despite famines Mao imported to make sure the people were fed.

My point is that one cannot demonize someone for an act of god, you can critisize for poor judgement at the time but surel for no more then that.
 
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
clak-clak-clak-clak-clak-clak...
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Even so I do not recall anyone critisizing Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Lenin for millions of deaths....
Let me be the first, then. Although Castro's probably just shy of the scoreboard, given that Cuba's not all that large.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Last I checked the Vietnam war is the principle cause of deaths in Vietnam hardly Ho Chi Minhs falt considering how immoral i was for the USA to lie about being attacked in Tonkin as a means to inervene in a nations civil war.

And the Red Terror is justified they were in a war of national survival vs the White Russians who also had "White Terror" vs the Bolsheviks it was a very dirty war for both sides one cannot possibly pass judgement in uch circumstances consideirng this was before the Stalin era and the Bolsheviks were still in that early intelectual democratic stage.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Castro is both a murderer and a thief. He has killed thousands of people (or had them killed) and stolen essentially all private property. People's houses were taken and turned into apartment buildings. Corporations were "nationalized." As far as his human rights records, it is one of the worst on the planet. Last time you spewed about what a hero Castro was, I linked to reports from every significant human rights organization about Castro's historical and recent human rights violations. Clearly you either do not read or do not learn, so I won't waste the time repeating the effort.

And to suggest that people would have died had my grandfather become president is ludicrous. He was not leading an armed rebellion. He was one of many leaders of a political movement that had already succeeded in getting Batista to give up power once before in 1944, and that had already, with the help of pressure from the US, gotten the promise of free elections. Batista was on his way out already, bloodlessly, before Castro ever sailed from Mexico to Cuba on the Granma.
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Only Mao is critizied for it and as I had explained before birth rates, standard of living, and overall steel production had overall increased as a result of the Great Leap Forward and the population incresed from 450-600 millions hardly the example of 80 million deaths s Chang Jung would want you to think. These coupled with inadequate statistical methods utilized by the west and the unreliability of the Chinese archives themselves (Since Deng Xiaopeng had far more to profit by diminishing Maos importance to achieve his political goals agaisnt the hardliners) casts serious doubt at the 80 mil figure and at th 30 mil figure frankly it is far more likely of 5-10 million and because of mostly poor agricultural policies inacted just BEFORE a series of the worst natural disasters in Chinese History occured. Floods, droughts, etc. Even then the PRC imported grain from Canada and Venuezala to take up the slack Stalin had exported despite famines Mao imported to make sure the people were fed.

My point is that one cannot demonize someone for an act of god, you can critisize for poor judgement at the time but surel for no more then that. [/QB]

Grain exports continued until the end of the Great Leap Forward in 1961, after millions had already starved to death.
quote:
Although actual harvests were reduced, local officials, under tremendous pressure from the central authorities to report record harvests in response to the new innovations, competed with each other to announce increasingly exaggerated results. These exaggerated results were used as a basis for determining the amount of grain to be taken by the State to supply the towns and cities and export markets. This left barely enough for the peasants to eat, and in some areas, starvation set in. During 1958-1960 China continued to be a substantial net exporter of grain, despite the widespread famine experienced in the countryside, as Mao sought to maintain face and convince the outside world of the success of his plans.
[...]
The agricultural policies of the Great Leap Forward and the associated famine would then continue until January 1961, where, at the Ninth Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee, the restoration of agricultural production through a reversal of the Great Leap policies was started. Grain exports were stopped, and imports from Canada and Australia helped to reduce the impact of the food shortages, at least in the coastal cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward


I've quoted this before, Blayne, but you still insist on claiming an increase in steel production during the Great Leap Forward.
quote:
Mao encouraged the establishment of small backyard steel furnaces in every commune and in each urban neighbourhood. Huge efforts on the part of peasants and other workers were made to produce steel out of scrap metal. To fuel the furnaces the local environment was denuded of trees and wood taken from the doors and furniture of peasants houses. Pots, pans, and other metal artifacts were requisitioned to supply the "scrap" for the furnaces so that the wildly optimistic production targets could be met. Many of the male agricultural workers were diverted from the harvest to help the iron production as were the workers at many factories, schools and even hospitals. As could have been predicted by anyone with any experience of steel production or basic knowledge of metallurgy, the output consisted of low quality lumps of pig iron which was of negligible economic worth.
Melting down useful pots and pans and other iron implements to make useless lumps of pig iron is not "increasing steel production." Mao himself later realized that steel could not be manufactured in small back yard furnaces, but "maintained his policy so as not to dampen the revolutionary enthusiasm of the masses." Including one impressionable Canadian kid.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
one cannot possibly pass judgement in uch circumstances...
*raises hand* I can and will.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
"Political Leaders of the 20th Century: Mao Tse-tung" by Penguin books claims otherwise that there was a net IMPORTING of grain during the great Leap Forward. And as soon as Im home ill show the link that show the average 10-15% increase in GDP/Steel production every year starting in 1949.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
A net importing of grain doesn't mean squat; there were significant exports that should have been redirected for famine relief.

Also, an average 10-15% increase doesn't mean it increased that much in all those years, it just means that if you take the total increase and divide by the years you get 10-15%. Heck, there's been enough growth in steel and GDP in the last two decades to average out to that much.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
annual increase.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Simply put, not even close.

http://www.ier.hit-u.ac.jp/COE/Japanese/online_data/china/index.html

For instance, in 1961 it fell by 27 percent.

As for steel production, compare China's output (including Taiwan, but there's very little steel made there) in 1980 with that in 1981: http://www.worldsteel.org/?action=archivedsteellist2

That's a drop of well over 14%. Probably more like 20%.
 
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
The men Blayne cites (accept for Mao whom I shall not touch with any length of pole) are interesting cases.

All were idealists who evidently truely wished to bring an end to human suffering. All were willing to make sacrifices to do so. All made such sacrifices, far too many by most standards, but none achived their goal.

Che Guvera is a better example of this than perhaps any other. There is no doubt in my mind that his motives were extreamly noble in purpose. I even confess to a certain admiration of the young Che, but his life did little good and some harm. He overthrew some of the most represive governments in history, but those that took their place were little better and the revolutions spilled blood to exchange one tyrant for another. For the average Cuban, life under Castro is, in fact, a little better than under Batista. However Cuba no es libre.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I think Churchill would have serious problems with being told he had and acted upon deep morals or was an idealist. He was an extreme pragmatist, and more than willing to do pretty much anything in the execution of his duties.
 
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
And he cursed worse than a sailor. That's got to count for something, right?
 
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
Churchill was in no way an extreme pragmatist. He would have cut the Russians off while fighting the Germans from Greece if he had had his way.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pelegius:
The men Blayne cites (accept for Mao whom I shall not touch with any length of pole) are interesting cases.

All were idealists who evidently truely wished to bring an end to human suffering. All were willing to make sacrifices to do so. All made such sacrifices, far too many by most standards, but none achived their goal.

Che Guvera is a better example of this than perhaps any other. There is no doubt in my mind that his motives were extreamly noble in purpose. I even confess to a certain admiration of the young Che, but his life did little good and some harm. He overthrew some of the most represive governments in history, but those that took their place were little better and the revolutions spilled blood to exchange one tyrant for another. For the average Cuban, life under Castro is, in fact, a little better than under Batista. However Cuba no es libre.

You seriously don't know what the hell you are talking about. Batista was not a totalitarian dictator. Under Batista, Cuba had the third highest standard of living in this hemisphere. Under Castro, it is a bottom dweller. Cubans no longer have freedom of speech or mobility, and for thirty years of Cuba's closest relationship with the Soviet Union, Cuba's brightest kids were sent, like my cousin, to study in the USSR against their will, or sent, like my other cousins, to fight in Angola against their will. Cuba has less unemployment and more universal health care, but in every other way you look at, including poverty and freedom, they are worse off. Whichever teacher told you otherwise doesn't know jack.

I believe that Che was an idealist. A stupid one, but I do think he believed in what he was doing. Castro's actions during and immediately after the revolution make it clear that he was no such thing.

I really can't stand it when people who don't know what the hell they are talking about pontificate about Cuba.
 
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
clak-clak-clak-clak-clak-clak...
 
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
Icarus, I have come to expect a degree of audacity from you every time you address me, but for you to stand upon your pulpit of pedanticism and accuse me of pontification is grotesque.

I do not appreciate the totally undisguised condescension with which you are accustomed to treat anyone younger than yourself.

"Whichever teacher told you otherwise doesn't know jack."

Remarkable though it may seem, it is actually possible for students to form their own opinions on an issue, mine happens to be supported by facts.

Batista was very much a dictator. He seized power by a coup and was "elected" by 100% of voters, an impressive feat which has been accomplished by an astonishing number of third world leaders, and yet not by any leader that I know of in the developed world. Batista's accomplishment is made all the more remarkable to observers from the developed world by the fact that he was not, in the strictest sense, legally allowed to run for office, due to the term limits imposed by Batista's own 1940 Constitution.

If this were not enough to label Batista as a dictator, his use of Secrete Police and show trials would be. His execution and torture of strikers in April of 1958 was done without even bothering to hide the acts from international obsessors, which did not lead to popularity then any more than now.

At the time of his downfall, Batista had little support even among the middle class and the Church. Indeed, the Mafia may have been the only group to mourn his passing— not that all of Batista's opponents were supporter's of the 26th of July movement either.

I am not, in anyway, a supporter of Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba, nor have I ever defended it except to say that Cuba's advance infrastructure as developed both before and during Castro's rule should allow for a successful transfer to democracy.

My own sympathies lie with the Liberal opposition in the form of Unión Liberal Cubana and the Partido Solidaridad Democrática.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pelegius:
Icarus, I have come to expect a degree of audacity from you every time you address me, but for you to stand upon your pulpit of pedanticism and accuse me of pontification is grotesque.

[Confused]

Do you know what these words mean? I don't think you do. You might wish to look them up.

You continually accuse me of treating young posters with condescension. We already established last time you did this, that virtually nobody shares your view. Would you like to go through this again? We can start a thread inviting young posters to vote on whether or not they feel that I condescend to people younger than me. You have the same peculiar negative habit as Blayne Bradley does: when someone proves one of your assertions wrong, you just wait about a month or so before you begin making again, hoping that everyone will have forgotten that you were already proven wrong. It speaks very badly of you that you are not interested in truth, only in looking smart.

You also don't know how to read very closely. I didn't say that Batista was not a dictator, I said that Batista was not a totalitarian dictator. He was an authoritarian dictator. If you are not up to looking up the difference, I'd be happy to find a source for you to read, though I'm frankly not conviced you would. You have shown in the past that you have no interest in learning from the people that know more than you do. For instance, I know far more about Cuba than you or anybody else posting on this forum. But I don't expect you to give anything I say a shot, because in your arrogance you are incapable of ever changing your misconceptions.

Cuba has not advanced in infrastructure under Castro, and is not more ready for democracy now than it was before (except, possibly, through the absence of the US's corrosive influence on Cuban democracy). A brain drain, both through refugee escapism and through sending the best and brightest to the Soviet Union, does not strengthen an infrastructure. Crippling economic mismanagement and disaster does not strengthen an infrastructure either. Destroying the Cuban infrastructure is precisely what Castro has accomplished in his regime--a regime far more brutal than that of the previous dictator.

Look, you can insult me as much as you want. You won't succeed in making yourself look good and me look bad, because most people around here like me and most people here find you insufferable. So you're not really accomplishing anything. Beyond that, though, in this particular issue you don't come close to having as much knowledge as I do. You haven't read as many books as I, you haven't taken as many courses on the topic as I have, and you don't have as much access to people who lived through it as I do. All you will do is make yourself look stupid, as well as looking like an ass. Seriously, you can't win this.

Frankly, I'm tired of this thread. I take no pleasure from flame wars with people who are clearly ignorant. But it's hard to let it go, because erroneous statements like yours are harmful, and need to be challenged, not for your own sake, but for the sake of anyone impressionable enough believe you know what you are talking about. Americans love to romanticize people, but Castro is not somebody who should be romanticized. He is a brutal murderer and a thief. To romanticize anything about him is to do a grave disservice to the people he has robbed and killed.
 
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
"Do you know what these words mean?"

No, I am of the habit of just throwing words together with no knowledge of their meaning.

You claim that Batista was not totalitarian, clearly this is the case. I am left bewildered as to why you say this, seeing as Castro is not totalitarian either. During the height of his powers during the 1960s, he might have been able to have claimed that title, but not now. Hitler was totalitarian, as was Stalin, Mao and Pot. Most dictators, including Mr. Castro can not claim that degree of power.

" Americans love to romanticize people, but Castro is not somebody who should be romanticized."

I have never found Mr. Castro to be romanticized in the U.S., I have certainly never romanticized him, although you clearly wish to give the impression that I somehow have.


"You have the same peculiar negative habit as Blayne Bradley does: when someone proves one of your assertions wrong, you just wait about a month or so before you begin making again, hoping that everyone will have forgotten that you were already proven wrong. "


Icarus, your posts, including this last one, positively drip with condescension. Am I seriously to believe that you have somehow proved that you are not condescending? I cannot prove that you are being intentionally so, but I challenge anyone to read either of your last two posts on this thread and believe that you are not.


"If you are not up to looking up the difference, I'd be happy to find a source for you to read, though I'm frankly not conviced you would. You have shown in the past that you have no interest in learning from the people that know more than you do.. For instance, I know far more about Cuba than you or anybody else posting on this forum. But I don't expect you to give anything I say a shot, because in your arrogance you are incapable of ever changing your misconceptions. "

An excellent example of Icarus being respectful, humble and in no way condescending.

Seriously man, you are by no means the only one here with the tenth grade education needed to understand the difference between authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorships. I have actually cited several historical events, events which are not questionable in veracity, and you have ignored them in favor of arguing ad hominem.

" because most people around here like me and most people here find you insufferable. "

Most people around here are smart enough to avoid falling from a classic argumentum ad populum.

" I take no pleasure from flame wars"

Your habit of starting them is interestingly perverse then, have you talked to any sort of therapist?
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
http://www.re-evaluationmao.org/didmaokill.htm


This is a far better summary of the facts then of capitalist propoganda Icarus aspires to.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pelegius:
Castro is not totalitarian either. During the height of his powers during the 1960s, he might have been able to have claimed that title, but not now. Hitler was totalitarian, as was Stalin, Mao and Pot. Most dictators, including Mr. Castro can not claim that degree of power.

From the Washington Post:

quote:
Consider [Castro's] superlative permanence in power: 47 years. That is 17 more years than Mexico's Porfirio Díaz, 12 more than Paraguay's Alfredo Stroessner and 11 more than Spain's Francisco Franco. Even North Korea's Kim Il Sung -- the gold standard of aged despots -- totaled only 46 years in power. To match Castro, Chávez would have to remain in office, without interruption, until 2045, past his 90th birthday.

Such prolonged rule is possible only in a totalitarian dictatorship that leaves no space for dissent. In Castro's case, the Cold War helped him win absolute control over Cuban society. With a powerful and ever-present enemy so close, Castro could always manipulate the fear of an imminent invasion to militarize Cuban life. Any opposition was more than political -- it was treasonous. Castro thus governed unencumbered by domestic adversaries. [Emphasis added]

Here is a nice article explaining the difference between an authoritarian and a totalitarian dictatorship, with Castro's as an example of the latter. You cannot read the entire article online, but you can ask your librarian at your school to get it for you. If you'd like, I will have a librarian here in Florida download it and I will e-mail it to you.

quote:
Originally posted by Pelegius:
"You have the same peculiar negative habit as Blayne Bradley does: when someone proves one of your assertions wrong, you just wait about a month or so before you begin making again, hoping that everyone will have forgotten that you were already proven wrong. "

You don't actually address this, so I am left quoting myself.

Let's go back into the wayback machine, to the last time you said I was condescending to all young people:

quote:
Originally posted by Pelegius:
Actualy, you are being more than a little insulting, to Jeesh, to me and to young people throughout the world. I am sure you mean well, but you are being extreamly offensive to a very large group.

quote:
Originally posted by Jeesh:
Icarus, I wasn't taking offense.

quote:
Originally posted by Kamisaki:
Well, I just want to pipe in quickly to say that Icarus was definitely not bullying Pel in any way. Also, to say that Pel is a prime example that intelligence does not equal maturity.

quote:
Originally posted by Shigosei:
I'm 21. There's a good chance that I'll be graduating with the major I started with. That said...

I don't find Icarus's assertions about young people insulting.

You don't speak for all or even most young people, and most young people don't agree that I am condescending. In fact, I didn't mention your age, just your ignorance. Your age is simply the particular chip on your own shoulder.

quote:
"If you are not up to looking up the difference, I'd be happy to find a source for you to read, though I'm frankly not conviced you would. You have shown in the past that you have no interest in learning from the people that know more than you do.. For instance, I know far more about Cuba than you or anybody else posting on this forum. But I don't expect you to give anything I say a shot, because in your arrogance you are incapable of ever changing your misconceptions. "

An excellent example of Icarus being respectful, humble and in no way condescending.

I am condescening to you, because I have run out of patience to you. While you have improved in some ways as a writer and as a poster, you still are insufferably dismissive of other people's background and knowledge, particularly when those other people have a far deeper background in a subject than you do. As far as humility, I believe you are misusing this word. When you say "humility," you seem to be wiching that I would show false modesty--of course, you are guilty of showing neither humility nor modesty, so I'm not sure why you expect it of me. But why should I be falsely modest? I made a claim I believe to be true. I am Cuban-American, I attended Cuba's premier preparatory school, I have taken a good half dozen courses on Latin American history, and I have read dozens of books on Latin American history in general, and on Cuba and Castro in particular. I am only aware of one other Cuban-American who posts on this forum, and I don't think he would disagree with my self-assessment. Does someone here think they know more about Cuba than I do? Step up and say so. If not, then why is it a character flaw for me to say, hey, I happen to have more expertise on the topic than others posting here? (Silly me, I actually know the answer. The answer is because I am calling you out for being wrong, and for posting ignorantly. That, in your eyes, is the unforgivable character flaw.)

quote:
" because most people around here like me and most people here find you insufferable. "

Most people around here are smart enough to avoid falling from a classic argumentum ad populum.

Apparently, you don't know what an argumentum ad populum is, because I was not arguing that I was right because I am more liked. I was arguing that your tactic of defaming my character will not work because I am more liked. That is an accurate and logical statement, and perfectly appropriate. When the very question is whether or not you can succeed in defaming my character, my perception by others is fair evidence.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
http://www.re-evaluationmao.org/didmaokill.htm


This is a far better summary of the facts then of capitalist propoganda Icarus aspires to.

I'm sorry, can you say this in English?

-o-

I haven't said anything about Mao, Blayne. This seems to confirm my impression that you don't actually read other people's posts.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
I don't know. I think being condescending to pelegius is doing exactly what he's earned through his posts.
 
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 
quote:
Do you know what these words mean? I don't think you do. You might wish to look them up
Icky, I can't believe you passed up the perfect opportunity to quote "The Princess Bride"!

"You keep on using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean" (slight variation).
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Icarus you implied whether directory or indirectly that the leaders I listed were thieves or murderors and others have been arguing with em about the Great Leap for a long time now, my sentence howevr seems unfortunately seems ambigious so I'll clarify that I wasnt refering to you perosnally just the information that people like you seem to like citing.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Actually, I directly stated that Castro was both. While I believe that the others you listed are similarly evil, I won't get into a specific argument on them, because I recognize the things I am not an expert on.

(There are plenty of people far more qualified than I to expose the incorrectness of your claims with regard to Mao. [Wink] )
 
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
I don't know. I think being condescending to pelegius is doing exactly what he's earned through his posts.

It's the least that can be done.
 
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
"I am Cuban-American, I attended Cuba's premier preparatory school,"

Experience is important, but so is objectivity.

If you would please be calm enough to note two things:

One, that I have not here nor elsewhere praised Mr. Castro or the Communist Party of Cuba or Communism in general. Actually I have, here and elsewhere, been very careful to state my anti-Communist beliefs.

Two, I admit to becoming angry at you, but you will see that you accused me, I who agree with as to the matter of Mr. Castro, of being completely ignorant on the subject. Sometimes I do not think you know to whom you are speaking. I am Pelegius and Blayne is Blayne, please do not confuse us.

I will also submit to you that Mr. Castro is not a totalitarian dictator, not because he does not wish to be, but because he does not have that power. This is due to two factors, a. that Cuba is not and has never been economically independent and b. that the Roman Catholic Church still exerts a considerable amount of authority. Totalitarianism is necessarily centered around a cult of personality, in exclusion of other religions.

To say that Cuba is not a totalitarian dictatorship is not to belittle the deaths of dissenters, only to point out that all dictators, authoritarian and totalitarian murder dissenters. Dictatorship, in all its forms, is not pretty.

I will again state clearly that idealizing a pre-revolutionary Cuba is as invalid as idealizing Cuba today. Cuba under Batista failed and Cuba found herself, like so many countries in Latin America, stuck between the Skylla of corrupt dictatorship and the Charybdis of a strong man.

Finally, I feel obliged to point out that Fidel Castro is unique only in his longevity, he is not any more brutal than the many countless dictators and juntas that have plagued Latin América for the past century and a half.

I too hope for a truely free Cuba, as for a truely free world.

Yours for Peace and Freedom,
Pelegius.
 
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Icarus:
I am only aware of one other Cuban-American who posts on this forum, and I don't think he would disagree with my self-assessment.

Is that me is there someone else I don't know about?

I attended the same school Icarus did, a school in which I was taught by at least one teacher that was in Fidel Castro's graduating class (did we mention that Fidel went to the same school we did, only about fifty years earlier, and was responsible for shutting down its presence in Cuba?).

My mother's side of the family still resides in Cuba to this day. I had a grandfather that was imprisoned for a few years long ago, and I have other relatives that served (unwillingly, to some degree) in the Cuban military. And, unlike Icarus, I have actually been on the island; although it was in 1980, things haven't changed a whole hell of a lot.

And I currently live in Miami and have been here for 30 continuous years, which is the closest thing anyone can come to without stepping foot on the island.

But I admit that my knowledge of Castro and what he is is incredibly biased by my direct family and their horrible experiences with the environment he has created on the island.

But when Icarus says that he probably knows more about Castro and Cuba than anybody else on this board, I believe him without any hesitation.

I just wanted to chime in with that because some of you might not accept it if that statement of fact comes from Icarus alone.

Carry on.

Oh, and one more thing...

clak-clak-clak-clak-clak-clak...
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
That was an extremely polite post, Pelegius; I will endeavor to reply in kind.

You are mistaken on a a few key points, though. My accusation that you romanticized Castro was due to your characterization of Castro as an idealist who wanted to bring an end to human suffering. This is an incorrect, and romanticized, characterization, basically buying into his press. Look at his actions, look at his brutal repressions and his betrayal of even his own henchmen as he consolidated his power to see that he was no idealist.

Castro has less power now that Cuba does not have the Soviet Union to lean on, but at this point he still has all the weapons and all of the soldiers. He also has fifty years of Orwellian-style control of the schools, neighborhood comités, and brutal reputation. There does not appear to be much of a spirit of rebellion left to test his resolve.

Where you are the most mistaken, perhaps, is in your assertions about the Roman Catholic Church. The existence of the Church in Cuba is a recent artifact, and it was borne of John Paul II's visit in the nineties, and of Castro's desire to play for the world stage. For forty years before that, the practice of Catholicism was illegal, and something children were taught to inform on their parents for. Also, Roman Catholic priests were expelled in large numbers from the island within the first years after the revolution. I can tell you from first-hand accounts that vanishingly few people were brought up with Catholic beliefs in the last two or three decades. There were no churches that were not underground, there was an atmosphere of distrust, and there were close to no priests. What I hear from the family members I have had contact with who were in Cuba until the 90s was that Catholicism was a religion of very old women only, and not active or practiced. In the last decade or so, Catholicism has ceased to be illegal, but I don't believe that the Catholic Church can possibly be a very powerful influence, when two generations have been brought up out of the faith.

I have idealized neither Batista nor pre-revolutionary Cuba. If you go back and read my posts to Blayne, you will see that my grandfather was the head of an anti-Batista party. But the difference between Batista and Castro exemplifies perfectly the difference between an authoritarian and a totalitarian dictator. The difference between them--and I don't mean to be condescending by defining what you say you know, but merely setting up the point I am trying to make here--is that in an authoritarian dictatorship, "varying degrees of autonomy regarding elements of civil society, religious institutions, court, and the press. On the other hand, under totalitarianism, no individual or institution is autonomous from the state's all-encompassing ideology" (Jeane Kirkpatrick, paraphrased in Wikipedia). This is exactly the distinction between Batista and Castro. Catholicism was legal under Batista; it was not under Castro for forty-plus years. Under Batista, there was usually freedom of the press, aside from crackdowns after any *especially* bad editorial. (Batista, in his misguided way, wanted the love of the people. He was famous for cracking down and backing off. With Castro, there was no backing off.) Under Castro, the only press is the state-run Granma news service. Under Batista, the universities had specific political autonomy. Even when the press was being interfered with, the universities were not. Castro closed the universities, and later reopened them under government control. Under Batista, there was freedom of movement within the island and off of it. My grandfather, as an acknowledged political adversary, could travel freely and without harrassment. Under Castro, there is not. Very few people can leave the island at all, and usually only in circumstances where beloved family members, such as spouses and children, are not travelling with them.

Castro patterned every element of his government after the Societ Union. Professing the wrong thoughts will land you in jail. Failing to profess the right thoughts will land you in jail. Not just at the highest levels, but at the lowest levels. If you do not pledge to the revolution at your job (kind of like the pledge to the flag in American schools, but with teeth) you will be harrassed, and if you persist, you can go to jail.

Castro's is a textbook totalitarian government. In fact, most middle and high school textbooks, when they make the distinction, specifically mention Cuba as an example of totalitarianism.

You can claim that Castro has been no more bloody than any other Latin American dictator, but it simply is not so. His human rights record is the worst in the region. The only regimes that rival Castro's for killing their own people are located in Africa and Asia.

There is plenty of documentation for what I am saying, but one book in particular that I recommend, because it is a powerful firsthand account, is Contra Toda Esperanza, by Armando Valladares. It is available in translation. Valladares was a postal employee (IIRC) who was jailed after failing to pledge his support to the revolution. While in jail, he discovered a love of writing poetry, and began to write on walls, scraps, whatever he could. People who left prison after their sentences were up, or after they recanted their wrong views, and visitors to the prison snuck much of his poetry of longing for freedom out with them, and eventually it found an audience. Valladares came to the attention of Amnesty International, who started to put pressure on Cuba for his release. Eventually, Castro bowed to the international pressure, including direct pressure from François Mitterrand, and released Valladares, and expelled him from the island. Since being freed, Valladares served as the United States's ambassador to the UN Human Rights Commission, and was awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal. If you are interested in reading this book, I would be willing to track down a copy in English and send it to you. It would give you a much clearer look at what life has been like under Castro, and a sense of how it's not enough to lie low and mind your own business: if you don't support the revolution, you are a criminal.

-Joe
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
As far as the issue of impartiality, I am not a knee-jerk Miami Cuban. I don't ask my candidate for mayor what his foreign policy is. I don't base my vote for president on their plans for Cuba. I don't owe my allegiance to the Republican Party. While I believe it was a tragedy for Elian González to have to return to the island after having escaped it, I felt that his father had much more of a right to custody than anybody living in Miami, and that Cuban-Americans picked the wrong issue to rally around--disastrously, in fact, as their standing in Miami and beyond has still not recovered from that debacle.

Impartiality is a great thing, but I think it can be placed on too high a pedestal. In particular, it can be used as a weapon specifically to render null the opinions of the very people who know most on a topic. When Ed Asner and Jane Fonda claim to know more about Cuba than the people who once lived there, and even more than the people who risk their lives to escape to this very day, I don't think it's a virtue. I think it's willful ignorance and self-absorption.

The points I have stated are documented fact. I have painted no rosy pictures of Batista as a great leader. My bias is not an issue here, because my arguments have been based on documented facts. What my bias is responsible is merely the fact that I will not let any admiring statement about Fidel Castro go unchallenged (unless you simply admire his longevity). I can't, because when inaccurate statements get thrown around, people who don't know better are liable to take them at face value. And a man who has had thousands killed needs to be named for the evil that he is. It compounds the injustices he has committed when people understate their magnitude. So yeah, that's where my bias lies. Nighthawk knew that when he started joking about the roller coaster ride; he knew I would not let Blayne's admiring statements lie. Blayne should know it too, because it has come up before.

But my bias does not make up facts.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
(My father also went to the school that Nighthawk, Fidel, and I attended.)
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
How is the nationalizing of uncooperative buisnesses thievery? Iranian President did similar before the CIA overthrew him and replaced him wiht the Shah.

Is it not standard practice that if someone who is rich comits a very serious crime his assets are frozen and depening on the circumstnaces his property confiscated to compensate the victoms? In revolutionary Cuba there were a number of American owned refineries and other corporations that refused to refine the oil that came in from the Soviet Union, so they get nationalized for being unproductive.

Also it is standard practice by any civil war or revolution of any kind to benefit your side at the expense of the other, if a number of rich people had opposed Castro frankly one shoudnt be surprised theyre property would be confiscated the Americans stole the property of the Loyalists did they not and refuse to give it back?

Also my statements in regards to Fidel Castro are based on descriptions as being a charismatic leader I do not eny he may have acted veyr much like most dictatorships do but noentheless I also hold the belief that he does hold certain admirable traits, my former Prime Minister(s) Pierre Elliet Trudeau and Jean Cretien both liked him and in the case of the former were even friends.

Canada has always been friendly with Cuba and its leader and I so no reason why not to do so.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Countries near the US are often friendly with Castro specifically as a way to thumb their noses at and assert their independence from the US. They invite him to the opening ceremonies of their summits and whatnots, and then they immediately go back to being good little capitalists and try to make favorable trade arrangements with the US. It doesn't matter who Castro is or what he does, it matters that the US is big and powerful and the US (government) hates Castro.

It's pretty stupid and immature actually, but there you have it.

(This thought is not unique with me; plenty of other commentators have mentioned it, and I could probably dig some of the stuff I have read on it up.)

So your PM befriends a murderous dictator to show how much he is not under the thumb of the US, and you think it's a good idea for you to do the same. Way to think for yourself.

-o-

It wasn't just US businesses that were nationalized. All businesses were nationalized. All church property was siezed. This is stealing. And saying "Well, they were rich anyway" is pretty morally bankrupt. The rich make better targets for theft, because they have more, than the poor do, but that doesn't make stealing from them okay. This isn't Robin Hood. Not every owner of a corner grocery got to be in that position by stealing from poor people.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
" All businesses were nationalized. All church property was siezed. This is stealing."

Well, from a capitalist perspective, certainly.

I'm not going to argue that Castro is sunshine and light. He certainly isn't. He's been one of the most murderous men in history, and I'll never defend that.

But if you're going to accuse him of stealing, do so on grounds other then capitalist vs socialist ideology.
 
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
"My accusation that you romanticized Castro was due to your characterization of Castro as an idealist who wanted to bring an end to human suffering."

I believe that this was true to an extent, at least during the planning of the revolution in Cuba. I am not entirely sure what Mr. Castro wanted then, but Che's intentions were very clear, and very noble if not very well-informed.

It is certainly true that Mr. Castro allowed the world to guess at his ideology while anlysing who would give Cuba the most aid, the U.S.S.R. proved to be more willing to do so than the United States, which was hesistant do to Che's overt Marxism.

However, since then, Mr. Castro has proved to be probably the least hypocritical Communist leader since Lennin, if we rule out Allende's short administration. Now, a lack of hypocricy, or rather an exteremly relative lack of hypocricy, does not make Mr. Castro a better leader or make Cuba a better country to live in. I, like almost any other, would rather live under a democratic hypocrite like JFK than any dictator, and even under the hypocrisy of Mr. Gorbechov than Mr. Castro's apparent sincerity.

"You can claim that Castro has been no more bloody than any other Latin American dictator, but it simply is not so. His human rights record is the worst in the region"

If Mr. Castro has killed more of his countrymen than Gen. Pinochet or Gen. Videla, then it is primarily becouse he has had much more time to do so. Latin America does not have a great history with such matters, although you are right in pointing out that Asia and Africa have suffered more.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
How is the nationalizing of uncooperative buisnesses thievery?
I would argue that if you can't call this thievery, nothing is thievery.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"How is the nationalizing of uncooperative buisnesses thievery?

I would argue that if you can't call this thievery, nothing is thievery."

Sure you can. From a socialist perspective, businesses are illegally controlling the means of production by withholding those means of production from the government, which is the rightful owner, as an extension of the entire population, of that wealth.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
From a socialist perspective, businesses are illegally controlling the means of production by withholding those means of production from the government...
*nod* Which is why pretending that the government is a person is so freakin' dangerous. Once you start extending the government itself any rights at all, you wind up restricting to it all of the rights that matter.
 
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
Tom,

Of course the government has all sorts of rights that individuals don't. I cannot seriously expect people to pay taxes to me, yet almost every government does.

Nor can I arrest people for breaking my laws. The list goes on.

Citizens also have many rights which legitimate governments do not have.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
If I take a job at the corner bar as a busboy, work my ass off, get promoted to bartender, continue to work my ass off, live like a pauper, and eventually buy a little grocery store, I have not stolen anything from "the workers." If the government comes in and tells me that the grocery store is not mine, and it is, in fact, theirs, that is theft. It was mine, it is now theirs, they stole it.

That is my maternal grandfather's story.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
in communism there is no money and if you had a store yould run it for the sake of distributing goods to the people for the sake of doing so, to demand money for such services could be equally attributed as coercian, denying the people essentials for your own personal profit.

Socialism is the transitional state when under the Dictatorship of the proleteriat where you become a Communist Society.

Denyin this makes you a reactionary element that will enevitably be swept away into the dustbin of history.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"*nod* Which is why pretending that the government is a person is so freakin' dangerous. Once you start extending the government itself any rights at all, you wind up restricting to it all of the rights that matter."

I of course disagree that property rights actually matter. I think those property rights and our attachment to them are what is really dangerous.

While I agree that the socialist perspective has problems, calling socialism "theft" isn't exactly a legitimate response to the philosophy.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
What I described is theft. If you can call it otherwise, it is because you are not the one who has been robbed.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
But if you're going to accuse him of stealing, do so on grounds other then capitalist vs socialist ideology.
Absolutely not. The fact that someone prettied up thievery with some fancy language doesn't change what it is. It's theft.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"Absolutely not. The fact that someone prettied up thievery with some fancy language doesn't change what it is. It's theft."

Can we agree that if you come into my house, and take my stereo, when I take it back from you, its not theft?
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
My intuitions about private property and what constitutes theft, especially government theft, are muddled.

In the end, I don't think that anyone could steal anything that was properly mine to begin with. The crime of theft is like a "strike out" in baseball. That is, in order for the concept of a strike out to exist, we need accept the other rules of baseball. Similarly, a lot of the ways in which we employ the word "theft" requires one to buy into some rules or prevailing myth concerning private property.

I think that most Americans, for better or for worse, whether we know it or like it, have inherited Locke's conception or private property and entitlement. I think that's fine, as long as we understand that the foundation for our zealous defense of private property is controversial.

I'm not saying that theft doesn't exist. Sure it exists-- just like strike outs exist(ask Sammy Sosa)-- I simply believe that a non-negligible part of what constitues theft is historically conditioned on contingent factors. The contingent factors in this case being the sway of Locke on our founding fathers, and the abundance of property and resources for white America at this nation's inception.

Theft being historically conditioned isn't a bad thing, nor does it depreciate the awfulness of the crime. I just think that unless you are well-ensconced in a foundational myth concerning private property, determining what constitutes theft is tricky business.

[ October 01, 2006, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
"Absolutely not. The fact that someone prettied up thievery with some fancy language doesn't change what it is. It's theft."

Can we agree that if you come into my house, and take my stereo, when I take it back from you, its not theft?

Yes, assuming I had no claim of right to it. But I'm not going to grant that premise to the conversation at hand.

If a society operated from ground zero with the means of production being controlled by the government, I might buy this. But people who control the means of production now (and I disagree that those means are finite, but let's not go there yet) do so because they made decisions based on a particular set of rules. Serious decisions, which caused them serious detriment.

I can tell you from experience: a person starting a business works harder than his employees. (In general - I'm sure there are exceptions.) I could have made 100% of the income - possibly much more - working 50% of the time had I gone to work for someone else. I didn't, because I was building my business. I took the entire risk (with my partner) of the debt needed to start. I paid salaries when there was no work for those employees. I emptied my bank account to make payroll when needed.

And, dammit, if someone came up to me and took that, it would be theft. The reason I got to go to law school with no loans is because of that equity - equity that could have disappeared in the blink of an eye. One bad month of missed payroll, and I would have been bankrupt - zero net worth.

My employees would have kept their current savings and their 401ks (which we had matched heavily). At most they risked one pay period of salary.

So please, please, please don't tell me that if the government took my business the day before I sold, it wouldn't have been theft because I took someone's means of production. Our only assets were a computer per person and a reputation built over 11 years through 90 hour weeks and an absolute dedication to our customers.

Now let's look at it from an investor's point of view instead of someone who worked. Suppose I save my money instead of buying a new car. For 9 years after college, I put away as much as I can, sacrificing my standard of living. Then, a couple of people want to invest their own sweat equity into a business. I give them money to start their business. At that point, it's not money that I've put in. It's 9 years of a lower standard of living that I voluntarily accepted, knowing that I could later invest the proceeds.

Damn right it's theft if that's taken away from me.

Someone wants to nationalize industry, they can pay off the investors who relied on property rights.
 
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
 
Dag, I think you might be my hero.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"Yes, assuming I had no claim of right to it. But I'm not going to grant that premise to the conversation at hand."

Ok, then I won't grant the premise that capitalism isn't institutionalized slavery [Smile] I can make just as strong an argument for that as you can make that societal take-over of property is theft.

The thing is, dagonee, that there are thousands of factors that went into your ability to create that business, and most of those factors are beyond your control. They are the result of someone elses work, or the strength of the society we live in, or infrastructure that you didn't build.

"I can tell you from experience: a person starting a business works harder than his employees."

Depends on a lot of factors. This is the case when there's no reason for the employees to work as hard as the owner, and capitalism gives incentives to employees not to work as hard as the owner, so yes, in a capitalist society this is often true.

"And, dammit, if someone came up to me and took that, it would be theft."

As irami eloquently said, this is because of the rule book that you buy into.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Depends on a lot of factors. This is the case when there's no reason for the employees to work as hard as the owner, and capitalism gives incentives to employees not to work as hard as the owner, so yes, in a capitalist society this is often true.
Exactly. And it was in a capitalist society that the businesses were confiscated. Once the confiscation happened, it became socialist. But, up until that time, society had set up the rules that encouraged the owner to work harder.

quote:
The thing is, dagonee, that there are thousands of factors that went into your ability to create that business, and most of those factors are beyond your control. They are the result of someone elses work, or the strength of the society we live in, or infrastructure that you didn't build.
I'm at a loss as to why that should matter. A large portion of that infrastructure exists because other people relied on these same rules and reaped the rewards. If, at the time I started the business, the government wanted to say "whoops! we can't allow business owners to reap rewards any more because it wouldn't be fair," then I could use that knowledge to make my decision.

Everyone else that ever worked for my company (except one receptionist and one bookkeeper) could have done the same thing. They didn't. Why? At least some of them didn't want to work that hard. Others didn't want to take the risk. At least two were incapable - they started their own and went under within 6 months because of stupid mistakes.

quote:
As irami eloquently said, this is because of the rule book that you buy into.
I basically said that right at the beginning of my own post, in the second paragraph.

The rule book that was in play at the time of the theft is the one I am talking about.

Yes, there is only theft when there is private property. There was private property - right up until the moment of the theft.

You might want to say that the theft is justified, and that society will be better because of that theft. That's an entirely different discussion. However, as it stands now, taking my business would have been theft.

Oh, and thanks, airmanfour. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:

Of course the government has all sorts of rights that individuals don't. I cannot seriously expect people to pay taxes to me, yet almost every government does.

I would argue that demanding taxes is not an inherent right of government.
 
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

I would argue that demanding taxes is not an inherent right of government.

Indeed. Unfortunately, in almost all cases taxation is necessary for the government to function. In this respect it is more a governmental duty than a right.
It is also their duty to see to it that the taxes are spent on things that benefit the entire nation.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
I would argue that demanding taxes is not an inherent right of government.
Hmm.

Of what significance is this philosophy over governmental right going to be, in a world where every workable governmental model requires some form of mandatory economic support from its populace?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nighthawk:
...and, if you pay attention, you can hear the gentle "clak-clak-clak" as the rollercoaster approaches the summit...

This thread's going to get fun. I can tell.

I want to take it down a significantly less inflammatory tangent and start idolizing Hitler [Cool]

I mean, come on. Mao?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
The thing is, dagonee, that there are thousands of factors that went into your ability to create that business, and most of those factors are beyond your control. They are the result of someone elses work, or the strength of the society we live in, or infrastructure that you didn't build.
The government and the infrastructure didn't just appear one day, out of the skull of Zeus. It got there, in the United States at least, because a majority of people bought into its capitalist roots, believed in it, and contributed to it.

Those factors beyond one's control? Those things that other people do to make it possible? Those other people have the opportunity to benefit as well, and quite frequently do. It isn't as though all these good things are getting thrown into a garbage disposal or something, and it's certainly not 'institutionalized slavery', because, you know, people are paid. So no, you can't really argue that.

If you and I start playing a game of chess, with rules agreed upon before we begin, and halfway through the game I reach over and sweep your queen, your knights, and a few pawns from you, I don't just get to say, "Oh, those didn't belong to you to begin with, they weren't yours, so it's not cheating." Of course it's bloody cheating, unless, of course, you're able to make it stick and force me to call it something else.

Then it's still cheating, but just termed differently.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:

Of what significance is this philosophy over governmental right going to be, in a world where every workable governmental model requires some form of mandatory economic support from its populace?

I'm not sure the premise here is sound; I think many workable economic models could be built around voluntary economic support, for example. I'm not sure what you consider "workable" government, though, either, and I certainly agree that any large government has to leech off its people.
 
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Icarus:
Countries near the US are often friendly with Castro specifically as a way to thumb their noses at and assert their independence from the US. They invite him to the opening ceremonies of their summits and whatnots, and then they immediately go back to being good little capitalists and try to make favorable trade arrangements with the US. It doesn't matter who Castro is or what he does, it matters that the US is big and powerful and the US (government) hates Castro.

It's pretty stupid and immature actually, but there you have it.

(This thought is not unique with me; plenty of other commentators have mentioned it, and I could probably dig some of the stuff I have read on it up.)

So your PM befriends a murderous dictator to show how much he is not under the thumb of the US, and you think it's a good idea for you to do the same. Way to think for yourself.

Has Castro set foot in Canada since 1959? Trudeau did visit Castro, and Chretien sent foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy, but I don't see how your first paragraph applies directly to Blayne's examples of Trudeau and Chretien.

No, I think our trading with Cuba has a more straightforward explanation: it's a profitable enterprise. Here's a snippet from the Wikipedia page on Canadian-Carribean relations:

quote:
As British companies pulled out of the region after decolonization, Canadians ones moved in. This was especially true in the banking and insurance sectors. Caribbean governments welcomed Canadian investment as a tool to prevent the total economic domination of the United States. This is perhaps most obvious in Cuba which pursued close economic ties with Canada after the Cuban Revolution.
In fact, Canada is the largest foreign investor in Cuba, and I don't think it's just because we're thumbing our collective nose at you -- for starters, as per the quoted paragraph above, our economic involvement in the Carribean as a whole predates Castro's takeover. There have certainly been times when we've snubbed you diplomatically, but I don't think trade with Cuba is a very good example of it; I think it's a much better example of a state pursuing its own economic interests, and at best, the fact that the U.S. considered it an insult might have been viewed as a bonus by Trudeau or Chretien. Similarly, we began trading with China well before you did. From Wikipedia's Canadian foreign relations page:

quote:
One important difference between Canadian and American foreign policy has been in relations with communist states. Canada established diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China (October 13, 1970) long before the Americans did (January 1, 1979). It also has maintained trade and diplomatic relations with communist Cuba, despite pressures from the United States.
I'm not sure I'd call it "one of the most important differences," but I think both of these examples show that it has a lot more to do with money than diplomacy.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Fair enough. I wasn't discussing trade, which I have mixed feelings about, but "friendliness." Blayne asserted that your PM was "friendly" to Castro. I didn't research the veracity of this claim; I took it at face value.

You don't have to be friendly with someone or approve of their policies to find economic benefit in trading with them. China is a favored trading partner of the US, for better or worse.
 
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Trudeau certainly was friendly with Castro, but again, I don't think the most obvious interpretation of that is that Trudeau was trying to stick it to the U.S. From the Wikipedia entry on Trudeau:

quote:
Trudeau was interested in Marxist ideas in the late 1940s. In the 1950s and early 1960s, he was a supporter of the social democratic Co-operative Commonwealth Federation party — which became the New Democratic Party. During the 1950s, he was blacklisted by the United States and prevented from entering that country because of a visit to a conference in Moscow (where he was briefly arrested for throwing a snowball at a statue of Stalin) and because he subscribed to a number of leftist publications. Trudeau later appealed the ban, and it was rescinded.

An associate professor of law at the Université de Montréal from 1961 to 1965, Trudeau's views evolved towards a liberal position in favour of individual rights counter to the state and made him an opponent of Québec nationalism. In economic theory he was influenced by professors Joseph Schumpeter and John Kenneth Galbraith while he was at Harvard.

For reference, he didn't become Prime Minister of Canada until 1968.

Added:

Also, in my reading, I discovered that Castro has indeed been to Canada at least once since 1959: he attended Trudeau's funeral in 2000. Again from Wikipedia:

quote:
About 3,000 people gathered at the basilica for the service, including His Royal Highness Prince Andrew, Duke of York (representing his mother, the Queen of Canada, Elizabeth II), Governor General Adrienne Clarkson and her husband, John Ralston Saul, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his wife, Aline, and other Canadian leaders, one of them, Joe Clark, and his wife, Maureen. MPs, senators, past and present, provincial premiers, two other former prime ministers and their spouses (John Turner and Geills, and Brian Mulroney and Mila; Kim Campbell was overseas and could not make it), and members of the general public also attended. Foreign dignitaries who were present included Cuban President Fidel Castro, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, and the Aga Khan, who were also among the pallbearers, together with the poet and songwriter Leonard Cohen and Trudeau's Cabinet colleague Marc Lalonde, all of them friends of Trudeau.

 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
I'm not sure the premise here is sound; I think many workable economic models could be built around voluntary economic support, for example. I'm not sure what you consider "workable" government, though, either, and I certainly agree that any large government has to leech off its people.
With workable, I'm talking stable, sustainable, and capable of defending itself from coerced integration or forcible assimilation into other entities. Negatory on moral judgement. I wouldn't complain over a demonstratably operable government without taxes, but I see reasons behind why they're a no-show in the modern sphere of sociopolitical entities.
 
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I'm not sure the premise here is sound; I think many workable economic models could be built around voluntary economic support, for example. I'm not sure what you consider "workable" government, though, either, and I certainly agree that any large government has to leech off its people.

Tom, I have to admit I'm curious. Would you mind explaining your model of government to me a little?
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
quote:
I do not appreciate the totally undisguised condescension with which you are accustomed to treat anyone younger than yourself.
Age has nothing to do with it. You're projecting. If you learn how to tone down the obnoxious and supremely condescending ways you present your, ahem, beliefs you'll find the animosity towards you will drop right off. The disagreements with your beliefs won't, but that's because they're mostly based off of bad inferences and logical fallacies, and as unstable as a mansion built on popsicle sticks.

You and Blayne have the same problem; spouting off without stopping to think first, then overreacting when you're (inevitably) called on it. Your last post to Icarus was, by far, the best post of yours I've ever read (though, to be fair, I've been skipping your posts for months, so I may have missed some improvement in the recent past).

Summary -- attitude, not age, is the deciding factor in how you're treated. Ask any young Hatracker who doesn't go out of his/her way to start fights and then play the martyr card.
 
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
It is certainly true that Trudeau visited Mr. Castro, but there seems little evidence to suggest that this was more than diplomacy. Trudeau, a moderate Liberal and a Roman Catholic, would be an unlikely bedfellow for Mr. Castro.

EI JT Spang— I am little prepared to answer your accusations, other than to say that there was little difference in tone between my first post here and the one which you so noncommittally praise, and to which Icarus responded in such anger.

Perhaps, were I older and wiser, or merely wiser, I would have avoided expressing even so moderate an opinion on such a charged topic.

I am not sure how my beliefs earned their interesting parenthetical, but I am relieved to know that you hold me in such high esteem as praise the supremacy of any aspect of my character.

It would, of course, be much easier for me to avoid any of the "serious" discussions here or to preface my every word with disclaimers as to my ignorance, as is the custom of many young Hatrackers, but, had I done so, I would not have merited your praise. Of course, I humbly believe even now that I fall so way short of your estimation of my personage, although I may yet achieve the august levels of personal reprobation and moral failing of which you are so kind in assigning to me.

Of course, I am able to achieve this only through thoughtlessness, as none who disagree with your exalted wisdom could possibly be reckoned a thinker by you.

And now, if I may borrow an interesting ending technique from yourself:—

Summary (of last point)—
"All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest "
Paul Simon,
il miglior fabbro,
a thinker whom I may never surpass in your view, much less my own.
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
quote:
EI JT Spang— I am little prepared to answer your accusations, other than to say that there was little difference in tone between my first post here and the one which you so noncommittally praise, and to which Icarus responded in such anger.
If you truly believe that then you've hit on the crux of why you're received the way you are. You apparently lack the ability to see how your words come off to others.

And ask around -- I have never claimed to be a great thinker or in possession of 'exalted wisdom'. I can think of someone else who's applied several lofty and unearned titles to himself, though.

If you're as smart as you think you are, you'll take my words at face value. I'm not trying to show you up, and I'm not trying to score points off of you to make me look better. Honestly, I can think of dozens of ways to better spend my time. I'm doing it because I think there's a tiny glimmer of something valuable lurking under all that pomposity. I'm no saint, though, so you can bet when you respond the way I'm almost certain you will I'll go right back to ignoring you.

Aside: "noncommittal praise" is an oxymoron. Continually misusing big words is much less impressive than correctly using small ones. Plus it makes you look much less pretentious.
 
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pelegius:
It is certainly true that Trudeau visited Mr. Castro, but there seems little evidence to suggest that this was more than diplomacy. Trudeau, a moderate Liberal and a Roman Catholic, would be an unlikely bedfellow for Mr. Castro.

That's what I would have thought as well, but the fact that Castro was one of the pallbearers at Trudeau's funeral is interesting to say the least.

Full disclosure: I have something of a soft spot for Pierre Trudeau, because his government gave us the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [Smile]
 
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
"'noncommittal praise' is an oxymoron."

And writers in the English language never use oxymorons to make points.

"I can think of someone else who's applied several lofty and unearned titles to himself, though."

Yeah, I'm not a big Idi Amin fan myself.

"If you're as smart as you think you are, you'll take my words at face value."

Whereas if I were as smart as you think I am I would mostly just drool.

"I'm no saint, though, so you can bet when you respond the way I'm almost certain you will I'll go right back to ignoring you."

You have, I am sorry to say, seldom given me reason to regret your silence. I do not dislike you, as I suspect you dislike me. You have rarely, if ever, shown me that you are, in any way, desirous of my friendship. The number of people with whom I am not friends is vastly grater than the number of my friends, but I have learned to accept this.

I have never been comfortable in an I-it relationship (I find ordering food at restraints to be somewhat stressful) and, as you have never given any sign of the respect of an I-thou relationship, I cannot regret the termination on your part of any relationship that currently existed.

I do not bear you any ill-will, but it is clear that, if you truly wish to ignore me, the damage to me, you and this community will be minimal.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mig:
Ronald Reagan, his leadership and vision led to the dismantling of the USSR, the greatest threat to, and violator of, human rights and personal liberty in the 20th Century.

Provide evidence to support this hypothesis.
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Many political analysts feel the USSR collapsed on it's own, with Reagan policies perhaps slightly hastening it.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
And many feel that Reagan's policies had a significant effect.

We're certainly not going to hash that out here.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
quote:
We're certainly not going to hash that out here.
Why not?


quote:
Ronald Reagan, his leadership and vision led to the dismantling of the USSR, the greatest threat to, and violator of, human rights and personal liberty in the 20th Century.
I get the sense that in terms of human rights, the Russia of Gorbachev was different than the Russia of Brezhnev which was different than the Russia of Stalin, and that your statement about Russia being the greatest threat to, and violator of, human rights and personal liberty(two very muddled notions) is more or less true depending on which Russia you are talking about.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I meant we're not going to either change each others' minds or reach a mutual conclusion.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pelegius:
EI JT Spang— I am little prepared to answer your accusations, other than to say that there was little difference in tone between my first post here and the one which you so noncommittally praise, and to which Icarus responded in such anger.

[Confused]

What the crap are you talking about? Did you even read my post?!
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
My guess is no. Too busy patting himself on the back and thinking that everyone who dislikes him is jealous, petty, or stupid.

Enjoy life alone, Pel. You may be young but you've earned it.
 
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
Icarus, my post was aimed at EI JT Spang, but I am surprised that you do not feel your first post addressed to me on this thread was angry.

I think we have overcome most of our differences, but, in the post in question you begin by saying that

"You [that is to say I, Pelegius] seriously don't know what the hell you [me again] are talking about. "

move onto say

"Whichever teacher told you otherwise doesn't know jack."

Which is particularly insulting seeing as no teacher has ever told me any such thing. Indeed it was your claim that I was not capable of forming my own ideas that was most insulting.

Finally, you accuse me of " pontificating."

I am very sorry to bring this up again, because I think, as I have stated, that our argument has ended and on a fairly friendly note, but I would like to remind you that we were, unfortunately, not always on such good terms.

"Enjoy life alone, Pel."

Peace be with you as well, my friend, may your life be better without me and your heart more charitably disposed when you have forgotten your anger at me.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
You two stop fighting and go back to bashing me already this si getting boring,
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
The sentence I quoted seemed to indicate that I responded in anger to the post that JT praised. I see now that that's not what you meant.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2