BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Gavrielle_LaPoste

Listed below are comments made by Gavrielle_LaPoste between Saturday, 31st October 2009 and Sunday, 1st November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

When hope is all that's left 10:54pm on 01 Nov 2009 226. At 10:04pm on 01 Nov 2009, colonelartist wrote:

You call it clever, I call it disgusting.

You're just upset because it works. And if we learned it from anyone, we learned it from the Romans. Who no doubt stole it from the Egyptians. Who probably got the idea from the Hittites. Who probably learned it from the Akkadians and Sumerians. Who, of course, ruled Mesopotamia, also known as Iraq, 5000 years before any of us were born. You know what they say: What goes around comes around.
When hope is all that's left 9:49pm on 01 Nov 2009 224. At 9:26pm on 01 Nov 2009, colonelartist wrote:

now, you know, why your government and that of israel, drone or target kill the leaders of those they invade..

LOL! Like that's something you had to tell me! Of course we target the leaders. We've been doing that since we violated the Rules of Warfare against the British in 1775 after Concord and Lexington. On the long march of British troops back to Boston the local militias wiped out or wounded more British officers than they did common men. It's nothing new, and your patriotic guerrillas would do it too, if we didn't already make sure our commanders don't wear any distinguishing symbols of rank in the field. Clever, eh?
When hope is all that's left 9:20pm on 01 Nov 2009 220. At 7:47pm on 01 Nov 2009, ukwales wrote:

I have always struggled to try and understand the frame of mind that resulted in an armed civil war.

Then bear in mind that the uprising in America was led by upper middle class lawyers and businessmen. They agitated, propagandized and eventually funded the war, not the common people, who had little to gain as opposed to men with shipping, manufacturing and other interests then controlled by Parliament. John Hancock, for instance, supposedly made his fortune bootlegging tea and rum from the West Indies.

Like most of American history, it was all about business. And there was nothing personal against George III. He was merely a convenient focal point for the Adams propaganda machine. It's hard to demonize a large group of men who are on record as having differing opinions, but a King is an easy target. No one with any real understanding of the situation back then blamed George. In their letters they blamed Parliament. Which may be why John Adams was accepted at George's Court as the American Ambassador and Jefferson, who'd written such slanderous lies in the Declaration of Independence, was snubbed when he visited as our Ambassador to France.

The taxes that were levied to help pay for that security were not as punitive as suffered by the general population back in Gt.Britain.
Ok, British officialdom was and still is, high handed, but no taxation without representation was the case back home also.

There is no doubt that America owed Britain a good sum of money for its defense. There is also no doubt that the colonial governments were willing to pay their fair share. If, and only if, the colonial governments were approached separately as independent, autonomous governments, who would then levy the specific taxes themselves and authorize payment to Great Britain. It was the heavy handed, across the board taxing of all the colonies as a whole that was the point of contention. But Britain, which had been distracted for many years with wars, wished to regain complete control over their far too independent colonies. Where violations of the trade rules, i.e. what American businesses were and weren't allowed to do to avoid competing with Britain, had grown endemic.

For example, Americans were allowed to produce cotton, but not allowed to manufacture their own cloth on a large scale. They were allowed to produce dyes, but those dyes had to be shipped back to England for their textile manufacturers' use. Americans couldn't legally pick up a shipment of tea in India and sell it back in the colonies, but were required to purchase exclusively from the West India Company.

When Britain wasn't looking, Americans began to rule themselves and by the time Parliament noticed it was too late to stop the forward momentum. And the businessmen who'd made fortunes circumventing what they considered onerous British laws, weren't about to lose their lucrative trades. And were, in fact, eager to expand if Britain could somehow be got out of the picture.

Could it be said that to take up arms against the Mother country would be similar to the UK entering into armed conflict with the US after it greatly helped to secure our freedom from Hitler and stalin.

Actually, it was more a war of words that time, but again about money. After the war, when Britain was on the verge of financial collapse, Parliament sent a representative, economist John Maynard Keynes, to Washington to demand the US give them a grant of money and bail them out. The same John Maynard Keynes who warned the allies at the end of WWI not to beggar Germany with reparations or it would likely incite another world war. The very same man whose writings managed to convince Woodrow Wilson not to join in the "let's all beggar Germany" fest that ensued and created Hitler. It was considered sheer gall on the part of the British to claim America was "late" to the war and therefore owed Britain a debt, when America had specifically counseled a strategy of moderation 20 years earlier that might have prevented the Second World War.

In any case, no grants were forthcoming, but Britain was given a loan - which I believe was finally paid off only a few years ago. Of course, having Britain between a rock and a hard place, made it easy for the US to finish implementing Samuel Adams plan during the formation of the UN. And as MAII implied, Adams' long game, which has been part of US political/military doctrine since our separation will finally be complete once Lisbon is enacted.

Now don't get me wrong. Unlike Marcus, I am not at all eager to dance on the grave of Great Britain. I am not celebrating what Adams did, merely recounting my understanding of the history behind the actual events. That Britain has long been an American target for business reasons is only a statement of fact. Because while others may have colonized, only Britain could ever truly compete with America on a scale that threatened US interests. In any event, I will not be at all happy, given the nation's long and distinguished history, and its ability to adapt to the changing world around it, to see it relegated to the equivalent of Texas. Proudly proclaiming that it once had a Prime Minister who was more than just a provincial governor. I will be very, very sad on the day that happens.

Ultimately, and in answer to one of Mark's earlier questions: Does America no longer trust Britain? In light of the fact that the UK has been under sustained attack by the US for more than 200 years, perhaps Britain should be asking itself: Should we ever have trusted the US? And the simple answer to that is: No. We may have been your ally, but we were never truly your friend. But then, we are no nation's true friend. America, as always, stands alone.
When hope is all that's left 5:13pm on 01 Nov 2009 205. At 2:35pm on 01 Nov 2009, ukwales wrote:

Washington was a lieutenant colonel of virginia militia in the 1750`s.
he tried vigorously to be made a major in the British army,but the expence of purchasing a commission was about £2000 sterling,an enormous fig for Washingtons limited means.
Alas,he was never to procure that regular army commission he longed for.If he had the out come of 1776 could well have taken a very different path. But IF`s & AND`s makes pots and pans...

Wonderful bit of history on GW, but the rebellion/revolution began long before Washington and his dreams. And military prowess aside, would have happened anyway, one way or another.

It actually started around 1740 with Samuel Adams, elder cousin of John Adams, when the British government came down hard on colonial land speculators starting in the 1730s. Adams' father was a speculator who'd bought up thousands of acres in land grants, and when the British government made such purchases illegal, and further went on to make the law retroactive, Adams Sr. was ruined. Sam Jr. went from being a rich landed prince-ling at Harvard to serving tables in the dining hall overnight. In 1743 his Masters thesis argued that it was "lawful to resist the Supreme Magistrate, if the Commonwealth cannot otherwise be preserved". In public, he worked tirelessly in support of "colonial rights", but privately swore to destroy the British Empire.

Adams, a political genius, is often described by historians as the driving force behind the American Revolution. The spider at the center of the web, who pulled the propaganda strings to make every British misstep appear to be larger and more significant than it ought to have been. He was behind the Boston Tea Party and turned the Boston Massacre (which was really just a an attempt to collect a debt from a soldier gone horribly wrong) into a rallying cry for what had been an unpopular Independence movement.

For those still arguing rebellion vs revolution it might help to know that the foundation of the insurrection was laid in the 1740s and always had a political goal from the start with an endgame of Independence in mind. What I find most fascinating is that most people don't realize that Adams' actually set the long term political policy goals for the infant US once it had gained independence from Britain. And that policy was to dismantle the British Empire that had caused his father's ruin and his personal humiliation. The US demand that the colonial powers divest themselves of all their holdings prior to agreeing to joining the United Nations was the culmination of Adams' dream - two hundred years later.
When hope is all that's left 4:20pm on 01 Nov 2009 200. At 11:39am on 01 Nov 2009, MagicKirin wrote:

Media Matters is funded by liberal activist George Soros it only reports on alleged conservative bias. So take them as seriosuly as you would the Daily Kos

That's not entirely true. They also call out MSNBC fairly frequently when they get sloppy with their reporting standards. And facts are facts. They don't lean one way or another.

But the bigger issue in reporting facts these days comes from the lack of unbiased source material. At one time, the US had a huge nonpartisan research apparatus compiling data for use by all political parties, branches of government and non-governmental agencies. Every year tons of material was published and made available to anyone and everyone. The researchers and compilers of the material were simply government employees who held their jobs through every administration and were beholden to none. When Newt Gingrich gained control of the House in 1994 he deliberately dismantled this important in-house aid to governing and farmed out most of the business of research to conservative think tanks under the guise of making government smaller and more efficient through privatization.

So when you hear a congressman say he doesn't know the actual numbers, that's because his aides can't simply make a phone call to the appropriate department and get the stats - even incomplete ones. Much of it is now contracted out and they have to wait on the material - and there have been problems with quality control as well. But that does not excuse misquoting the numbers or making them up on the spot. And that's what Media Matters is best at: collating the actual documented facts and figures and putting them out there. Along with having people willing to sit through hours and hours of video and audio tapes counting the political references made one way or another in order to confirm or discount claims of media bias. Anyone willing to do the same could easily contradict them if they get it wrong. And while I've heard lots of people say that Media Matters is biased and should be ignored, I've never seen any actual proof from their accusers that they've consistently, and to the detriment of one party or another, gotten it completely wrong.
When hope is all that's left 06:30am on 01 Nov 2009 193. At 04:28am on 01 Nov 2009, stellarBeloved wrote:

It prompted Democratic party Gays to go on an "outing" rampage

I don't really agree with outing anyone, although when the very anti-gay ones get caught hitting on men in public toilets or with male prostitutes, it is very funny. Funny, in that they always seem to be the most vocal "family values" types. Which, in its own way, is really kind of creepy.
When hope is all that's left 06:10am on 01 Nov 2009 ref 194

And you would know all about identity politics, because you just smeared every single member of the Democratic Party with the same broad brush strokes you accuse Democrats of using.

And just to remind you, the Democratic Party in the North was never the same as the Dixiecrats - that's why they split before the Civil War, had an uneasy alliance after, and why the South finally decamped to join the Republican Party when they couldn't get their good old boy racist way anymore under Johnson.

So if you have complaints about the Dixiecrats, take it up with the Republican Party. They're your problem now, not ours.
When hope is all that's left 03:59am on 01 Nov 2009 ref 188

Media Matters is a watchdog site that reports on journalistic bias - anyone's bias. It was started several years ago by David Brock, who was deep into the "vast right wing conspiracy". I mean really deep. When he finally came up for air and realized there was absolutely nothing to any of the Whitewater charges and that he'd been a tool (in more ways than one!) of the Clinton bashing machine, he came out against media bias - including his own. The site is perhaps the most respected, even by journalists, for tracking and reporting who said what, when and the overall spin, left or right. Along with the facts and figures to back up whether they were telling the truth, lying or merely repeating unfounded rumors.

By the way, kudos to you for having the patience to type (sic) that many times. I can't be bothered to clean up the gibberish. Frankly, I'm never quite sure whether or not they're high, don't understand the purpose of spell check, or their four year old is taking dictation.
When hope is all that's left 10:04pm on 31 Oct 2009 169. At 9:09pm on 31 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:

And what about the oil? If obama will do all these things, how will he follow the great oil trail?

He won't, or haven't you hear--? No, of course you haven't heard. You don't follow internal American politics except where it concerns you and yours. But if you had been, you'd know we were investing in bio-fuels and other products that will make America self-sufficient. No need for foreign oil. Of course, once we've turned the Great Plains into America's new oil fields and not the world's bread basket, I expect you'll be complaining that we're starving the planet - while we eat the inexpensive and well earned fruits of our labors.
When hope is all that's left 5:29pm on 31 Oct 2009 128. At 04:52am on 31 Oct 2009, amerika_first wrote:

The poor down trodden and under privelged, pull yourself by your own boot straps rather then asking us taxpayers to bail you out. Plenty for a hand up, but not one plug nickel for a handout

Amerika, I want you to actually try and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. Go on. Bend down, grab your shoes, boots, sneakers or sandals and then...lift!

Get anywhere? No? Because it's physically impossible with weight and gravity working against you.

Now, what exactly is considered a hand up versus a hand out?

A hand up is a well funded public school system where children who can't afford private education can learn in safety and go on to college, becoming productive citizens and not uneducated street thugs.

A hand up is a community center where children can go for after school tutoring while their parents are at work and not loiter in the streets, where they are prey to gangbangers, drug dealers or prone to get into trouble.

A hand up is a health care system where families don't have to go bankrupt, and adults can get preventative care and medication for themselves and keep on working so they remain self-sufficient. Too many people don't get simple things like (for example) diuretics and beta blockers for undiagnosed high blood pressure. As a result, they have strokes and heart attacks that are easily avoided and end up unemployed, on disability, receiving Medicaid and needing General Assistance and food stamps. The cost of emergency care, by the way, is many times more expensive (and the chances of receiving payment for that debt far less likely so the taxpayer ends up covering the cost) than if preventative care were offered at reasonable rates to the everyone. Using emergency rooms as free health care clinics is not cost effective. By the way, are you aware that tuberculosis, measles, chicken pox and other communicable diseases are on the rise in America? That poor, downtrodden gardener, janitor, supermarket employee, Wal-Mart greeter, or video store clerk, who can't afford health insurance or to take a day off from work, can just as easily pass on a virus to his middle class and wealthy patrons and employers as he can to his poor, downtrodden fellows.

A hand up is building affordable, low income housing and getting rid of tenements and slums, where crime and disease are bred. These things still exist even in small cities, despite our best efforts to lift ourselves out of the 19th century.

A hand up is maintaining public transportation and roads, so workers can get to their jobs and remain self-sufficient.

A hand out is corporate welfare, farm subsidies for big agri-businesses and tax breaks for trust fund babies. The poor and the downtrodden aren't the problem. Giving them the means by which to climb the ladder of success will make your life less costly, safer and healthier. Giving tax breaks to the rich in the hope that their largess will trickle down to the poor, is foolish. The rich and privileged stay rich and privileged because they convince the conservative middle classes that maintaining the status quo is in their interest. They stay rich because they don't ever spend their own money. Instead, they create public programs that allow them to spend yours. Did you know that the World Trade Center was built using public funds and rammed through the New York State legislature by then Governor Rockerfeller because he owned property and businesses in the area? The "downtown" area of NYC had moved to midtown and he wanted the neighborhood where he owned property to become more valuable, so he came up with the idea of the Trade Center and then made the citizens pay for it - even though no one needed such a building. Do you think he was alone in this? That it isn't common practice to build roads and buildings you, the taxpayer, do not need, so that a businessman can increase his wealth at your expense? Why can't they build their own buildings and new roads without tax breaks and public funds? After all, they can afford it.

Stop blaming everything on the poor and underprivileged. There really aren't that many of them and with just a little help they'd be on their way to the middle classes and no longer financially burdening you and yours, but adding their taxes to the public coffers. On the other hand, watch your back when it comes to the rich and privileged. They know how to pick your pockets - legally - and they do it with a friendly pat on the back, a knowing wink and a claim of doing it all in the spirit of public interest.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Gavrielle_LaPoste