USA impotent against pirates ?

[Spoonman]

There are two discussions in this thread. The one based on the OP regarding piracy based out of Somalia and the tangent regarding the nature of the Viet Nam conflict.

Libya has jack shit to do with either of those. If you want to discuss Libya, make a thread about it.

LMAO - you are the one who brought Gadafy and Libya into the topic. I was responding to you. Follow your own advice troll.

you really suck at this

 

[JBeukema]

No, you idiot, I mentioned Gadfly. Gadfly is a member of this board and a VietNam veteran who was involved in both of the aforementioned discussions in this thread- in fact, the tangent regarding the nature of the Viet Nam conflict began with my reply to one of his posts, if memory serves.

If you weren't functionally illiterate, perhaps you wouldn't have spent the last several pages making a fool of yourself.

Also, the guy in Libya is named Gaddafi. Muammar Gaddafi.

I suggest Hooked on Phonics another remedial reading course. Until then, go away and stop bothering the adults.

 

[Spoonman]

Newsflash: VietNam is halfway around the globe

Gadfly wasn't defending us from anything, noone was invading- your rhetoric isn't applicable here

Care to try again?

Correction: actually, it is kinda applicable, since Americans were convinced/coerced to go into another country and kill the locals- your point about a defensive force, then, actually brings up one of the factors behind the guerrilla resistance. I doubt you meant to show why Gadfly was on the wrong end of things and many of the guys trying to kill him were justified in their struggle, but that's what you have done in a moment of honesty I'm sure was unintentional.

Waht does this have to do with the original post? Damn dude, you are all over the place. If you want to talk about Vietnam, start a topic about it.

 

[Spoonman]

No, you idiot, I mentioned Gadfly. Gadfly is a member of this board and a VietNam veteran who was involved in both of the aforementioned discussions in this thread- in fact, the tangent regarding the nature of the Viet Nam conflict began with my reply to one of his posts, if memory serves.

If you weren't functionally illiterate, perhaps you wouldn't have spent the last several pages making a fool of yourself.

Also, the guy in Libya is named Gaddafi. Muammar Gaddafi.

I suggest Hooked on Phonics another remedial reading course. Until then, go away and stop bothering the adults.

Is that a troll remark or did that actually add to the discussion of this topic?

 

[JBeukema]

American Trolling League
Rejected
​

We regret to inform you that your submission has been rejected. Your trolling is simply not up to ATL standards. USMB requires all trolls to be registered with the ATL and to have current ATL certification to ensure quality. In accordance with the Terms of Use and applicable rules, regulations, and standards, you are ordered to CEASE AND DESIST your activities until you are able to meet ATL standards and acquire certification.

The post you quoted is from some time after the discussion regarding VietNam started- it was a direct reply to another post

 

[JBeukema]

Here, I'll throw the troll a bone

Gadfly brought 'Nam into the thread

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3395410-post104.html

 

[Spoonman]

He has certainly been interesting in this thread.
I have never seen a nihilist in action before.

careful, he might neg rep you. it's a liberal trait of his

I quit trying to pin any label on JB. He is his own ideology, whatever it is. He's consistent on any particular issue, but as soon as that changes, I never know which way he's going to head next. He's got more sides than a lump of coal. I'll argue with him when I feel like it, and leave him alone when I don't; but trying to figure him out makes my old head hurt.

Well he is obviously a troll who adds nothing to the conversation on this board.

 

[Spoonman]

Quote: Originally Posted by JBeukema
You want truth? The truth is we went into Viet Nam to suppress the locals' attempts at self-determination when they tried to do as we did and break away from a colonial power. The motive was simple: fear of losing access to cheap resources and labour. It was an attempt to ensure the capitalists could continue to exploit the local population, pure and simple. And it was that very exploitation that made the communist movement attractive to so many in the first place. The entire Red Menace was a propaganda campaign based around the bourgeoisie's fear that they would lose profits as markets were lost and they were less able to exploit the world's poor and weak. You fought the rich man's war against your fellow human beings in order to secure their profit margin.

That's the reality of the situation when you boil it down to its true nature and strip it of the nationalist propaganda. It's a story that's been played out numerous times in history.


So you are saying the war mongering libs went to war in Vietnam to fight for the rich man? And to secure profit margins? And this effects the Somali pirates how?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

He has certainly been interesting in this thread.
I have never seen a nihilist in action before.

careful, he might neg rep you. it's a liberal trait of his

Can you idiots try to be more creative, please?

Anyone who's been here a week should know I'm not a Liberal

bourgeois liberalism jbeukema site:usmessageboard.com - Google Search

So you side with the Communist Party of China party objectives .

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

JB,
I swear, I believe you would argue with a concrete post, if you could get it to reply....and if you couldn't, I do believe you'd try to keep arguing with it until it crumbled, just so you could say you won.

He has certainly been interesting in this thread.
I have never seen a nihilist in action before.

careful, he might neg rep you. it's a liberal trait of his

I doubt he would do that He would want to take the loss to his wealth of rep.
He is a bourgeois MF.

 

[Spoonman]

He has certainly been interesting in this thread.
I have never seen a nihilist in action before.

careful, he might neg rep you. it's a liberal trait of his

I doubt he would do that He would want to take the loss to his wealth of rep.
He is a bourgeois MF.

IDK, he has no problem neging me instead of trying to argue the point.

 

[JBeukema]

careful, he might neg rep you. it's a liberal trait of his

Can you idiots try to be more creative, please?

Anyone who's been here a week should know I'm not a Liberal

bourgeois liberalism jbeukema site:usmessageboard.com - Google Search

So you side with the Communist Party of China party objectives .

fail

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/158123-usa-impotent-against-pirates-13.html#post3396828

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Can you idiots try to be more creative, please?

Anyone who's been here a week should know I'm not a Liberal

bourgeois liberalism jbeukema site:usmessageboard.com - Google Search

So you side with the Communist Party of China party objectives .

fail

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/158123-usa-impotent-against-pirates-13.html#post3396828

Yes you have, and you seem to lack any discernible sense of humor, but it would be funny if you decided to edit Wiki so it doesn't contrite you.
Bourgeois liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JBeukema]

Frankfurt Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JBeukema]

term used, often derogatorily, to describe classical economic liberalism of the 19th century
-Brittanica

Think beyond Wikipedia
​

 

[Spoonman]

Can you idiots try to be more creative, please?

Anyone who's been here a week should know I'm not a Liberal

bourgeois liberalism jbeukema site:usmessageboard.com - Google Search

So you side with the Communist Party of China party objectives .

fail

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/158123-usa-impotent-against-pirates-13.html#post3396828

ah yes failure. Another trait of yours. Now does simply typing the word fail really add to the conversation on the thread or would that be considered just a troll?

 

[Mini 14]

I quit trying to pin any label on JB. He is his own ideology, whatever it is. He's consistent on any particular issue, but as soon as that changes, I never know which way he's going to head next. He's got more sides than a lump of coal. I'll argue with him when I feel like it, and leave him alone when I don't; but trying to figure him out makes my old head hurt.

I agree Gaddy.

He's a fucking loon.

And I agree with Care4All that he is a POS as well.

Also, its been pointed out to me that he wasn't even alive during Vietnam, so measure that into his "logic."

 

[JBeukema]

[Locke] and the bourgeois liberalism which rests upon him recognize only the right to exploit.

.

 

[Spoonman]

I quit trying to pin any label on JB. He is his own ideology, whatever it is. He's consistent on any particular issue, but as soon as that changes, I never know which way he's going to head next. He's got more sides than a lump of coal. I'll argue with him when I feel like it, and leave him alone when I don't; but trying to figure him out makes my old head hurt.

I agree Gaddy.

He's a fucking loon.

And I agree with Care4All that he is a POS as well.

You noticed too? Mini 14's rock btw.

 

[JBeukema]

Locke and Hobbes both place their necks in Hume's guillotine and pull the cord.

See earlier in the

In Chapter 2, "Of the state of nature", Locke describes the "state of nature" in which men exist before forming governments:
Except for depending on the other man to not kill or steeal from him

Really?
So this man

was born in an equal state compared to this child

?

he was born with and possesses no more than the child prior to his induction into the social contract?



Clearly, the man knows nothing of most species' social structures. From queen ants to silverbacks, the natural state is far from equal


might makes right

The man is delusional

Should? Wherefrom comes this should

He jumps froma gross misrepresentation of the word to prescriptive moral assertions.


Locke is a joke.

.

To jump from a false premise (a lie about the natural state of things) to a prescriptive ought is doubly fallacious.

Locke's assertions do not stand

bourgeois liberalism recognizes only the right of the strong to exploit the weak. It goes hand in hand with capitalism and fascism.