The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/ sm_837220.html?menu=news.latestheadlines
So, Dubya on the one hand praises the 'brave Americans' who have fought for their country, but on the other hand he doesn't want them to have any compensation for what they've gone through. Doubtless Belly No Balls will start squealing "it was a war, what do they expect?", at which point a little something called the Geneva Convention should be mentioned...
But the real reason I want to bring this story to attention is that Dubya is saying he wants the money to be spent on "reconstruction". And who is leading the 'reconstruction' program? Why...is it the companies who backed and financed Dubya's election campaign?! You know, it is...
This lying, thieving, warmongering chimp isn't even trying to hide his corruption any more. He is happy to sell out the people he purports to represent to his friends in big business. What a patriotic American he is; putting the needs of the rich few before those of the needy many. He is in need of a good, hard, car park kicking.
So, Dubya on the one hand praises the 'brave Americans' who have fought for their country, but on the other hand he doesn't want them to have any compensation for what they've gone through. Doubtless Belly No Balls will start squealing "it was a war, what do they expect?", at which point a little something called the Geneva Convention should be mentioned...
But the real reason I want to bring this story to attention is that Dubya is saying he wants the money to be spent on "reconstruction". And who is leading the 'reconstruction' program? Why...is it the companies who backed and financed Dubya's election campaign?! You know, it is...
This lying, thieving, warmongering chimp isn't even trying to hide his corruption any more. He is happy to sell out the people he purports to represent to his friends in big business. What a patriotic American he is; putting the needs of the rich few before those of the needy many. He is in need of a good, hard, car park kicking.
Page:
Light wrote:
> Actually Bell, I did consider your post irrelenvant. But I was so
> delighted to pin you down to a topic, I encouraged you. And I'm glad
> I did, because now I get to see you squirm away from someone else.
> Thus far, you're not being as evasive though (despite the fact that
> you're now using the whole swearing thing as an excuse to avoid
> discussing colonialism with kernal) so I'll be interested to see how
> this pans out.
So, I mention something to do with colonialism - slavery - that unknown kernel - who says he knows something about colonialism - does not, and I'm squirming ? How come, If I am avodiing the subject, I replied to unknown kernel, eh ? Rather bizarre topic avoidance that....
You are one of the prime people who cannot seem to get this "people can have an opinion but it does not make it the only one" idea into your head, as your religion topic shows.
> Oh, and if you REALLY didn't care about what people say about you,
> why are you stamping your feet about IB coming back?
Because it will annoy certain people, heck you felt enough to comment on it...
> Actually Bell, I did consider your post irrelenvant. But I was so
> delighted to pin you down to a topic, I encouraged you. And I'm glad
> I did, because now I get to see you squirm away from someone else.
> Thus far, you're not being as evasive though (despite the fact that
> you're now using the whole swearing thing as an excuse to avoid
> discussing colonialism with kernal) so I'll be interested to see how
> this pans out.
So, I mention something to do with colonialism - slavery - that unknown kernel - who says he knows something about colonialism - does not, and I'm squirming ? How come, If I am avodiing the subject, I replied to unknown kernel, eh ? Rather bizarre topic avoidance that....
You are one of the prime people who cannot seem to get this "people can have an opinion but it does not make it the only one" idea into your head, as your religion topic shows.
> Oh, and if you REALLY didn't care about what people say about you,
> why are you stamping your feet about IB coming back?
Because it will annoy certain people, heck you felt enough to comment on it...
Which it is clearly not.
Belldandy wrote:
> So, how much of your life you smoked away today eh?
Since when did a mans personal habits become ammunition in a political debate? No offense, but I fail to see its relevence unless this is a debate on banning public smoking or something.
> So, how much of your life you smoked away today eh?
Since when did a mans personal habits become ammunition in a political debate? No offense, but I fail to see its relevence unless this is a debate on banning public smoking or something.
Belldandy wrote:
> Proves what I have said many times - one rule for notables, one rule
> for the rest.
Despite that I have said, equally as many times if not more, that I didn't break any rules?
> Proves what I have said many times - one rule for notables, one rule
> for the rest.
Despite that I have said, equally as many times if not more, that I didn't break any rules?
Actually Bell, I did consider your post irrelenvant. But I was so delighted to pin you down to a topic, I encouraged you. And I'm glad I did, because now I get to see you squirm away from someone else. Thus far, you're not being as evasive though (despite the fact that you're now using the whole swearing thing as an excuse to avoid discussing colonialism with kernal) so I'll be interested to see how this pans out.
Oh, and if you REALLY didn't care about what people say about you, why are you stamping your feet about IB coming back?
Oh, and if you REALLY didn't care about what people say about you, why are you stamping your feet about IB coming back?
Goatboy wrote:
> Swearing Bell? Why, I feel it my duty as one of the elite mastermind
> secret group of smoking leftist communists to report that post.
No problem, should I be banned I'll just ask for my account back like IB, because whatever you say he WAS banned - Snuggly made that clear - and failing that I have other accounts from which I shall make these inconsistencies very clear to the other members of the forum.
So, how much of your life you smoked away today eh?
> Swearing Bell? Why, I feel it my duty as one of the elite mastermind
> secret group of smoking leftist communists to report that post.
No problem, should I be banned I'll just ask for my account back like IB, because whatever you say he WAS banned - Snuggly made that clear - and failing that I have other accounts from which I shall make these inconsistencies very clear to the other members of the forum.
So, how much of your life you smoked away today eh?
unknown kernel wrote:
> On the slavery thing I wondered whether you meant the slave trade or
> slavery itself; where you were talking about; and how that tied in
> with the decline in British power, given what the empire was all
> about. I admit that the nuances of that question may have been
> obscured by me going 'wot?'
Well for starters the British Empire founded a sizeable (not all) of it's income through slavery. Obviously when the British were forced to abandon it in ALL forms it dented the economy of the Empire because all of a sudden you have to find people to work for you rather than going to a village, rounding all the women and children up and getting the men to work for you, or just rounding everyone up and dumping them on a ship to another place.
> The other thing, about "Britain's will to govern by force ended
> in the early 1900's" just confused me. The other day you were
> saying that Britain's empire ended because of the effects of WWII and
> that only the damage to its military forced Britain to let its empire
> go; now you're saying that Britain didn't want to rule by force by
> the early 1900s.
I'll clarify, and again this is based on my opinion so anyone else silly enough to think one opinion is the be all and end all can go run off a cliff:
Britain's will to govern by force came to an end around the early 1900's in that we did not have the enthusiasm, capacity, or actual forces to deploy to prop up every single colony we had. We could however involve the 'natives' in some capacity to further the situation for a little longer. At the time resistance movements were GENERALLY not organised enough nor doing enough to cause major trouble.
Then comes WW2, piles of people from our colonies fight with us, and we're fighting in theory for freedom, democracy and all that. War ends. Our economy is knackered, our military is, whilst not on it's last legs, suddenly policing parts of Germany and spread around the world in hundreds of battle zones. Economically we can no longer support the colonies nor pay for them. Militarily we could defend them IF the 'natives' helped. Except they won't, because after fighting to destory the axis powers in the name of freedom they realise that they're going back to a place where they do not have freedom. Resistance movements become popular, and in places like India a convergence of domestic political events, upheavals and public opinion means that we can give independence to India, and other places, still come out as the relative good guys, and by jove we'll sell them everything they need for their new bona fide state.
>You then start talking about the Indian Mutiny -
> 1857, and which you rechristened a couple of weeks ago as the first
> Indian war of independence, following the Braveheart school of
> history - to back this up.
Well again this is explained simply by the fact that to the Indian resistance movements it was the beginning of the Indian War of Independence, and to the British it was the Indian Mutiny. For the British, calling it a mutiny is better politically because it makes it sound like a few malcontents are playing silly b*ggers. Call it a war and suddenly people are asking these awkward "if the Empire is so great how come a war is starting in it" type questions. I believe I did repeat this in that original topic.
>I agree with most of what you're saying,
> although I think that the change wasn't that dramatic. I don't know
> much about the Far East but certainly in Africa and India, Britain
> always preferred to rule 'peacefully' by trading and co-operation
> with local elites, but was happy to respond with great force if they
> stepped out of line (much like the US today). I don't think that
> approach changed much until the independence movements, when Britain
> was forced to fight mass movements rather than a few disgruntled
> chiefs and their mercenaries.
Well that is your opinion, but when you read the more detailed accounts of the antics of people like Stanley, and of the other European accounts of their activities in Africa and India, I find it hard to believe we were the only ones being 'civilised' in any way. More like our accounts of those times were sanitised for the official sources at the time. We do know that Africa, during the last half of the 19th Century, suffered massive population loss in the areas where the Europeans were. Now we know that there was no major disease problem as there was when Europeans went to the New World, so either there was a mass immigration no one knows about, or we really did sell millions into slavery or kill/massacre them. The other important point is that Britian rarely comitted such acts officially, in the colonies, towards the end of the 19th Century, proxy forces, such as those of the local elites, stood in nicely. Should some inconvenient person like Edward Morel (who campaigned for an end to all slavery and uncovered the truth about the Belgian colonies in Africa) come across something you could blame it on those people instead of white people.
Essentially I think you're talking about two kinds of military type actions - ones that had terrorising the locals/enforcing a peace kinds of objectives, and ones that had a more battlefield type objective.
> It seemed to me that you were changing your argument. My point -
> rather enigmatically put - was that if you are going to descend into
> each thread like Moses carrying tablets down the mountain, then at
> least bring the same tablets every time.
Except I don't have that intention. I always state my opinion and for some strange reason many seem to take it as fact or truth.
> On the slavery thing I wondered whether you meant the slave trade or
> slavery itself; where you were talking about; and how that tied in
> with the decline in British power, given what the empire was all
> about. I admit that the nuances of that question may have been
> obscured by me going 'wot?'
Well for starters the British Empire founded a sizeable (not all) of it's income through slavery. Obviously when the British were forced to abandon it in ALL forms it dented the economy of the Empire because all of a sudden you have to find people to work for you rather than going to a village, rounding all the women and children up and getting the men to work for you, or just rounding everyone up and dumping them on a ship to another place.
> The other thing, about "Britain's will to govern by force ended
> in the early 1900's" just confused me. The other day you were
> saying that Britain's empire ended because of the effects of WWII and
> that only the damage to its military forced Britain to let its empire
> go; now you're saying that Britain didn't want to rule by force by
> the early 1900s.
I'll clarify, and again this is based on my opinion so anyone else silly enough to think one opinion is the be all and end all can go run off a cliff:
Britain's will to govern by force came to an end around the early 1900's in that we did not have the enthusiasm, capacity, or actual forces to deploy to prop up every single colony we had. We could however involve the 'natives' in some capacity to further the situation for a little longer. At the time resistance movements were GENERALLY not organised enough nor doing enough to cause major trouble.
Then comes WW2, piles of people from our colonies fight with us, and we're fighting in theory for freedom, democracy and all that. War ends. Our economy is knackered, our military is, whilst not on it's last legs, suddenly policing parts of Germany and spread around the world in hundreds of battle zones. Economically we can no longer support the colonies nor pay for them. Militarily we could defend them IF the 'natives' helped. Except they won't, because after fighting to destory the axis powers in the name of freedom they realise that they're going back to a place where they do not have freedom. Resistance movements become popular, and in places like India a convergence of domestic political events, upheavals and public opinion means that we can give independence to India, and other places, still come out as the relative good guys, and by jove we'll sell them everything they need for their new bona fide state.
>You then start talking about the Indian Mutiny -
> 1857, and which you rechristened a couple of weeks ago as the first
> Indian war of independence, following the Braveheart school of
> history - to back this up.
Well again this is explained simply by the fact that to the Indian resistance movements it was the beginning of the Indian War of Independence, and to the British it was the Indian Mutiny. For the British, calling it a mutiny is better politically because it makes it sound like a few malcontents are playing silly b*ggers. Call it a war and suddenly people are asking these awkward "if the Empire is so great how come a war is starting in it" type questions. I believe I did repeat this in that original topic.
>I agree with most of what you're saying,
> although I think that the change wasn't that dramatic. I don't know
> much about the Far East but certainly in Africa and India, Britain
> always preferred to rule 'peacefully' by trading and co-operation
> with local elites, but was happy to respond with great force if they
> stepped out of line (much like the US today). I don't think that
> approach changed much until the independence movements, when Britain
> was forced to fight mass movements rather than a few disgruntled
> chiefs and their mercenaries.
Well that is your opinion, but when you read the more detailed accounts of the antics of people like Stanley, and of the other European accounts of their activities in Africa and India, I find it hard to believe we were the only ones being 'civilised' in any way. More like our accounts of those times were sanitised for the official sources at the time. We do know that Africa, during the last half of the 19th Century, suffered massive population loss in the areas where the Europeans were. Now we know that there was no major disease problem as there was when Europeans went to the New World, so either there was a mass immigration no one knows about, or we really did sell millions into slavery or kill/massacre them. The other important point is that Britian rarely comitted such acts officially, in the colonies, towards the end of the 19th Century, proxy forces, such as those of the local elites, stood in nicely. Should some inconvenient person like Edward Morel (who campaigned for an end to all slavery and uncovered the truth about the Belgian colonies in Africa) come across something you could blame it on those people instead of white people.
Essentially I think you're talking about two kinds of military type actions - ones that had terrorising the locals/enforcing a peace kinds of objectives, and ones that had a more battlefield type objective.
> It seemed to me that you were changing your argument. My point -
> rather enigmatically put - was that if you are going to descend into
> each thread like Moses carrying tablets down the mountain, then at
> least bring the same tablets every time.
Except I don't have that intention. I always state my opinion and for some strange reason many seem to take it as fact or truth.
It's ok, Bell has decided to argue this thread because he was bent over the desk, pants yanked down and everyone lined up patiently to paddle that beehind over the "Dude, Where's my Country?" thread.
Swearing Bell? Why, I feel it my duty as one of the elite mastermind secret group of smoking leftist communists to report that post.
And stop whining about IB, you sound like a petulant baby bird in the nest, head back and "Waaaah Waaaah Waaaah" everytime mother-bird flies over with a morsel of righteous fury for you to chew on.
Swearing Bell? Why, I feel it my duty as one of the elite mastermind secret group of smoking leftist communists to report that post.
And stop whining about IB, you sound like a petulant baby bird in the nest, head back and "Waaaah Waaaah Waaaah" everytime mother-bird flies over with a morsel of righteous fury for you to chew on.
Belldandy wrote:
> You do go to/have been to Uni , unknown kernel ? They did do about
> competing discourses e.t.c I assume ? Y'know, that just because
> someone interprets events one way it does not make them the only
> interpretation, nor the wrong or right interpretation.
Couldn't agree more, and I'm delighted to hear you say it. Presumably this will usher in a new era of you presenting your viewpoint with something approaching humility - rather than as the gospel truth handed down from God to you, via Dubya.
> You asked two questions of me, which I answered.
Yes, and I'm sorry that those questions weren't entirely helpful. Given your unique approach to debate in the past, 'eh?' and 'what do you mean?' were all I could be bothered to come up with. So I apologise. Just to clarify:
On the slavery thing I wondered whether you meant the slave trade or slavery itself; where you were talking about; and how that tied in with the decline in British power, given what the empire was all about. I admit that the nuances of that question may have been obscured by me going 'wot?'
The other thing, about "Britain's will to govern by force ended in the early 1900's" just confused me. The other day you were saying that Britain's empire ended because of the effects of WWII and that only the damage to its military forced Britain to let its empire go; now you're saying that Britain didn't want to rule by force by the early 1900s. You then start talking about the Indian Mutiny - 1857, and which you rechristened a couple of weeks ago as the first Indian war of independence, following the Braveheart school of history - to back this up. I agree with most of what you're saying, although I think that the change wasn't that dramatic. I don't know much about the Far East but certainly in Africa and India, Britain always preferred to rule 'peacefully' by trading and co-operation with local elites, but was happy to respond with great force if they stepped out of line (much like the US today). I don't think that approach changed much until the independence movements, when Britain was forced to fight mass movements rather than a few disgruntled chiefs and their mercenaries.
It seemed to me that you were changing your argument. My point - rather enigmatically put - was that if you are going to descend into each thread like Moses carrying tablets down the mountain, then at least bring the same tablets every time.
I might write a proper answer to the above tomorrow, but for now my head hurts too much.
> a totally different, baseless, rant.
In this context it was fairly baseless, yes, but I stand by the sentiment even if I apologise for the timing. In MY opinion your least lovely debating technique is to gloss over a mistake you have made and then go off on a tangent so lengthy and full of learning that people forget what the argument was about in the first place. I think the point of these essays is to subtly say "But look how much I know about THIS stuff; how dare you, mere mortal, disagree with me?" Maybe I've got it wrong, but it really gets up my nerves. I find it especially annoying when these ostentatious displays of knowledge are themselves riddled with innacuracies. Case in point: your lecture on Angola last week. The military details were spot on but you either didn't know or misunderstood any aspect of the situation that didn't involve guns. I don't know much about Angola but I knew enough to see that you were cribbing from the back of a cereal box and really shouldn't be using it to back up an argument.
> So unknown kernel I suggest that you try to actually add something
> with your next post rather than a rant.
OK, I will. I'll probably write a little review of Michael Moore, who I saw doing his live show last week. I might even finish off a hilarious satire on George Bush that I started a while back. (You'll love it!!!!)
> Jeez, you so f ucking annoying sometimes it's unbelieavable.
True. But, really, your language...
> You do go to/have been to Uni , unknown kernel ? They did do about
> competing discourses e.t.c I assume ? Y'know, that just because
> someone interprets events one way it does not make them the only
> interpretation, nor the wrong or right interpretation.
Couldn't agree more, and I'm delighted to hear you say it. Presumably this will usher in a new era of you presenting your viewpoint with something approaching humility - rather than as the gospel truth handed down from God to you, via Dubya.
> You asked two questions of me, which I answered.
Yes, and I'm sorry that those questions weren't entirely helpful. Given your unique approach to debate in the past, 'eh?' and 'what do you mean?' were all I could be bothered to come up with. So I apologise. Just to clarify:
On the slavery thing I wondered whether you meant the slave trade or slavery itself; where you were talking about; and how that tied in with the decline in British power, given what the empire was all about. I admit that the nuances of that question may have been obscured by me going 'wot?'
The other thing, about "Britain's will to govern by force ended in the early 1900's" just confused me. The other day you were saying that Britain's empire ended because of the effects of WWII and that only the damage to its military forced Britain to let its empire go; now you're saying that Britain didn't want to rule by force by the early 1900s. You then start talking about the Indian Mutiny - 1857, and which you rechristened a couple of weeks ago as the first Indian war of independence, following the Braveheart school of history - to back this up. I agree with most of what you're saying, although I think that the change wasn't that dramatic. I don't know much about the Far East but certainly in Africa and India, Britain always preferred to rule 'peacefully' by trading and co-operation with local elites, but was happy to respond with great force if they stepped out of line (much like the US today). I don't think that approach changed much until the independence movements, when Britain was forced to fight mass movements rather than a few disgruntled chiefs and their mercenaries.
It seemed to me that you were changing your argument. My point - rather enigmatically put - was that if you are going to descend into each thread like Moses carrying tablets down the mountain, then at least bring the same tablets every time.
I might write a proper answer to the above tomorrow, but for now my head hurts too much.
> a totally different, baseless, rant.
In this context it was fairly baseless, yes, but I stand by the sentiment even if I apologise for the timing. In MY opinion your least lovely debating technique is to gloss over a mistake you have made and then go off on a tangent so lengthy and full of learning that people forget what the argument was about in the first place. I think the point of these essays is to subtly say "But look how much I know about THIS stuff; how dare you, mere mortal, disagree with me?" Maybe I've got it wrong, but it really gets up my nerves. I find it especially annoying when these ostentatious displays of knowledge are themselves riddled with innacuracies. Case in point: your lecture on Angola last week. The military details were spot on but you either didn't know or misunderstood any aspect of the situation that didn't involve guns. I don't know much about Angola but I knew enough to see that you were cribbing from the back of a cereal box and really shouldn't be using it to back up an argument.
> So unknown kernel I suggest that you try to actually add something
> with your next post rather than a rant.
OK, I will. I'll probably write a little review of Michael Moore, who I saw doing his live show last week. I might even finish off a hilarious satire on George Bush that I started a while back. (You'll love it!!!!)
> Jeez, you so f ucking annoying sometimes it's unbelieavable.
True. But, really, your language...
Bane wrote:
> Swearing now?
>
> How many forum rules do you want to violate?
Considering you were banned then have been allowed back with your old account I think it's pretty f'ing funny that you seek to lecture anyone about forum rules.
Proves what I have said many times - one rule for notables, one rule for the rest.
Kyz, @ng3l, Tribute - all these were allowed back but not given their old accounts back. Then the only notable to be banned IS given the account back.
> Swearing now?
>
> How many forum rules do you want to violate?
Considering you were banned then have been allowed back with your old account I think it's pretty f'ing funny that you seek to lecture anyone about forum rules.
Proves what I have said many times - one rule for notables, one rule for the rest.
Kyz, @ng3l, Tribute - all these were allowed back but not given their old accounts back. Then the only notable to be banned IS given the account back.
Page: