kill all the stupid people

Fred J. McCall wrote:

gibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
:[snip]
:
: You're a dumbass.
:
:I applaude your incisive wit.
:

Well, I had to rephrase my statement (which you clipped) into terms he
could understand.

Did you just snip everything that was beyond you?

cheers!

Bravissimo!

Keep it up! You should be able to hold your own in the secondary school
playground soon if you carry on learning at that rate.

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address:
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Tim wrote:
[snip]

Present evidence suggests otherwise.

Present evidence, as analysed by whom, exactly? You? You, with your
lack of perception, your almost total absence of sophistication, and
your poor education?

I don't think we need take your judgements at all seriously.

Rowland isn't at the back of the queue when it comes to the old grey matter.

I don't believe anyone said he was. Go read it again...

chuckle I see - so calling someone a `dumbass' is not, in your
opinion, equivalent to suggesting that they were at the back of the
queue when brains were being handed out?

My word, you have a lot to learn about the English language, don't you?
I mean, `dumbass' isn't part of my dialect at all, but I know what the
words mean in context better than you do!

Rowland.

P.S. I know I shouldn't do this kind of thing, but Fred's such a
loathesome specimen and such an easy target that I just can't help
myself.

--
Remove the animal for email address:
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

slunky wrote:

_/ Rowland McDonnell wrote \_
But Britain /is/ superior. You seem to forget that this nation has been
around a long time. We've had our falls - many of them - after the
pride and now we're back up again - again.

It must suck to live somewhere where you have to continually reassure
yourself that you're superior.

If you look around, you'll notice that in Britain, we don't do that. We
just *know* that we're superior. No need for big national holidays or
national flag waving or treating the national anthem as anything but a
dreary official tune (the only good verse - the one about beating the
rebellious Scots - is a bit unfashionable these days). We just know
we're better than everyone else[1].

After all, there is no country better on Earth for human beings to live
than here - it's the ideal country, is Great Britain. Don't feel
inadequate: we just got lucky with the best patch of land going, and -
well, tough ****: it's ours, and we're keeping it.

It's other nations that have to keep reminding themselves of their
superiority. Just listen to the jingoistic blather that almost all US
politicians spout for one example - there's a nation that's insecure and
feels the need to keep telling itself how good it is. I suppose it's
inevitable, given how young the nation is and how hated it is - well,
the USA would be hated, given the history and current behaviour of the
US government. A nation recently founded on genocide, slavery, theft,
and invasion - as is the case with the USA - is not one that's going to
be very popular, is it?

/We/'re just quietly superior to everyone - except when we find
ourselves next to loud-mouthed arrogant Yanks banging on about how
they're the best in the world and keep the world safe for everyone and
have all the money and the best weapons that no-one can stand against
and all the clever and beautiful people ('cos Europeans are all ugly
with bad teeth, don't you know?) and so on.

The thing is: when we come across that kind of utterly ****witted ******
Yank - well, sometimes we like to have a bit of a play.

And that's what I'm doing with my repetition of the fact that the Brits
are just superior (along with Britain).

What I'm doing with these suggestions is playing a game called `winding
up an annoying person who's probably too stupid to spot that I'm taking
the ****'.

Is that within your ability to comprehend, or is the concept too
sophisticated for you?

(I'm betting that your attention span is too short to read all of this
post. Let's see what your reply looks like - I think I'll win my bet)

Rowland.

[1] Not that it's simple; most of us are willing to accept that the
Irish are `honorary Brits' in terms of cultural superiority, although
many Irish do not like this idea because (1) They're *NOT* bloody Brits,
thanks very much; and (2) they know that they're culturally superior to
their neighbours to the east. And the Welsh know that they're the best
kind of Brit, and the Scots know that *they're* the best kind of Brit,
and the English know that the Scots and Welsh are both wrong 'cos the
English are best. But we don't mind accepting that the Canadians,
Kiwis, and Aussies are up on our general level of superiority, with
nations like France and Germany not far behind - although obviously
we're better than the Frogs and Krauts any day. Just don't anyone
mention penalty shoot-outs...

--
Remove the animal for email address:
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

slunky wrote:

_/ Rowland McDonnell wrote \_
The USA has never had such a policy. In the early days, it was
interested in invading and annexing as much foreign territory as
possible (hence the abortive invasion of Canada that led to the burning
of Washington DC). And then there was the period after that, where the
deal was that the USA got to play with the Americas leaving the rest of
the world to its own devices.

So you've been involved in US politics since the revolution? You must be
pretty old, or is this all what you read somewhere?

Of course it's what I read.

Thomas Paine is generally credited with instilling the first
non-interventionist ideas into the American body politic; his work
Common Sense contains many arguments in favor of avoiding alliances.

Eh? Avoiding alliances has nothing to do with `non-intervention' - it
just means you're working in an isolated (and therefore ignorant and
harmful) fashion.

These ideas introduced by Paine took such a firm foothold that the
Second Continental Congress struggled against forming an alliance with
France and only agreed to do so when it was apparent that the American
Revolutionary War could be won in no other manner.

Your point being? That was before the USA had come into existence.
Before the political parties had been fully formed, before the nation
was running itself. It has nothing whatever to do with the centuries of
interventionist policies that the USA later followed.

[snip]

In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would come to be known
as the Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as
non-interventionist in intent:

Some have, but they're all wrong.

"In the wars of the European powers, in
matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it
comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are
invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make
preparations for our defense."

Shame that the Monroe doctrine wasn't non-interventionist, though. It
was all about keeping the USA out of the European sphere of operations:
divvying the world up into `our bit' and `their bit'. It was little
more than an announcement of the status quo: `The USA gets to run the
Americas, while Europe gets to play everywhere else and that way we
don't tread on each others' toes'.

Hardly non-interventionist.

The United States' policy of non-intervention was maintained throughout
most of the 19th century.

But that claim is absurdly false. Just look at what the USA was doing
in the Americas!

All the Monroe doctrine stated was that since the USA wasn't powerful
enough to mess around in Europe, it wouldn't try to. But that didn't
mean it wasn't going to mess around in nations that were nearer and
weaker than those in Europe - and so it did: it has done so all
throughout its existence. The USA has always been heavily involved in
invading foreign terrority and messing up foreign nations - starting in
1812 with a disastrous loss. Never in the history of the USA has it
*ever* kept itself to itself. It's just that Monroe figured out that
there was nothing to be gained trying to push around the wealthy,
developed, powerful nations of Europe.

As a result, the USA has spent its existence pushing around poor,
undeveloped, powerless nations - firstly inside the Americas, and when
the 20th century came along, all over the world. And starting in the
second half of the 20th century, the USA decided that it could push
everyone around and has been doing so ever since - except that some
nations have pushed back...

Which, in case you're wondering, is the bottom line reason for everyone
hating the USA: the way its been bullying nations all over the world for
60 years for no reason other than `running the world for the benefit of
the USA and screw everyone else'; which is, let's face it, a course of
action designed to provoke hatred.

The first significant foreign intervention by
the US was the Spanish-American War, which saw the US occupy and control
the Philippines. Since this was the first take-over of non-contiguous
territory where people speak a different language, this is generally
considered the first colonial act of the US.

howls with laughter So the war of 1812, which the USA lost after
invading Canada with the intention of adding Canada to the USA by force
of arms - that wasn't a colonial act?

Yeah, right. So it's not an invasion if the people you are invading are
next door and speak your language? chuckle

Look, sonny: George Orwell wrote a book about that kind of lie. He
wrote it as a warning in the late 1940s. See if you can guess what it
was called. Hint: I read it when I was in my teens - well before the
date on the cover.

But let's get real: all you have to do is look at a map of the original
states of the USA, and see that almost all of what is now the USA was
not part of the USA. Almost all of that territory was owned by people
who didn't speak English - the various so-called `indigenous' tribes
that I grew up calling `Indians', not to mention any number of Spanish
and French speaking folk. WHy do you think there's so much Spanish
spoken in the SW USA? Because that was Spanish territory! Why do
Mexicans complain about the USA stealing half of their country? Because
the USA did!

Famously, the founders of the USA gave solemn assurances to the Indians
that they would be allowed to keep their land - but those assurances
were broken well before the death of Washington (the man who made the
promises personally and then broke them personally) with any number of
invasions and forcible evictions and slaughters, although serious
genocide of the Indian population didn't begin until later in the 19th
century. This was going on decades before the Spanish American war and
was the start of US colonialism. As I say, the first US colonial acts
that I know of by date were in the war of 1812 in which the US suffered
humiliating loss and had to retire in defeat. The dispossession of
Indians by the USA which was going on at about the same time was
particularly brutal colonialism.

All this was done on the back of slave labour, don't forget: the USA was
meant to be run by white men, at the expense of *EVERYONE* else: when
the US was founded, they refused to count negros as whole people! Only
white men (no blacks, no women, no Indians) got to vote - and even then,
some weren't happy about letting any white man vote: they wanted to make
sure it was only the `right sort' of white man.

Now, I *AM* a white man - and I can see the flaws in that basic setup
right away. The founders of the USA set up a form of government based
on a `new aristocracy' - it was deeply iniquitous, and guaranteed to
result in a corrupt and repressive regime that disregarded human rights,
slaughtered millions, and abused those at the bottom of the heap (much
like pre-revolutionary France, but without the culture). Sure enough,
it did.

shrug But Yanks think that the USA was set up as a beacon of freedom
and liberty and so on. ********!

The time between the World Wars saw a resurgence in non-interventionism
in the United States.

But the USA has never had such a policy - to suggest that it ever has is
a lie, plain and simple. The Monroe doctrine was not a
non-interventionist doctrine, but a `this is our patch, that's yours'
divvying it all up type of policy. What it said was `This is our sphere
of influence, and that's yours'. It only counts as
`non-interventionist' if you think that the USA has a right to rule all
the Americas.

All the policy was was an official statement of a de-facto position:
the USA couldn't readily get involved in anything outside the Americas,
and it was equally awkward for European powers to get involved with
anything in the Americas, so it was more a statement of the status quo
than anything else and certainly not `non-interventionist' no matter
what propaganda you were fed in school.

After the war broke out in Europe on September 1,
1939, such Americans as Charles Lindbergh, Gerald P. Nye and Rush D.
Holt prominently advocated U.S. neutrality.

Yes, pro-fascist, anti-freedom scum that they were. They were
anti-American enemies of freedom - traitors in fact - and it's a bloody
good thing that FDR was a decent bloke (okay, Churchill was probably
quite good at persuading FDR).

There was also the issue that these people wanted to be on the winning
side, and they were convinced that Britain couldn't win. When we showed
that it was Germany who couldn't win - well, the objections became
somewhat more muted, didn't they? Purest opportunism if you ask me.

Groups like the America
First Committee tapped into the overwhelming desire of the American
people to remain out of this second European war,

It is wrong to refer to it as a `second European war'. It was the
second *WORLD* war - in terms of European wars, well, I don't think
anyone could count them, but I'd be suprised if the number hadn't hit
100,000 European wars by the 20th century.

It is also wrong to suggest that there was an overwhelming desire in the
US public to stay out of the war. The American people had an
overwhelming desire to help out in Europe - just as they did in the
First World War, which is why so many Yanks came over here to help well
before the nation got involved officially. For sure in those parts of
the USA where there were a lot of German immigrants, it was as you
state. But that was always a minority of the population, wasn't it?
The ex-French parts (anyone for Louisiana?) were all in favour of doing
something to help France, am I right?

For sure there were US pro-fascist and pro-Hitler and pro-Nazi elements
in the USA such as the worthless playboy Lindberg and that *******
Kennedy (the pro-Hitler ambassador) who wanted to support the powers of
evil - but thankfully, they lost, and the USA did eventually put its
money into saving the world from disaster.

But if Britain hadn't stood up to Hitler in the years before the USA and
USSR joined in - well, the world would look very different now. You
owe us for ensuring that you're not speaking German or Japanese and
living in an even more repressive nation than you've got.

btw, it was only a few years ago that Britain paid off its lease-lend
debt from the Second World War. Germany got its First World War debt
cancelled back in the 1930s. We had to keep on bloody paying. Thanks a
bunch, USA - run us into the ground during the Second World War, and
then act diplomatically to ensure that Britain's control over overseas
terroritories is removed. The USA tried to bankrupt the British empire
and nearly succeeded. And the USA did similar things to France.

It's no wonder that we don't trust the USA, with its history of
stitching up everyone.

attracting hundreds of
thousands into its ranks.

Just like the Nazi party did in Germany - and they were scum, too.

It doesn't show your country in a good light to advertise how many
people picked the side of evil back then.

We had the British Union of Fascists. They too were scum - but at least
the people of Britain fought against them. Battle of Cable Street: read
about it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...treetmural_sma
ll.jpg

Look: when the British finally caught up with Lord Haw-Haw, they hung
him. Strung him up by the neck until he was dead, dead, dead. Think
about it: we don't like scum.

The committee came under increasing attacks by
newspaper editors of the day,

Damned right. There have always been a large number of people in the
USA who can see the truth of the matter and will do the right thing no
matter what. I don't suppose the newspaper editors had anything but
loathing and contempt for the traitors in the USA who were speaking out
in favour of Nazism.

many of whom supported stronger
intervention in the European war.

Obviously, you have swallowed the propaganda. It was not a European
war. The Second World War started in 1936 with Japan invading China.
It was a true world war from 1939. Britain joined in because Germany
invaded Poland and we'd signed a treaty (interesting, communist era
Polish propaganda has caused many Poles to hate Britain for, erm,
fulfilling our treaty obligations to the letter).

Britain could have had peace with Germany, but decided to fight against
the evil that was fascism. Oh, we had plenty of pro-fascists, but the
anti-fascists were in charge.

The cowards and pro-Nazi scum in the USA kept that nation out of the
fight for decency and civilisation until near the end, as usual.

Rowland.


--
Remove the animal for email address:
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Tim wrote:
:
:
: Poor Timmy. He just keeps self-inflicting...
:
: snicker
:
:
:Try harder little Freddy.That was a lame effort even by your simpleton
:standards.
:

You're really totally unaware of the background of the original 'A
Modest Proposal', aren't you?

Wrong. You have a penchant for making false assumptions.




Of course, you're not alone. Apparently so was the principal at the
school where the article that started this thread was published.

Now that you've made yourself look like a fool, perhaps you should
educate yourself?

Wrong again. Try harder.




Then you can spit out that hook....



Yawn.



--
http://www.last.fm/listen/user/dyslimbic/loved

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Tim wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: I don't believe anyone said he was. Go read it again...
:
:
:I did.
:

Yeah, but nobody with the sense God gave a goose pays any attention to
what you say...



Zzzzzzzzzzz

--
http://www.last.fm/listen/user/dyslimbic/loved

Mally wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message
...
Poor Timmy. He just keeps self-inflicting...

snicker



Try harder little Freddy.That was a lame effort even by your simpleton
standards.




I do hate this X-posting business, but being as I don't know which newsgroup
people are posting from I have to go along with it.
My thoughts are that you two are beginning to sound very childish. Now I
know that you are probably not, but I feel the way you are going on,
benefits no-one, much less yourselves. Why not just call it a day now, and
points scored are equal.
I wish you both well,

Fred shouldn't have started on me in the first place. I had done
absolutely nothing to him. If Fred can prove there's a semblance of a
decent human being there somewhere and apologise then as far as i am
concerned the matter is over.



--
http://www.last.fm/listen/user/dyslimbic/loved

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Tim wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: I don't believe anyone said he was. Go read it again...
:
:
:I did.
:

Yeah, but nobody with the sense God gave a goose pays any attention to
what you say...

True, true. And since you are replying to Tim in a fashion I can only
describe as `obsessive', thus demonstrating that you are paying minute
attention to what he says, you are proclaiming that you yourself do not
have the sense God gave a goose.

M'lud, my case rests.

Rowland.
(who really ought to doing stop this sort of thing, but it's just so
funny)

P.S. Fred, you're engaging in a battle of wits, but you have left /all/
your weaponry behind. It really doesn't matter that I'm not armed with
anything more serious than a pea shooter under these circumstances, does
it?

--
Remove the animal for email address:
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:47:09 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:

"%" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
:news wrote: :
: :On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 06:03:23 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: : :
: : Tim wrote: : :
: : Not everyone falls into the conventional VIQ near to PIQ pattern .
: :
: : As in 'not everyone is equally bright. : :
: :You are only proving that you are not bright. : :
:
: Keep gulping on that hook, Ivan... :
: :
: :Let me give you a real world example. : :
: :A class of young children were given a test where one of the
requirements : :was to draw a circle with a line under it. : :
: :Except for one of the kids all the kids drew a circle then a line
lower on : :the page... a circle with a line under it. : :
: :The one kid that didn't do what everyone else did drew a circle with
two : :lines protruding from a 180 degree angle... a circle with a line
under it : :represented in three dimensions.
: :
: :The kid was moved to a remedial class until someone with half a
brain : :reviewed the exercise and realized that he was displaying
spacial : erception far advanced of the rest of the class. : :
:
: Let me simply point out that it's not my fault you live in a stupid
: part of the world. Birds of a feather and all that. :
: :
: :In science it's a common mistake to let expectations corrupt the :
:interpretation of results.
: :
:
: Not in real science, it isn't.

[That's not argument. That's just contradiction...]

:yes it is
:

No, it isn't.

[That's not argument. That's just contradiction...]

You're suggesting the same argument you made to me isn't valid when
someone makes it to you.

I restate my assumption regarding the brightness of your bulb.

--
I told you this was going to happen.

Fred J. McCall wrote:

"%" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
: Ivan Marsh wrote:
:
: : Fred J. McCall wrote:
[snip]

: :In science it's a common mistake to let expectations corrupt the
: :interpretation of results.
: :
:
: Not in real science, it isn't.
:
:
:yes it is
:

No, it isn't.

[That's not argument. That's just contradiction...]

No it's not.

John.

--
Remove the animal for email address:
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking