http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12992540 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12992540)
One for the history fans this.
No right or wrong answer. I just like to hear good, heated debate (before Andrew locks it).
George MacDonald Fraser has some interesting ideas on this in his book, The Lights's on at the Sign Post. Here's a pretty quick summary taken from an interview:
("I couldn't care bloody less who runs Afghanistan. It's their business. Not ours. We are no longer the world's policeman."), but if one theme permeates his work, it is a defensive nostalgia for Empire.
"That's true," he says. "The socialist revisionists have said the Empire was a very evil thing, and that is the way the teaching is going. In fact, it was bloody marvellous. Without it, where would Australia be? There wouldn't be one. Or a Canada, or a United States. Okay, the British were pirates, but they did carry along with their buccaneering tendency a desire to improve things. They didn't always succeed, but they tried."
The palpable embarassment that today's British middle classes feel, and teach, about their imperial past, vexes Fraser more than most of his vast menagerie of betes noire. He is especially infuriated by the modern vogue for governments issuing apologies for the actions of their predecessors, and defends this from a personal position which is difficult to broach
Yes and no. While many conflicts today do stem from colonialism, Britain isn't entirely to blame. They weren't the only European nation to practice it, after all, and they certainly weren't the first. And while colonialism did bring some benefits, it seems to me that Mr Fraser here simply hasn't lived in a country where he sees the negative results of colonialism every day of his life.
Pros and cons to the whole thing, really. While the nations themselves have benefited from trade with each other, a shared language and shared customs, the indigenous peoples tended not to fare so well...
the arbitrary drawing of boundaries in the third world and imposition of western notoions of states has contributed to a fair amount of bloodshed.
I am of the opinion that this will never be determined. First, there the reliability of history. It is certainly not absolute. Second, you have interpretation of history and that's just a mess when you consider that two people can look at the exact same historical evidence and somehow have the ability to draw two vastly different conclusions, each applying their own special set of biases.
Shirley Bassey said it best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-a5HTLDMWc
That's a very interesting article. It just goes to show you that there are upsides and downsides to everything. And sometimes what works with one country doesn't work with another.
That's just life, really, isn't it?
By and large, I think the British did more good than harm in the world . . . they at least TRIED to give back some things, like lessons in self-government and the abolition of slavery (after 1832), as well as doing away with lot of evil, abusive systems (the suttee in India, and the caste system) in the territories they colonized. No, it didn't all work out. But many of them did take the concept of "the White Man's Burden" seriously, and try to benefit and elevate the places they occupied.
Hats off to Great Britain, and my sincerest apologies for the brutal snubs inflicted on your leaders by the puling incompetent who currently occupies our White House.
Quote from: indianasmith on April 08, 2011, 08:19:41 PM
the puling incompetent who currently occupies our White House.
Is that really necessary Indy?
Quote from: Rev. Powell on April 08, 2011, 10:07:42 PM
Quote from: indianasmith on April 08, 2011, 08:19:41 PM
the puling incompetent who currently occupies our White House.
Is that really necessary Indy?
Ah, it's just Indy being Indy.
Let it fly, Rev. Let it fly...
:wink:
It probably wasn't, but I was REALLY ticked at him earlier today.
And he did treat Gordon Brown VERY shoddily.
Britain wasn't alone in it's expansionist policies. Spain,Portugaul,Germany, Russia,the United States (we didnt just walk into a unpopulated country,folks...this great land was inhabited)... practiced it as well. Some much more violently.
I don't recall mass genocide ever being practiced by the English.
To place the blame on the shoulders of any one nation is a lazy a cop out.
Its too bad Blair, or as your press more appropriately calls him Bleah, went along with Bush in Iraq. He maybe could have talked some sense into him though that would have been quite a feat. he could have tried.
A similar thing is happening to France now that Sarkozy has gotten bitten by the world stage bug. They've got this guy Bernard Henri Levi, he's sort of like the French version of Tom Freidman of Chris Hitchens, "intellectual" popular writer/ war monger. He helped push them into Libya.
Britain was definitely doing better before the 20th century than after it.
Quote from: indianasmith on April 08, 2011, 08:19:41 PM
By and large, I think the British did more good than harm in the world . . . they at least TRIED to give back some things, like lessons in self-government and the abolition of slavery (after 1832), as well as doing away with lot of evil, abusive systems (the suttee in India, and the caste system) in the territories they colonized. No, it didn't all work out. But many of them did take the concept of "the White Man's Burden" seriously, and try to benefit and elevate the places they occupied.
Well said Indiana. The bringing of their representative government and legal ideas benefited many places. I think it wasn't so much the Empire that screwed things up but rather the hap hazard method of letting go of it that brought many problems. Also, as you stated, there were problems but toward the end they did seem interested in trying to rectify them.
Just for the record . . . Lester is wrong, as usual. Blair and Bush are heroes.
So there! :twirl: :bouncegiggle:
Quote from: indianasmith on April 09, 2011, 02:41:39 PM
Just for the record . . . Lester is wrong, as usual. Blair and Bush are heroes.
So there! :twirl: :bouncegiggle:
I dont know too much about Blair...I DO know that Bush was a liar who got us involved in Iraq under false pretenses (Weapons of Mass Distruction,anyone?).
Quote from: RCMerchant on April 09, 2011, 03:34:59 PM
Quote from: indianasmith on April 09, 2011, 02:41:39 PM
Just for the record . . . Lester is wrong, as usual. Blair and Bush are heroes.
So there! :twirl: :bouncegiggle:
I dont know too much about Blair...I DO know that Bush was a liar who got us involved in Iraq under false pretenses (Weapons of Mass Distruction,anyone?).
Prett much everyone over here hates Blair.
I liked Gordon though.
well it must be said of Gordon Brown that he sold rather a large chunk of Britains gold reserve when the gold market was at it's lows. Many tons of the stuff were unloaded at around $300 an ounce. Today it is nearing $1500. oops!
Quote from: lester1/2jr on April 09, 2011, 03:59:24 PM
well it must be said of Gordon Brown that he sold rather a large chunk of Britains gold reserve when the gold market was at it's lows. Many tons of the stuff were unloaded at around $300 an ounce. Today it is nearing $1500. oops!
And to think Blair put him in charge of the money for all those years...
But thats what he's like. :teddyr:
RC - you know I love ya, man! But words do mean things. First of all, in order for something to be a LIE, the person conveying the information must KNOW it to be false. Bush certainly believed that the weapons were there, and that belief was not unreasonable.
Every available intelligence report said that Saddam had WMD. Why wouldn't he have them? He'd had and used them in the past, he'd played shell games with the UN Weapons inspectors for years and then booted them out of the country. He ACTED like he had them, right up to the very end. He even offered them to Yassir Arafat and Hizbollah as late as 2002. So we had every reason in the world to believe they were there.
Strangelove - you're a newbie here, and frankly, you don't make much of a first impression. Yes, the war cost a lot of lives. I have many friends who served over there; I actually tried to go as the war began and was told I was too old to re-enlist. But the fact is, a brutal dictator was toppled. The organized forces of world terror - Iran and Syria, to name names - funneled thousands of fighters and billions of dollars into Iraq trying to eject our forces and prevent the establishment of a democratic government there - AND FAILED. For all the ongoing rhetoric about our "calamity in Iraq", the fact is that the U.S. and its Allies WON THE WAR, despite the defeatist carping of Democrats who would rather see our country lose a war than see GWB get credit for winning one. Remember Harry Reid: "The surge has failed . . . this war is lost!" even as our troops were turning the tide. What a loser. Not unlike yourself.
Reminder: no need for personal attacks. They will get the thread locked if they get out of hand.
Quote from: Rev. Powell on April 09, 2011, 10:08:27 PM
Reminder: no need for personal attacks. They will get the thread locked if they get out of hand.
I agree, y'all are better than that. People can disagree without getting personal.
Quote from: RCMerchant on April 09, 2011, 03:34:59 PM
Quote from: indianasmith on April 09, 2011, 02:41:39 PM
Just for the record . . . Lester is wrong, as usual. Blair and Bush are heroes.
So there! :twirl: :bouncegiggle:
I dont know too much about Blair...I DO know that Bush was a liar who got us involved in Iraq under false pretenses (Weapons of Mass Distruction,anyone?).
Quote from: indianasmith on April 09, 2011, 09:06:41 PM
RC - you know I love ya, man! But words do mean things. First of all, in order for something to be a LIE, the person conveying the information must KNOW it to be false. Bush certainly believed that the weapons were there, and that belief was not unreasonable.
Every available intelligence report said that Saddam had WMD. Why wouldn't he have them? He'd had and used them in the past, he'd played shell games with the UN Weapons inspectors for years and then booted them out of the country. He ACTED like he had them, right up to the very end. He even offered them to Yassir Arafat and Hizbollah as late as 2002. So we had every reason in the world to believe they were there.
Strangelove - you're a newbie here, and frankly, you don't make much of a first impression. Yes, the war cost a lot of lives. I have many friends who served over there; I actually tried to go as the war began and was told I was too old to re-enlist. But the fact is, a brutal dictator was toppled. The organized forces of world terror - Iran and Syria, to name names - funneled thousands of fighters and billions of dollars into Iraq trying to eject our forces and prevent the establishment of a democratic government there - AND FAILED. For all the ongoing rhetoric about our "calamity in Iraq", the fact is that the U.S. and its Allies WON THE WAR, despite the defeatist carping of Democrats who would rather see our country lose a war than see GWB get credit for winning one. Remember Harry Reid: "The surge has failed . . . this war is lost!" even as our troops were turning the tide. What a loser. Not unlike yourself.
Indy, first off, the situation with the WMD coulda been avoided if Bush had remembered about the SR-71 Black bird. secondly, Bush wasn't a hero in 2005 because of Katrina. Thirdly, he didn't moderate the bankers- which led to the exaggerated 'worst thing ever to happen in America"- the recension. It's amazing how much technology can influence a person the wrong way. basically, Obama got blamed for the recension when he didn't have anything to do with it.
I got a little heated there; I'm not used to having my karma dinged for simply giving my opinion. I was poking fun at Lester the way I frequently do, and this guy jumped in and turned it personal. Sorry if my response was a little inflammatory.
Now, El Toro - I'll answer you to the best of my knowledge and understanding, which, with 6 buck or so, will get you a Happy Meal at MacDonald's. Or at least it will until the Food Police ban Happy Meals.
First of all, we did have SR-71's overflying Iraq and taking pictures. However, they can't see through walls or into underground bunkers, so they couldn't exactly confirm or deny what our intelligence agents were telling the President.
True, the Federal Government did blow it in the response to Katrina - but so did the State and Local government, and on a much bigger level. Bush COULDN'T send in the military and national guard until the governor declared a state of emergency, and she refused to do so until three days after the storm hit. As for Mayor Nagin - well, he pretty much set new records for pure incompetence in office. It was a terrible natural disaster, and there was a great deal of blame to go around. Some of it indeed falls on Bush's shoulders - but not nearly as much as his detractors would have you believe.
Now, I THINK by "recension" you mean "recession" - unless I totally miss my guess. Like all economic things, that was an enormously complicated event set in motion by policies that go clear back to the Carter administration. The meltdown of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was caused, to a large extent, by Federal policies implemented under the Community Re-Investment Act which forced banks to loan money to people who had no means to pay it back. The push for "affordable housing" was so strong banks were threatened with penalties if the DIDN'T make housing loans to lower income families. And there is very clear audio and video evidence that REPUBLICAN senators, including John McCain among others, were calling for MORE regulation and inspections on the two Federal lending agencies, while Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, among others, are on record as assuring the Senate that there was absolutely NOTHING wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that there concern was COMPLETELY unmerited.
George W. Bush was not a perfect President. He made mistakes in office, he was too loyal to some subordinates that did not deserve it, and he did not rein in Congressional spending the way he should have. But Obama's record of sheer incompetence and arrogance is staggering. I would rather have FORTY years of GWB than four more years of BHO!!!
So there you have my candid, and (I hope) politely expressed opinions. Dr. Strangelove, you are welcome to respond - but I'd just as soon you left my karma alone. We are even on that score.
Hoo hoo hoo, y'awl have way too much time on your hands.
Hey, that reminds me of a song...
I have this rare disorder. I cannot rest at night as long as there are people on the internet who are wrong. :bouncegiggle:
Quote from: indianasmith on April 10, 2011, 08:42:35 AM
I have this rare disorder. I cannot rest at night as long as there are people on the internet who are wrong. :bouncegiggle:
For your health's sake I hope you're able to catch an occassional afternoon nap! :smile:
indiana- well I think the proof is in the pudding. Good for you that you tried to enlist but many did not and soldiers are on their 4, 5th tours making up the slack. We didn't have this problem in ww2 and it says alot abuot what people think about the war effort: they don't suport it when push comes to shove.
QuoteEvery available intelligence report said that Saddam had WMD.
not at all true but even if it was, There was no way Saddam Hussein was going to launch a nuclear missile at the United States! He'd be vaporized before he even thought of it.
The connection of him to al queda was related to very old very discredited talking points regarding the first WTC attack like those found in this demented tome (http://www.amazon.com/Study-Revenge-Laurie-Mylroie/dp/0844741272)
There was never any smoking gun with saddam at any rate. We didn't have pictures of him hanging out with BIn Laden or video of WMD going into caves or something. The Taliban operated openly with Bin Laden and quite overtly.
if anyone is supporting terror in the middle east it is Saudi Arabia, who are funding all these insane wahabi moqsues across the world. It's great if something good ends up coming out of it ,but the iraq war was a 10/10 on the disaster scale and it pretty well sunk the last decade.
As for the housing bubble both sides played their part for political expediency regarding deregulation and Fannie and Freddie but the one at the switch was Greenspan who stupidly left interst rates at rock bottom for far too long and ensured a massive malinvestment in housing. and Bernanke has continued it, so we have boom era gas prices and a recession economy! What a great combo for the unemployed especially.
and we haven't even talked about medicare part D aka Bushcare! A massive multi trillion dollar unfunded liability.
Glad I 'm not a W bagholder. Or for Obama for that matter.
Quote from: indianasmith on April 10, 2011, 12:07:23 AM
I got a little heated there; I'm not used to having my karma dinged for simply giving my opinion. I was poking fun at Lester the way I frequently do, and this guy jumped in and turned it personal. Sorry if my response was a little inflammatory.
Sometimes making fun at someone can cause hatred Indy. Trust me, it can be fun every now and then, if it's minor, but when it's something like this, it gets to be immature.
I think this topic has run it's course. You don't wanna end up like the all the scumbag politicians you're discussing.
This is a special place, a place of peace & love. :smile:
(http://images.wikia.com/wikiality/images/e/e6/Hippies.gif)
Quote from: El Toro Loco on April 10, 2011, 12:10:58 PM
Quote from: indianasmith on April 10, 2011, 12:07:23 AM
I got a little heated there; I'm not used to having my karma dinged for simply giving my opinion. I was poking fun at Lester the way I frequently do, and this guy jumped in and turned it personal. Sorry if my response was a little inflammatory.
Sometimes making fun at someone can cause hatred Indy. Trust me, it can be fun every now and then, if it's minor, but when it's something like this, it gets to be immature.
Lester and I have enough of a shared history that we understand each other, even if we don't agree. It was the noob butting in that got under my skin. But it was still an overreaction on my part.
I think I'm a little late to the dance on this one but I'd like to give my two bobs worth.
Yes & No might seem like a fence sitting answer but it should be remembered the Empire wasn't an organisation of any really continuity until the turn of the 20th century. Arguably it didn't become a codified entity until it transformed into the cultural entente that is the present Commonwealth of Nations.
Simple fact is it was an idea, under the surface it was a mismatch of colonies, protectorates, private companies, charities, puppet states, dominions, one-sided alliances and more besides. Arguably this ad-hoc approach that dominated makes it a lot harder to analyse good and bad (tricky enough) compared to the more codified and/or compact colonial empires like the French, Dutch, Belgian and German empires.
Which means while you have noble effort like turning from slavery's no.1 pusher to abolition and fighting the trade (the Royal Navy was the first and now last remaining force to maintain anti-slave trade patrols), you have the Opium Wars, which saw Britain crippling China with an officially backed drugs trade. You have banning wife burning in India, you have the Bengal famines, you have spreading the Westminster system, you have the subjugation and decimation of native peoples to mass white colonists on three continents.
Really its down to the acts of individuals, specific governments, motivations etc. Britain has caused plenty of pain around the globe but it certainly shouldn't be an albatross around our necks. Probably one of the few thing I ever agreed with David Cameron on was his refusal to give a hollow personal apology for slavery 200 years after the event.
It just the other side of the coin of some who claim the triumphs of their countrymen, often long since dead, as some sort of proof of their own awesomeness. Probably one of the reasons on not big on spectator sports :lookingup:
QuoteI would rather have FORTY years of GWB than four more years of BHO!!!
I don't doubt that for a moment. I wouldn't take either one of them a single year. I try to avoid the lesser of two evils in my life whenever possible.
Personally, I'm hoping for Mike Huckabee in 2012!
me too.
but only as a means to end his horrible show.
Quote from: indianasmith on April 08, 2011, 08:19:41 PM
By and large, I think the British did more good than harm in the world . . . they at least TRIED to give back some things, like lessons in self-government and the abolition of slavery (after 1832), as well as doing away with lot of evil, abusive systems (the suttee in India, and the caste system) in the territories they colonized. No, it didn't all work out. But many of them did take the concept of "the White Man's Burden" seriously, and try to benefit and elevate the places they occupied.
Hats off to Great Britain, and my sincerest apologies for the brutal snubs inflicted on your leaders by the puling incompetent who currently occupies our White House.
Quote from: indianasmith on April 08, 2011, 08:19:41 PM
the puling incompetent who currently occupies our White House.
Quote from: Rev. Powell on April 08, 2011, 10:07:42 PM
Is that really necessary Indy?
Not to be the antagonist here, but would this question of the "necessity" of Indy's slamming of the President exist if it were George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan who were slammed instead? Again, just asking.
And to be fair, Mr. Obama DID treat Sir Gordon Brown very badly.
He returned several items given to America in good will over the years. He hands Sir Brown a handful of Wal-Mart DVD's, and Her Majesty an I-pod? That
was a bit cheap, people.
Put me in for the group of people who are deeply embarrassed at that gift exchange.
We may have had our differences (and still do) but I will never have a mean bone in my body for our longest running and staunchest ally. You guys were always there for us.
And hats off to Britian for the short but incredibly prolific New Wave Of British Heavy Metal, and bands like Raven, White Spirit, and the Tygers Of Pan Tang, to name a few!
England is, as they would say in their own words, "super" and '"simply smashing".
Cheers! :cheers:
Quote from: Umaril The Unfeathered on April 12, 2011, 02:28:15 PM
And to be fair, Mr. Obama DID treat Sir Gordon Brown very badly.
:buggedout:
Okay, how much did he have to pay the Queen for a knighthood ?
:question:
Quote from: Umaril The Unfeathered on April 12, 2011, 02:28:15 PM
And hats off to Britian for the short but incredibly prolific New Wave Of British Heavy Metal, and bands like Raven, White Spirit, and the Tygers Of Pan Tang, to name a few!
Cheers! :thumbup:
Quote from: Umaril The Unfeathered on April 12, 2011, 02:28:15 PM
England is, as they would say in their own words, "super" and '"simply smashing".
We don't say stuff like that though dude.... :lookingup:
Quote from: Circus Circus on April 12, 2011, 02:46:24 PM
Quote from: Umaril The Unfeathered on April 12, 2011, 02:28:15 PM
England is, as they would say in their own words, "super" and '"simply smashing".
We don't say stuff like that though dude.... :lookingup:
I do say super occasionally.
And I think I said "
smashing" five years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwVzjVjGknw
I made this to show what british people are like. I think it's pretty fair.
Quote from: Circus Circus on April 12, 2011, 02:46:24 PM
Quote from: Umaril The Unfeathered on April 12, 2011, 02:28:15 PM
And hats off to Britian for the short but incredibly prolific New Wave Of British Heavy Metal, and bands like Raven, White Spirit, and the Tygers Of Pan Tang, to name a few!
Cheers! :thumbup:
Quote from: Umaril The Unfeathered on April 12, 2011, 02:28:15 PM
England is, as they would say in their own words, "super" and '"simply smashing".
We don't say stuff like that though dude.... :lookingup:
But you do all wear clown wigs on a frequent basis though, right?
Quote from: Umaril The Unfeathered on April 12, 2011, 02:28:15 PM
England is, as they would say in their own words, "super" and '"simply smashing".
Quote from: Circus Circus on April 12, 2011, 02:46:24 PM
We don't say stuff like that though dude.... :lookingup:
Aww, c'mon. There's gotta be a few of you blokes out there who still use the old slang. Brits are virtually renowned for their use of slang! :wink: :bouncegiggle:
Quote from: Doggett on April 12, 2011, 02:50:38 PM
I do say super occasionally.
And I think I said "smashing" five years ago.
Hey, time dosen't matter, just as long as you said it... :wink:
Quote from: Umaril The Unfeathered on April 12, 2011, 02:28:15 PM
Quote from: indianasmith on April 08, 2011, 08:19:41 PM
the puling incompetent who currently occupies our White House.
Quote from: Rev. Powell on April 08, 2011, 10:07:42 PM
Is that really necessary Indy?
Not to be the antagonist here, but would this question of the "necessity" of Indy's slamming of the President exist if it were George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan who were slammed instead? Again, just asking.
Yes, of course. I think that kind of rhetoric surprises me more coming out of Indy because I admire the fact that he normally steers away from it.
Quote from: Rev. Powell on April 12, 2011, 04:13:52 PM
Quote from: Umaril The Unfeathered on April 12, 2011, 02:28:15 PM
Hats off to Great Britain, and my sincerest apologies for the brutal snubs inflicted on your leaders by the puling incompetent who currently occupies our White House.
Quote from: indianasmith on April 08, 2011, 08:19:41 PM
the puling incompetent who currently occupies our White House.
Quote from: Rev. Powell on April 08, 2011, 10:07:42 PM
Is that really necessary Indy?
Not to be the antagonist here, but would this question of the "necessity" of Indy's slamming of the President exist if it were George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan who were slammed instead? Again, just asking.
Yes, of course. I think that kind of rhetoric surprises me more coming out of Indy because I admire the fact that he normally steers away from it.
[/quote]
Well, either we're seeing Indy's true colors of late, or it's a momentary tangent of emotion. I do hope it's the latter, because I generally value his input whether I agree with it or not.
Quote from: Umaril The Unfeathered on April 12, 2011, 03:17:39 PM
Quote from: Doggett on April 12, 2011, 02:50:38 PM
I do say super occasionally.
And I think I said "smashing" five years ago.
Hey, time dosen't matter, just as long as you said it... :wink:
Then I'm guilty.
I don't have a high opinion of the White House's current occupant, but I generally stay away from that kind of perjorative expression. As I commented, I was FURIOUS at him over a separate issue (threatening to withhold pay from our military during a potential government shutdown, when his Democratic predecessor made sure they continued to be paid, even when the government DID shut down for a few days in 1995) at the time I posted that.
Anyway, to steer back towards the original topic, I still think the Brits did more good than harm on a global scale, and I still think Winston Churchill is one of the most awesome individuals in the history of the world!!!! Tony Blair wasn't bad either.
Quote from: Dr. Strangelove on April 09, 2011, 05:27:47 PM
Quote from: indianasmith on April 09, 2011, 02:41:39 PM
Just for the record . . . Lester is wrong, as usual. Blair and Bush are heroes.
So there! :twirl: :bouncegiggle:
I imagine they are heroes to the defense industry, who've made trillions on a war that was unjustified and based on lies. nearly 5,000 dead, tends of thousands wounded and maimed, trillions of dollars sucked from the american economy and funneled into the pockets of halliburton, who 'earned' it by not providing meals it was paid for and wiring bases so badly dozens of people have been accidentally electrocuted.
If those are you idea of heroes, I suppose your villains list would have the founder of the red cross on it.
Dr. Strangelove? THIS IS
BARACKCLINTON using a different ID. You knock me assuming I'm on the right, when I usually get knocked for being thought of as on the LEFT.
Maybe you'll get knocked back to the middle . . . :bouncegiggle:
dr stranglove is a least a better id than barack clinton but pretty much anything would be.
Quote from: indianasmith on April 14, 2011, 06:44:54 AM
Maybe you'll get knocked back to the middle . . . :bouncegiggle:
Don't you understand?
BarackClinton was supposedly banned...
Dr. Strangelove is ANOTHER "sock puppet" ... you were knocked by
Dr. Strangelove first,
Indy (as I know you saw).
Dr. Strangelove,
BarackClinton, "sock puppet" phony member, get a life, you are pathetic. You behaved badly, and you now need to own it or, as you've done, single out
Indy one week, then me the next... for revenge. :lookingup: I'd be more inclined to agree with your far left politics than with
Indy's right-wing, but
you are not polite. Nor are you honest. You are not a revolutionary but a tax-paying citizen, so there is no explanation for your bad, rude, sneaky behavior other than self indulgence. I can totally respect self indulgence, but not cowardly deception. I know who
you were, aside from any names I've used. You were a valued member of our community. You're real apparent man.