Essen pee 500 - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmac2012 · #31 10-10-2007, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Bell

Except for a few pinheads in Berkeley, most of the youth will grow up and relize the Che was a murder and POS. He was Castros enforcer. If you and the other pinheads in Berkeley feel that thats something to celebrate, have at it.

Muy perdonnes, did I say anything nice about him? I have it on good authority that he was a murderer. So was our man Somoza in Nicaragua. It'd be quite a contest tween them, though I think Somoza would whoop him.

BTW, let's talk about the S & P. Every now and then, we hear about it here in Berkeley. What are your favorite companies in it? Are they coming up with some nifty innovations? Have you ever considered writing one of them with some heartfelt and expert advice?

Or is it one big horse race, only with much higher stakes?

cmac2012 · #32 10-10-2007, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I wuz born in your state, for what it is worth. You and your ilk assume you know something about people because of the melanin content of their skin or the geographical location of their flesh.

B

Next time instead of saying "you and your crowd," I'll use 'ilk.' Much more refined.

Palangi · #33 10-10-2007, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Muy perdonnes, did I say anything nice about him? I have it on good authority that he was a murderer. So was our man Somoza in Nicaragua. It'd be quite a contest tween them, though I think Somoza would whoop him.

C'mon dude, we know you have a "Che" T-Shirt......
Everyone in Berkeley has one, don't they???

Hatterasguy · #34 10-10-2007, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

Speaking of Che...

Jay Ambrose: Che Guevara was a murderous thug
Jay Ambrose, The Examiner
2007-10-10 07:00:00.0
Current rank: # 3 of 5,680

WASHINGTON - Ernesto “Che” Guevara was executed 40 years ago this week, and the impulse to honor him is bursting out all over.
Celebrations are taking place in such places as Cuba, Bolivia and Ireland, a priest has called him a saint, and hosts of other people are likewise instructing us on what a hero he was, what a moral giant, what a fierce combatant for justice in an imperialist-threatened, inhumane world.
Not to interrupt the hallucinatory hosannas or anything, but it seems worth mentioning that there is another side to this story, the one that says Che was in fact a murderous, evil, obsessed thug who stands convicted of his vicious ideological fanaticism and cruelties by his own words as well as by his damnable deeds.
Perhaps the idolizers who wear the Che T-shirts are unaware of those words, as when he said that a true revolutionary had to hate so much that he would be pushed past ordinary human limits and become “an effective, violent, selective and cold killing machine.”
Perhaps they don't know that, after the Soviets took their nuclear missiles out of Cuba in 1962, he told a reporter he had hoped to “use them against the very heart of America, including New York City,” very likely killing some of those who would later put on those T-shirts, and otherwise making this particular fad less likely.
Perhaps the people who make Che-adoring movies — Robert Redford did it — or write adulatory pieces about Fidel Castro's henchman are ignorant of how Che recklessly exterminated people who had been proven guilty of absolutely nothing, sometimes shooting them in the back of the neck himself.
Following the Castro takeover of Cuba in 1959, Che ran a Havana prison in which he killed, killed and then killed some more, and later helped start the labor camp system in which homosexuals and others considered undesirable were to be confined as nothing more than slaves.
None of this information is hard to come by. There are a number of easily accessible, well-researched, carefully documented, evidence-heavy articles reciting the truth, while telling us as well how Che’s economic guidance of Cuba's central bank was a disaster that further afflicted people who either learned to survive hunger-inducing totalitarianism or risk their lives fleeing the island.
Turn to these articles instead of to romantic fantasies, and you'll also learn how this Argentinean doctor left Cuba after an apparent falling out with Castro, fought in the Congo and then went to Bolivia to liberate peasants who were finding their lives improved without his aid and were intelligently wary of this crazed ideologue. That’s where he was caught and shot to death at the age of 39.
One writer speculates that a famous, endlessly reproduced photograph of a handsome, bold-looking Che is at least partly responsible for some coming to very nearly worship him as an unparalleled 20th-century fighter for societal righteousness.
Maybe so. Images can be powerful that way. But as the writer recognizes, it is hardly excusable for this or any other reason that anyone who has delved into the story of this cruel, Hitler-like, 20th century scourge to preach he was a good man with the right ideas.
What's at work in the idolizing is either a mild leftist ideology that decides to leave out or refuses to believe the condemnatory stuff, or a wild leftist ideology that says yes, what Che did was justified in trying to set the world right.
Either way, there are many perils, such as the destructive march of some Latin American countries — such as Hugo Chavez-led Venezuela — toward a destructive, liberty-denying socialist future.
Examiner Columnist Jay Ambrose is a former Washington opinion writer and editor of two dailies. He may be reached at SpeaktoJay@aol.com

Examiner

Well some people thought Hitler was a good guy.

Chris Bell · #35 10-11-2007, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Muy perdonnes, did I say anything nice about him? I have it on good authority that he was a murderer. So was our man Somoza in Nicaragua. It'd be quite a contest tween them, though I think Somoza would whoop him.

BTW, let's talk about the S & P. Every now and then, we hear about it here in Berkeley. What are your favorite companies in it? Are they coming up with some nifty innovations? Have you ever considered writing one of them with some heartfelt and expert advice?

Or is it one big horse race, only with much higher stakes?

And Stalin made them both look like amateurs, yet every liberals dream date FDR sucked up to him pretty good. Oh well.

peragro · #36 10-11-2007, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Oh damn, and here I was going to sing his praise.

Give me a break, the guy had a catchy looking face on a T shirt, and all sorts of people wanted to cop the "rebel w/o a clue" mantle by wearing it. Poor fool was hung out to dry by his buddy Fidel, he thought he could just show up in Bolivia and lead the masses to a better life.

This guy actually worries anyone? I'm more worried about the enormous funds that have been (it ain't over) wasted in our various campaigns to stamp out this evil doctrine, this foul infection that once it takes root, renders it's victims little better than the living dead, zombies who wish only to infect others with their poison.

Good lord, watching some of the grave faced dudes of the 40s and 50s carry on about Godless, evil socialism is jaw dropping stuff. And these cats actually believed it.

What is it in so many humans, that drives them to identify the chief evil in the world as being that crowd over there? 'All of us-uns are God's chosen and we will cleanse the world of this vermin!'

(Please note, this is not an actual quote -- merely a light speculaion on the inner workings of various fanatical minds)

I don't know. Sometimes I get all stony faced and all when I read about the fun loving stuff that Maoists, Communists and their ilk (refined isn't it) get up to. During the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s (80s and 90s too) they sure did kill a lot of people. Orders of magnitude (in the language of mathematics that means multiply by 10 or 100 or 1000 or other multiple of ten) greater than any aberrant US soldier or failed policy . I guess those grave faced dudes in the 50s actually believed that communists worldwide were killing folks right and left - most likely because they were doing exactly that. I mean really, you want the true ethos of the fabricated phrase "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" look no further than Mao or Stalin or Ortega or Castro or Guaverra or Pot. They actually did destroy numerous villages and killed millions in doing so; all so they could bring a better life to their homelands (or someone else's). Fitting that the quote was fabricated by a really progressive dude.

Looking back on things though it seems that the folks living in the communist countries are most responsible for ridding themselves of "the vermin" as you put it. I'm sure we helped along the way but there's nothing we could do that people who actually lived under communism couldn't do better.

What has developed into one of the most bizarre of ironic truisms is the fad in this country and Europe of rich privileged morons who feel such great love for this communist system of government. No matter how many times it's failed worldwide and taken millions to their deaths with it there's no shortage of people here who will defend it at all costs. Many who are just purely ignorant of what they are advertising. Case in point; (pretty package, not a lot going on upstairs)

Quote:

US actress Cameron Diaz, right, takes pictures of press photographers as Sol Guy, an MTV Canada host, behind left, and guide Freddy Quispe stand with her during their tour of the Inca ruins of Machu Picchu near Cuzco, Peru, Friday, June 22, 2007. Cameron's bag reads in Chinese "Serve the People," a famous political slogan by Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong, which has particular relevance in Peru where the Maoist Shining Path insurgency almost brought Peru to edge of chaos in the 1980s and early 1990s with a campaign of massacres, assassinations and bombings, when nearly 70,000 were killed. (Karel Navarro/AP Phoro)

That's not nearly as depressing as the people who defend it or make light of it and know full well what it's done.

But hey, no big deal, right?

cmac2012 · #37 10-11-2007, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palangi

C'mon dude, we know you have a "Che" T-Shirt......
Everyone in Berkeley has one, don't they???

I saw some fool wearing one yesterday and knocked him on his butt. (spits terbaccy juice)

cmac2012 · #38 10-11-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Bell

And Stalin made them both look like amateurs, yet every liberals dream date FDR sucked up to him pretty good. Oh well.

Dude, take a chill pill. What was FDR supposed to do? Tell him "no, we don't want to participate with no damn commies, we'd rather lose a million or two more troops in stopping Hitler all by ourselves."?

My point was, the commie thing in Latin America is not as simple as commie haters would have it. Somoza was way worse than Batista in Cuba, best I can tell, the commies in Nicaragua were taking the best route their naive little brains could come up with to get rid of him and make a fresh start.

So all this angst over Che while yawning at Somoza and hating the Sandinistas is just not too well founded, IMHO.

cmac2012 · #39 10-11-2007, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

That's not nearly as depressing as the people who defend it or make light of it and know full well what it's done.

But hey, no big deal, right?

I have an idea that major upheaval would have occurred in those countries w/o communism. The czars and the Swedes shed copious amounts of blood in various struggles for territory, power, etc., long before Marx took his first typing class.

And I'm just sure Cameron Diaz can read Chinese. Many people have gotten tatoos with Chinese characters that said something other than what they thought it did.

Capitalism in this country has been far more equitable and fair than in other countries -- some places that went commie were dealing with the type of feudal lords our founders fled from and then threw off.

Uno mass, the GI bill is/was a socialist program. Ditto for the educational system that did a great deal to make this country a powerhouse.

cmac2012 · #40 10-11-2007, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Rebut what you said. Hm. What was there to rebut?

The only assertion that was falsifiable was the first, about math being a science. It is not. Science is empirically tested for evidence of veracity. Mathematics is not.

And what is a hypothesis?

Webster disagrees with you:

Science: c; a branch of knowledge or study, especially one concerned with establishing and systematizing facts, principles, and methods as by experiments and hypothesis. ex: the science of mathematics.

As for rebutting or not, whether or not there is any prudence in establishing some sort of socialized medicine (shudder) is a matter far from settled. My thought is to have a sort of sliding scale, where well to do people would be free to access higher quality, more expensive care if they wish, with neighborhood clinics established to provide preventative care for lower income people, something that has been demonstrated to save much monies over the long haul.

I forget exactly, but we spend more per captia on health care in the US than anywhere else but are something like 15th or worse in quality of outcomes.

Botnst · #41 10-12-2007, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

And what is a hypothesis?

Webster disagrees with you:

Science: c; a branch of knowledge or study, especially one concerned with establishing and systematizing facts, principles, and methods as by experiments and hypothesis. ex: the science of mathematics.

As for rebutting or not, whether or not there is any prudence in establishing some sort of socialized medicine (shudder) is a matter far from settled. My thought is to have a sort of sliding scale, where well to do people would be free to access higher quality, more expensive care if they wish, with neighborhood clinics established to provide preventative care for lower income people, something that has been demonstrated to save much monies over the long haul.

I forget exactly, but we spend more per captia on health care in the US than anywhere else but are something like 15th or worse in quality of outcomes.

Webster agrees with me concerning the definition of science and disagrees with me concerning the definition of mathematics. Mathematics is the body of knowledge justified by deductive reasoning about abstract structures, starting from axioms and definitions. Science is tested by experimentation, it's hypotheses are inductively proven.

Have you ever heard of a mathematical proof derived by physical experimentation?

Mathematics is useful for science but is not necessary for a scientific proof. Physical experimentation is not necessary for mathematics, it would just be a dramatic ornamentation.

peragro · #42 10-12-2007, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Webster agrees with me concerning the definition of science and disagrees with me concerning the definition of mathematics. Mathematics is the body of knowledge justified by deductive reasoning about abstract structures, starting from axioms and definitions. Science is tested by experimentation, it's hypotheses are inductively proven.

Have you ever heard of a mathematical proof derived by physical experimentation?

Mathematics is useful for science but is not necessary for a scientific proof. Physical experimentation is not necessary for mathematics, it would just be a dramatic ornamentation.

I have always heard that mathematics is the language of science.

Botnst · #43 10-12-2007, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

I have always heard that mathematics is the language of science.

Seems a nicely utilitarian definition.

cmac2012 · #44 10-12-2007, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

I have always heard that mathematics is the language of science.

That's roughly what I've heard. It's indespensible for physics and astronomy, for starters. And thought experiments have validity, particularly in math.

Nonetheless, I don't see much point in the distinction. My original point was that any attempt to cram the workings of the real world, involving numerous, infinite opportunities for human error or eccentricity, into a theory of how economics should work best is not likely to be successful.

And while I'm holding up Webster and crew, one of the definitions of 'rebut' is to expose the falcity of. It doesn't appear to be limited to that:

rebut: to contradict, refute, or oppose, espcially in a formal manner, by arguement, proof, etc., as in a debate.

cmac2012 · #45 10-12-2007, 04:32 PM

Oh boy, more fun with dictionaries:

inductive; 2 : of, relating to, or employing mathematical or logical induction