The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community

The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/index.php)
-   War, Religion and Politics Thread (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   US most violent western nation - by wide margin (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=113145)

DenverBrit 12-11-2013 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS (Post 3994705)
This old Nazi propaganda perfectly captures gaffe's view...

Makes sense, Gaffney doesn't think the Nazis were as bad as history portrays them.

W*GS 12-12-2013 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverBrit (Post 3994942)
Makes sense, Gaffney doesn't think the Nazis were as bad as history portrays them.

They've gotten an unfair rap according to gaffe.

He's such a dick. Right up there with txtebow.

mhgaffney 12-12-2013 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverBrit (Post 3994942)
Makes sense, Gaffney doesn't think the Nazis were as bad as history portrays them.

Wrong. That's NOT what I said.

You clowns always put words in my mouth.

What I said was this (and I'll say it again): The Nazi reign was as described -- terrible -- certainly they were as bad as portrayed.

What has NOT been accurately stated or understood in the West is the terrible British legacy - - which lasted 300+ years -- and when you look at it -- was actually much worse than the damage done by the Nazis in just 12 years.

300+ years of colonialism was worse than 12 Nazi years.

MHG

DenverBrit 12-12-2013 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney (Post 3995257)
Wrong. That's NOT what I said.

You clowns always put words in my mouth.

What I said was this (and I'll say it again): The Nazi reign was as described -- terrible -- certainly they were as bad as portrayed.

What has NOT been accurately stated or understood in the West is the terrible British legacy - - which lasted 300+ years -- and when you look at it -- was actually much worse than the damage done by the Nazis in just 12 years.

300+ years of colonialism was worse than 12 Nazi years.

MHG

If you're going to make such a leap, substantiate your assertion with historical context, data, facts, proof, not just your usual prejudiced opinion.

broncocalijohn 12-12-2013 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney (Post 3995257)
Wrong. That's NOT what I said.

You clowns always put words in my mouth.

What I said was this (and I'll say it again): The Nazi reign was as described -- terrible -- certainly they were as bad as portrayed.

What has NOT been accurately stated or understood in the West is the terrible British legacy - - which lasted 300+ years -- and when you look at it -- was actually much worse than the damage done by the Nazis in just 12 years.

300+ years of colonialism was worse than 12 Nazi years.

MHG


Is there a report of how many deaths were attributed to the British colonizing countries? Are they getting knocks against them up to the our Revolution War with England? Also, what countries actually benefit from British "invasion". I would say nothing good came from Nazi invasion for any country. Goal of the Nazis was to eliminate the Jews. I don't think that was happening with British invasions. I am not making any excuses for all of what England did. We can just look at Opium problem with China.

12 years of Nazi occupation was only 12 years because of the Allies. Who can only imagine how bad it could have been if left untouched.

mhgaffney 12-12-2013 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn (Post 3995284)
Is there a report of how many deaths were attributed to the British colonizing countries? Are they getting knocks against them up to the our Revolution War with England? Also, what countries actually benefit from British "invasion". I would say nothing good came from Nazi invasion for any country. Goal of the Nazis was to eliminate the Jews. I don't think that was happening with British invasions. I am not making any excuses for all of what England did. We can just look at Opium problem with China.

12 years of Nazi occupation was only 12 years because of the Allies. Who can only imagine how bad it could have been if left untouched.

Look at India.

It was once very prosperous -- and wealthy. India was the crown jewel in the British empire.

The Brits built a RR system to loot the country -- the RRs were designed not to develop India but to extract wealth --

Britain used the resources/wealth stolen from India to launch its own industrial revolution.

The Brits meanwhile used the various language, cultural differences and the caste system to turn Indians against themselves -- a method of control the US has copied and taken to new levels (as evidenced by Edward Snowden's revelations).

It is not a pretty picture.

MHG

houghtam 12-12-2013 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney (Post 3995527)
Look at India.

It was once very prosperous -- and wealthy. India was the crown jewel in the British empire.

The Brits built a RR system to loot the country -- the RRs were designed not to develop India but to extract wealth --

Britain used the resources/wealth stolen from India to launch its own industrial revolution.

The Brits meanwhile used the various language, cultural differences and the caste system to turn Indians against themselves -- a method of control the US has copied and taken to new levels (as evidenced by Edward Snowden's revelations).

It is not a pretty picture.

MHG

In that context, every railroad everywhere for all time was developed to extract wealth.

Johnykbr 12-13-2013 08:14 AM

What does it say about me that I would rather read Gaff's diatribes than read the complete meltdown threads on the sports board right now?

mhgaffney 12-13-2013 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by houghtam (Post 3995575)
In that context, every railroad everywhere for all time was developed to extract wealth.

total bs -- the Brits built the RRs in India to get wealth to port -- so the Brits could take it out of the country.

Many native industries in India were destroyed by colonialism. The BRits did not want India to flourish - except insofar as it served their imperial plans.

BTW the facts in the case of India are well documented -- check out Paul Baran's THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF GROWTH. He includes a detailed discussion of how the Brits plundered India.

http://www.amazon.com/Political-Econ...nomy+of+growth

Here's a review:

STILL GREAT AFTER 50 YEARS...

"The Political Economy of Growth" is a long essay on 20th century capitalism and its implications (mostly negative) for economic growth and development. The analysis is informed by Marxist concepts but isn't warped by Marxist dogma. The text is droll, almost Galbraithian, and hyper-alert to the cliches of capitalism. It's a pleasure to read.

Unfortunately, the book was also written long ago, in 1957. The world has changed a lot since then. The Washington Consensus has come and gone. China has emerged as an economic giant. Central planning has collapsed almost everywhere. And, contrary to the expectations of the author, Paul Baran, capitalist economies have grown significantly (if not evenly) since the 1950s. So, "The Political Economy of Growth" is definitely anachronistic.

Nevertheless, it is still worth reading. It's just packed with great ideas on everything from the impact of oligopolies in the U.S. to the role of British imperialism in destroying the Indian economy. Moreover, Baran had a genius for weaving bracing polemic out of deep erudition and deep political outrage. He was particularly skilled at exposing the role of mainstream economics in upholding the political and economic status quo in modern America.

Bottomline: In spite of its age, "The Political Economy of Growth" will appeal to readers of any political persuasion who are interested in economics and the history of the modern world. Read it.

DenverBrit 12-13-2013 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney (Post 3998182)
total bs -- the Brits built the RRs in India to get wealth to port -- so the Brits could take it out of the country.

Many native industries in India were destroyed by colonialism. The BRits did not want India to flourish - except insofar as it served their imperial plans.

BTW the facts in the case of India are well documented -- check out Paul Baran's THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF GROWTH. He includes a detailed discussion of how the Brits plundered India.

Nonsense, by the time the railroads had even begun construction, Britain had already stolen everything worth taking.

Railways were used exclusively for scenic tours.

mhgaffney 12-13-2013 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverBrit (Post 3998437)
Nonsense, by the time the railroads had even begun construction, Britain had already stolen everything worth taking.

Railways were used exclusively for scenic tours.

Brit keeps reminding why I had him on igggggy.

DenverBrit 12-13-2013 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney (Post 3998455)
Brit keeps reminding why I had him on igggggy.

You keep saying that, yet here you are again......and again.

Go read some history, there's plenty of economic and social information about the impact of the Imperial railways in India.

I recommend you start with MIT's Professor Dave Donald's research from last year:

Railroads of the Raj:
Estimating the Impact of Transportation Infrastructure


Dave Donaldson
MIT Department of Economics and NBER
September 2012

Quote:

Abstract
How large are the benefi ts of transportation infrastructure projects, and what explains these benefi ts?

This paper uses archival data from colonial India to investigate the
impact of India's vast railroad network. Guided by four results from a general equilibrium trade model, I fi nd that railroads:
(1) decreased trade costs and interregional price gaps;
(2) increased interregional and international trade;
(3) increased real income levels; and
(4), that a sucient statistic for the e ffect of railroads on welfare in the model accounts for virtually all of the observed reduced-form impact of railroads
on real income in the data

http://economics.mit.edu/files/6038
I also recommend you read Jan Morris.

houghtam 12-13-2013 05:58 PM

No Brit, see they're all in on it.

It's a conspiracy!

mhgaffney 12-14-2013 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by houghtam (Post 3998531)
No Brit, see they're all in on it.

It's a conspiracy!

You think colonialism was beneficial for the peoples who were colonized?

If so -- you are a typical brain dead American.

broncocalijohn 12-14-2013 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney (Post 3998806)
You think colonialism was beneficial for the peoples who were colonized?

If so -- you are a typical brain dead American.

We have done a better job for Phillippines than when Spain had control of the islands.

mhgaffney 12-14-2013 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn (Post 3998811)
We have done a better job for Phillippines than when Spain had control of the islands.

Better?

The US had to crush a popular uprising -- staged by Philippinos who wanted freedom -- not another colonial master.

200,000+ died in that 3 year war.

DenverBrit 12-14-2013 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney (Post 3998806)
You think colonialism was beneficial for the peoples who were colonized?

If so -- you are a typical brain dead American.

No one is arguing it was.

You're the one claiming the Brits were worse than the Nazis without offering anything to support that rubbish.

Step up and stop being such a predictable troll.

nyuk nyuk 12-26-2013 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein (Post 3981743)
Mexico must be a third world country. And it's amazing that with no border enforcement from said violent third world country along the south, a pointless drug war, and minimal punishment for violent crimes outside of capital murder proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of high-functioning retards that the violent crime mortality isn't higher.

I would question the competency of the government in tracking accurate data, given the tendency of government officials to either be complicit in these crimes or be against them and thus turn up headless.

nyuk nyuk 12-26-2013 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney (Post 3998806)
You think colonialism was beneficial for the peoples who were colonized?

If so -- you are a typical brain dead American.

Actually it did have benefits. Modern technology, electricity, etc. Colonialism is at least as damaging to the colonizing country as the colonized one. It's a profit game for the small percentage of elites that benefit from it.

Typical brain-dead American :


http://i40.tinypic.com/1zzknq1.jpg

Johnykbr 12-26-2013 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney (Post 3998833)
Better?

The US had to crush a popular uprising -- staged by Philippinos who wanted freedom -- not another colonial master.

200,000+ died in that 3 year war.

With the exception of the province of Mindanao (which are Muslim majority in an open state of rebellion and hate everyone) the Filipinos love the US and despise the Spanish despite the fact that a lot of them do still speak Spanish. So have we treated them better? I don't know but I know they think we have.

nyuk nyuk 12-26-2013 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverBrit (Post 3994942)
Makes sense, Gaffney doesn't think the Nazis were as bad as history portrays them.

I think it's a legitimate belief in the sense of that atrocity propaganda is always fed to the public to justify wars. The same can also be said for the USSR, but acknowledging that neither makes one a Nazi nor a Marxist.

We were told that Saddam had "rape rooms" and a "child prison" for kids whose parents wouldn't join the Bath Party. Turns out later it was an orphanage. It was a big lie all along, of course.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.