Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Top 5 countries in
- Thread starter buckeye45_73
- Start date
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Oh, my bad. I thought that remark was directed towards me. Sincerest apologies.Must you really, given this discussion's broad context be so pedantically picayune as to cite the nuanced variation among a democracy, a democratic republic and a republic are differences with no distinction? When someone takes a conversation to detailed levels, it's not pedantic or picayune to highlight the nuances of difference, but at the stage where the conversation was/is just yet, nobody's gone there, likely because it's premature to do so. Instead of behaving like a sassy lass, you may want to try thinking and acting like a dignified lady.we no longer have a stable democracy ijit.... we have a white supremcacist kleptocrat in office.... who is allowing Russia to dictate our policy.
you're just too stupid to understand
We're a republic....
you're just to stupid to understand
there is nothing "dignified" or sassy about the thing that spews
Well, have at it, for I have no idea what you're talking about. What I and others here know is that I don't have a problem owing my mistakes, so remind away. If there's anything I claim to be, it's "very good," not "perfect."Watch it troll or I'll remind you of your epc faux lawyer claim.....LMAO that was classic
they like pretending I'm not a lawyer, it makes them feel like they have genitals. so the trash mouth needs to repeat that.
Why would anyone come on here and pretend to have a profession they do not? Especially that of an attorney.
Western powers have found pretty much all of Africa useful as they have exploited its riches for centuries.hahah funny.....but lets change that to the top 5 most useful countries in AfricaTop five countries in Africa --> Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco
Africans had thousands of years to use it's resources for the betterment of its people. Why so slow?
we no longer have a stable democracy ijit.... we have a white supremcacist kleptocrat in office.... who is allowing Russia to dictate our policy.
Go take a pill, drama queen.
We don't live in a democracy. We live in a Republic.
And fuck your "white supremacist" lying bullshit. It's so fucking old, tired, and a cocksucking lie. Calling racism all the fucking time makes it really hard to identify and fix REAL racism, you wolf-crying loon.
I'm not the bigot stinking up the board, dude.
you don't understand anything about our government anyway. but the bigot o/p commented on democracy in Africa. try reading before you go knee-jerk trumptard to defend the white trash, hon.
How is the truth bigotry?
Tommy Tainant
Diamond Member
Why do you assume that they were not ?Western powers have found pretty much all of Africa useful as they have exploited its riches for centuries.hahah funny.....but lets change that to the top 5 most useful countries in AfricaTop five countries in Africa --> Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco
Africans had thousands of years to use it's resources for the betterment of its people. Why so slow?
Why do you assume that they were not ?Western powers have found pretty much all of Africa useful as they have exploited its riches for centuries.hahah funny.....but lets change that to the top 5 most useful countries in AfricaTop five countries in Africa --> Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco
Africans had thousands of years to use it's resources for the betterment of its people. Why so slow?
If you have to ask....
Tommy Tainant
Diamond Member
The big problem that the deplorables have is that they are pretty much ignorant of any place ,anywhere in the World.
I do believe that they still think that Africans live in mud huts.and eat each other. These same idiots believe that Europe is full of no go zones and that the Queen rules the UK. Its an indictment of education as much as inbred ignorance.
Zambia : It’s not just Trump: Western media has long treated black and brown countries like ‘sh**holes’
I do believe that they still think that Africans live in mud huts.and eat each other. These same idiots believe that Europe is full of no go zones and that the Queen rules the UK. Its an indictment of education as much as inbred ignorance.
Zambia : It’s not just Trump: Western media has long treated black and brown countries like ‘sh**holes’
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Why do you assume that they were not ?Western powers have found pretty much all of Africa useful as they have exploited its riches for centuries.hahah funny.....but lets change that to the top 5 most useful countries in AfricaTop five countries in Africa --> Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco
Africans had thousands of years to use it's resources for the betterment of its people. Why so slow?
...it's for the same reason anyone asks a question such as the one he earlier asked you: because he can't read your mind and he wants to know why you made the statement you did that presupposes that the people under discussion have not sought to use their national physical resources for the betterment of their people.If you have to ask....
One cannot prevail in an argument without at least presenting an argument for one's position. By asking you the question he did, Tommy Tainant gave you the opportunity to make your case, yet you yielded your position by not presenting it.
Why do you assume that they were not ?Western powers have found pretty much all of Africa useful as they have exploited its riches for centuries.hahah funny.....but lets change that to the top 5 most useful countries in AfricaTop five countries in Africa --> Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco
Africans had thousands of years to use it's resources for the betterment of its people. Why so slow?
...it's for the same reason anyone asks a question such as the one he earlier asked you: because he can't read your mind and he wants to know why you made the statement you did that presupposes that the people under discussion have not sought to use their national physical resources for the betterment of their people.If you have to ask....
Well it's pretty obvious they aren't capable of using their resources for the betterment of their society since they had thousands of years as a head start and yet they still lived in mud huts.
Tommy Tainant
Diamond Member
Why do you assume that they were not ?Western powers have found pretty much all of Africa useful as they have exploited its riches for centuries.hahah funny.....but lets change that to the top 5 most useful countries in Africa
Africans had thousands of years to use it's resources for the betterment of its people. Why so slow?
...it's for the same reason anyone asks a question such as the one he earlier asked you: because he can't read your mind and he wants to know why you made the statement you did that presupposes that the people under discussion have not sought to use their national physical resources for the betterment of their people.If you have to ask....
Well it's pretty obvious they aren't capable of using their resources for the betterment of their society since they had thousands of years as a head start and yet they still lived in mud huts.
Mud is a pretty universal building tool. People adapt to their environments and use what is available.
- Jun 4, 2011
- 33,567
- 7,077
- 1,130
- Thread starter
- #51
Why do you assume that they were not ?Western powers have found pretty much all of Africa useful as they have exploited its riches for centuries.hahah funny.....but lets change that to the top 5 most useful countries in AfricaTop five countries in Africa --> Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco
Africans had thousands of years to use it's resources for the betterment of its people. Why so slow?
Because they didn't have technology or advanced dwellings or anything linked to advanced civilization.....
100 British soldiers held off thousands of Zulu..........
Tommy Tainant
Diamond Member
They were Welsh soldiers actually.Why do you assume that they were not ?Western powers have found pretty much all of Africa useful as they have exploited its riches for centuries.hahah funny.....but lets change that to the top 5 most useful countries in AfricaTop five countries in Africa --> Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco
Africans had thousands of years to use it's resources for the betterment of its people. Why so slow?
Because they didn't have technology or advanced dwellings or anything linked to advanced civilization.....
100 British soldiers held off thousands of Zulu..........
However the day before the Zulus destroyed the English army under Lord Chelmsford.
The biggest defeat of any European army. Custer times 10.
- Jun 4, 2011
- 33,567
- 7,077
- 1,130
- Thread starter
- #53
Wales is part of the British Empire...so cool to knowThey were Welsh soldiers actually.Why do you assume that they were not ?Western powers have found pretty much all of Africa useful as they have exploited its riches for centuries.hahah funny.....but lets change that to the top 5 most useful countries in Africa
Africans had thousands of years to use it's resources for the betterment of its people. Why so slow?
Because they didn't have technology or advanced dwellings or anything linked to advanced civilization.....
100 British soldiers held off thousands of Zulu..........
However the day before the Zulus destroyed the English army under Lord Chelmsford.
The biggest defeat of any European army. Custer times 10.
That may be so.....but they were severely outnumbered and still ran the place.....and it was doing well.....until they kicked whitey out...now it's really really dangerous to go there......it's turning into a shit hole..which is sad.
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Why do you assume that they were not ?Western powers have found pretty much all of Africa useful as they have exploited its riches for centuries.hahah funny.....but lets change that to the top 5 most useful countries in Africa
Africans had thousands of years to use it's resources for the betterment of its people. Why so slow?
...it's for the same reason anyone asks a question such as the one he earlier asked you: because he can't read your mind and he wants to know why you made the statement you did that presupposes that the people under discussion have not sought to use their national physical resources for the betterment of their people.If you have to ask....
Consider the substance of the rationale -- based on observed statuses, assumptions, inferences, and conclusion -- you just gave [1]:Well it's pretty obvious they aren't capable of using their resources for the betterment of their society since they had thousands of years as a head start and yet they still lived in mud huts.
Observations and assumptions (premises):
- Persons/groups "A" and "B" started out with a given set of resources.
- "A" and "B" both ascribe to the notion that they should be free to define their own goals.
- The resources themselves may differ; however, both sets of resources are sufficient for "A" and "B" to "make something of themselves."
- "A" and "B" each have the same period of time to use their resources to "make something of themselves."
- "A" and "B" for the entirety or majority of that period of time did indeed form and adopt the same definition of what it means to "make something of oneself." [2]
- "A," for whatever reason(s), used his/their resources to "make something of him-/themselves," in part by using them to plunder and exploit "B's resources. [3]
- "B," for whatever reason(s), did not use its/their resources to plunder and exploit "A's" resources.
- "You" (the speaker), who is or is a member of "A," using the bar "A" defines for what "making something of oneself" means, conclude that insofar as "A" and "B" had equal amounts of time to avail themselves of the innate resources at their disposal and to obtain, however they do so, additional/needed resources, including the other individual's/group's resources, to further "A's" goals (whatever they be), "B" is therefore innately and demonstrably incapable of doing the same.
Quite simply, were one to ascribe to there being legitimacy to the principle found in the line of argument you've presented -- that principle being " 'their' value systems differ from 'ours' and insofar as they do and as a consequence, 'they' didn't do the same things 'we' successful folks did, so screw 'em -- there'd be no discussion of what the U.S. should do for so-called "working people." There's be no middle-class tax cut. There'd be no public education. This country would have nary a program to do anything for folks who are not "to the manor born" or blessed by the kindness of those who are/were. Instead, people who have achieve and maintain their status as realizers of the "American Dream" -- people who went to school, mastered what they were taught, put that training to "good economic use" (no matter how they did so) and now find themselves in the enviable financial position of being the recipients of a tax cut that, unlike everyone else's, will not become a tax increase -- would undertake to do little more than enact policies that ensure that folks who aren't among their number do not die in the streets, thereby becoming something over which one must step as one holds a poultice to one's nose to attenuate the foul smell of reeking corpses.
Notes:
- For brevity's sake, I've called "using their resources for the betterment of their society" "make something of themselves/oneself."
- This assumption/inference is clearly not true with regard to nascent (pre-Renaissance) and developing Western European cultures and those of Africa, Far Eastern Asia, or the Americas. One need only compare and contrast the (1) cultural values of Western Culture with that of those other regions, and (2) observe that nobody but Western Europeans "ran" around the world for the purpose of taking resources -- human and material -- from those other places and declaring them their own. Joseon Korea, China, Tokugawa Japan, and India up to the fall of the Moguls, who without question could have done so for they were, until the Great Divergence, were all markedly wealthier, more innovative, and more powerful than were Western Europeans whose ascendancy, the consequences of which we today observe, accrued largely from co-opting and usurping resources from around the world in order to advance their various conflicts amongst themselves.
- The Impact of Colonialism on African Economic Development
The triple causes of Africa's underdevelopment
Why Africa has grown slowly
Free Trade and Capitalism -- FWIW, this book targets myriad heterodox political "economists," i.e., laymen who are willing to engage with the topic, as well as trained/practicing economists and students of economics. For a subject that is often heavily sophisticated, Chang does a remarkable job of keeping the explanations and examples as simple and clear as possible. Indeed, readers bereft of empirical economics training but possessed of patience and commitment will be able to work their way through it for the the book in large measure because Chang, unlike many economists, has eschewed the efficiency of equations and graphs and instead opted to present his ideas in the English language rather than mathematical language. That said, it's a book, not an article, so it will take more than a few minutes to read it, and it isn't a "skimmable" book, so to speak. On the other hand, it's a short book.
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Why do you assume that they were not ?Western powers have found pretty much all of Africa useful as they have exploited its riches for centuries.
Africans had thousands of years to use it's resources for the betterment of its people. Why so slow?
...it's for the same reason anyone asks a question such as the one he earlier asked you: because he can't read your mind and he wants to know why you made the statement you did that presupposes that the people under discussion have not sought to use their national physical resources for the betterment of their people.If you have to ask....
Well it's pretty obvious they aren't capable of using their resources for the betterment of their society since they had thousands of years as a head start and yet they still lived in mud huts.
Mud is a pretty universal building tool. People adapt to their environments and use what is available.
While that is true, it's really beside the point as goes the exception I take with the (weak) argument the other member presented. The core problem with the line the other member presented is that it presupposes, to use the "mud hut" theme, that it's "my" place to judge "you" as inferior in some way if "you" build a masonry house and "I" build a wood frame, cedar shake, or glass one, or vice versa.
Last edited:
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Frankly, I find that "mud hut" comment to be a reflection of abject ignorance. One need only search for real estate in various African cities and one will find there is an abundance of dwellings there that are just like those found in the U.S. and at all levels of the market. The notion that Africans live in "mud huts" is just preposterous. The people in Africa who do live in "mud huts," as it were, are the pastoral people who choose to do so.Why do you assume that they were not ?Western powers have found pretty much all of Africa useful as they have exploited its riches for centuries.
Africans had thousands of years to use it's resources for the betterment of its people. Why so slow?
...it's for the same reason anyone asks a question such as the one he earlier asked you: because he can't read your mind and he wants to know why you made the statement you did that presupposes that the people under discussion have not sought to use their national physical resources for the betterment of their people.If you have to ask....
Well it's pretty obvious they aren't capable of using their resources for the betterment of their society since they had thousands of years as a head start and yet they still lived in mud huts.
Mud is a pretty universal building tool. People adapt to their environments and use what is available.
Quite frankly, unlike the U.S., I think it's a good thing that the leaders of countries in which those people live their pastoral existence haven't contorted the "system" there that people who want to live pastorally cannot do so regardless of their desire to do so. While that isn't the lifestyle I want to live, it's not a lifestyle I'm of a mind to tell someone they cannot or should not live that way. If they are content with their life the way they live it and their living of it doesn't burden me, I'm happy for them. Hell, for all I know, people who willfully choose to live that way may well be happier and more at-peace with themselves than are myriad of we who aim to live a lifestyle suffused with "bars, massage parlors, and digital escargot forks," so to speak.
Why do you assume that they were not ?Western powers have found pretty much all of Africa useful as they have exploited its riches for centuries.
Africans had thousands of years to use it's resources for the betterment of its people. Why so slow?
...it's for the same reason anyone asks a question such as the one he earlier asked you: because he can't read your mind and he wants to know why you made the statement you did that presupposes that the people under discussion have not sought to use their national physical resources for the betterment of their people.If you have to ask....
Well it's pretty obvious they aren't capable of using their resources for the betterment of their society since they had thousands of years as a head start and yet they still lived in mud huts.
Mud is a pretty universal building tool. People adapt to their environments and use what is available.
Yeah....the American indian built with mud.
300 years ago.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Navajo_Hogan,_Monument_Valley.jpg
Why do you assume that they were not ?Western powers have found pretty much all of Africa useful as they have exploited its riches for centuries.hahah funny.....but lets change that to the top 5 most useful countries in Africa
Africans had thousands of years to use it's resources for the betterment of its people. Why so slow?
...it's for the same reason anyone asks a question such as the one he earlier asked you: because he can't read your mind and he wants to know why you made the statement you did that presupposes that the people under discussion have not sought to use their national physical resources for the betterment of their people.If you have to ask....
Consider the substance of the rationale -- based on observed statuses, assumptions, inferences, and conclusion -- you just gave [1]:Well it's pretty obvious they aren't capable of using their resources for the betterment of their society since they had thousands of years as a head start and yet they still lived in mud huts.
Observations and assumptions (premises):
Conclusion:
- Persons/groups "A" and "B" started out with a given set of resources.
- "A" and "B" both ascribe to the notion that they should be free to define their own goals.
- The resources themselves may differ; however, both sets of resources are sufficient for "A" and "B" to "make something of themselves."
- "A" and "B" each have the same period of time to use their resources to "make something of themselves."
- "A" and "B" for the entirety or majority of that period of time did indeed form and adopt the same definition of what it means to "make something of oneself." [2]
- "A," for whatever reason(s), used his/their resources to "make something of him-/themselves," in part by using them to plunder and exploit "B's resources. [3]
- "B," for whatever reason(s), did not use its/their resources to plunder and exploit "A's" resources.
[Read notes/linked content in 1-3 below before continuing.]
- "You" (the speaker), who is or is a member of "A," using the bar "A" defines for what "making something of oneself" means, conclude that insofar as "A" and "B" had equal amounts of time to avail themselves of the innate resources at their disposal and to obtain, however they do so, additional/needed resources, including the other individual's/group's resources, to further "A's" goals (whatever they be), "B" is therefore innately and demonstrably incapable of doing the same.
Quite simply, were one to ascribe to there being legitimacy to the principle found in the line of argument you've presented -- that principle being " 'their' value systems differ from 'ours' and insofar as they do and as a consequence, 'they' didn't do the same things 'we' successful folks did, so screw 'em -- there'd be no discussion of what the U.S. should do for so-called "working people." There's be no middle-class tax cut. There'd be no public education. This country would have nary a program to do anything for folks who are not "to the manor born" or blessed by the kindness of those who are/were. Instead, people who have achieve and maintain their status as realizers of the "American Dream" -- people who went to school, mastered what they were taught, put that training to "good economic use" (no matter how they did so) and now find themselves in the enviable financial position of being the recipients of a tax cut that, unlike everyone else's, will not become a tax increase -- would undertake to do little more than enact policies that ensure that folks who aren't among their number do not die in the streets, thereby becoming something over which one must step as one holds a poultice to one's nose to attenuate the foul smell of reeking corpses.
Notes:
- For brevity's sake, I've called "using their resources for the betterment of their society" "make something of themselves/oneself."
- This assumption/inference is clearly not true with regard to nascent (pre-Renaissance) and developing Western European cultures and those of Africa, Far Eastern Asia, or the Americas. One need only compare and contrast the (1) cultural values of Western Culture with that of those other regions, and (2) observe that nobody but Western Europeans "ran" around the world for the purpose of taking resources -- human and material -- from those other places and declaring them their own. Joseon Korea, China, Tokugawa Japan, and India up to the fall of the Moguls, who without question could have done so for they were, until the Great Divergence, were all markedly wealthier, more innovative, and more powerful than were Western Europeans whose ascendancy, the consequences of which we today observe, accrued largely from co-opting and usurping resources from around the world in order to advance their various conflicts amongst themselves.
- The Impact of Colonialism on African Economic Development
The triple causes of Africa's underdevelopment
Why Africa has grown slowly
Free Trade and Capitalism -- FWIW, this book targets myriad heterodox political "economists," i.e., laymen who are willing to engage with the topic, as well as trained/practicing economists and students of economics. For a subject that is often heavily sophisticated, Chang does a remarkable job of keeping the explanations and examples as simple and clear as possible. Indeed, readers bereft of empirical economics training but possessed of patience and commitment will be able to work their way through it for the the book in large measure because Chang, unlike many economists, has eschewed the efficiency of equations and graphs and instead opted to present his ideas in the English language rather than mathematical language. That said, it's a book, not an article, so it will take more than a few minutes to read it, and it isn't a "skimmable" book, so to speak. On the other hand, it's a short book.
Holy Shit!!!!
I cant believe you spent so much Time spouting so much bullshit.
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Why do you assume that they were not ?Africans had thousands of years to use it's resources for the betterment of its people. Why so slow?
...it's for the same reason anyone asks a question such as the one he earlier asked you: because he can't read your mind and he wants to know why you made the statement you did that presupposes that the people under discussion have not sought to use their national physical resources for the betterment of their people.If you have to ask....
Well it's pretty obvious they aren't capable of using their resources for the betterment of their society since they had thousands of years as a head start and yet they still lived in mud huts.
Mud is a pretty universal building tool. People adapt to their environments and use what is available.
Yeah....the American indian built with mud.
300 years ago.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Navajo_Hogan,_Monument_Valley.jpg
Yeah....the American indian built with mud.
300 years ago.
Last edited:
Why do you assume that they were not ?
...it's for the same reason anyone asks a question such as the one he earlier asked you: because he can't read your mind and he wants to know why you made the statement you did that presupposes that the people under discussion have not sought to use their national physical resources for the betterment of their people.If you have to ask....
Well it's pretty obvious they aren't capable of using their resources for the betterment of their society since they had thousands of years as a head start and yet they still lived in mud huts.
Mud is a pretty universal building tool. People adapt to their environments and use what is available.
Yeah....the American indian built with mud.
300 years ago.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Navajo_Hogan,_Monument_Valley.jpgYeah....the American indian built with mud.
300 years ago.
You're gonna have to attribute a better building system.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 389
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 101
- Replies
- 200
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 4K
- Views
- 84K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8040
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-