Happy Belgian Independence Day!

[atawa]

Originally posted by Elok
Civil War? not that that's anything impressive?

Pretty hard for a country to loose a civil war

[dannubis]

Pretty hard to win one too or so it seems...

And Elok,

Do we care ?

[alva]

We wear insults with pride.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

As for sense of humor, I dont automatically treat something that is not funny, but is over the top exagerated (and bitter to boot) as a "joke".

A) It wasn't 'bitter'. What on earth am I being bitter about, fer crissakes ?

B) You seem pathologically unable to discern humour in any of my posts, even when it's apparent to others, or clearly signalled.

C) Which other Churchill did you have in mind as Prime Minister of the U.K. ?

D) Tony Benn was never Prime Minister and his son has yet to be. Both were Cabinet ministers, but so what ?

Unlike the Dulles brothers (Oh Lord! Another American dynasty!) they didn't manage to sponsor a coup in Central America to line their own pockets.

By this definition, the Chamberlains, father and son, are a dynasty. Or the Churchills. Thats just off the top of my head - Im sure someone better versed in British political history could come up with a bunch of "dynasties".

And I don't recall saying that the U.K. doesn't have them. However we're the constitutional monarchy- you're supposedly the elected democracy (really an oligarchical republic run by sprecial interests....)

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

A) It wasn't 'bitter'. What on earth am I being bitter about, fer crissakes ?

Presumably Imran post. But im not sure you sure sound bitter though.

B) You seem pathologically unable to discern humour in any of my posts, even when it's apparent to others, or clearly signalled.

I dont find them funny Im afraid. Perhaps its just me.

C) Which other Churchill did you have in mind as Prime Minister of the U.K. ?

D) Tony Benn was never Prime Minister and his son has yet to be. Both were Cabinet ministers, but so what ?

Only one Kennedy was President, and Jeb Bush whom you mentioned was never president. But thats why you quoted the def of dynasty at me, which is not based on being head of state or govt.

unlike the Dulles brothers (Oh Lord! Another American dynasty!) they didn't manage to sponsor a coup in Central America to line their own pockets.

Which is red herring, and yet again a troll.

And I don't recall saying that the U.K. doesn't have them. However we're the constitutional monarchy- you're supposedly the elected democracy (really an oligarchical republic run by sprecial interests....)

Ive never said a constitutional monarchy cant be a democracy. UK and Belgium obviously are. And both constitutional monarchies, and many republics, have "political dynasties". Which is quite irrelevant to the question of the relative merits of a republic vs a constitutional monarchy.

As for the degree of oligarchy in the US, Im NOT going to let you troll me into that debate. Ive read C. Wright Mills, EE Schatshneider, the pluralist thinkers who disagree, etc and I dont need you to lecture me on Americas social and political structure.

[molly bloom]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by molly bloom

A) It wasn't 'bitter'. What on earth am I being bitter about, fer crissakes ?

Presumably Imran post. But im not sure you sure sound bitter though.

I presumed you assumed that. Pity you only made an ass out of yourself though, and not me.

Note the winking smiley face in my original post, and the picture of Nixon as King Richard III. Then add one and one together, and get two.

Or in your case, add one and one together and presume you have 53....

I dont find them funny Im afraid. Perhaps its just me.

I have come to just that conclusion. I could comment on the U.S.'s support for Israel in the Middle East, and that way you could make a balanced reply to what you presume my post says, because you could do it with a chip on both shoulders.

Only one Kennedy was President, and Jeb Bush whom you mentioned was never president. But thats why you quoted the def of dynasty at me, which is not based on being head of state or govt.

Jeb Bush hasn't been President or a Presidential candidate YET.

However, both his father and his brother have been President, have they not ?

A dynasty is a family or extended family which retains political power across generations, or more generally, any organization which extends dominance in its field even as its particular members change. See also: family dictatorship.

That was one of the definitions of 'dynasty' which I quoted. Works for the Bushes, Kennedys, Roosevelts, Adamses...

Which is red herring, and yet again a troll.

It's very much not a troll, and not a red herring. Who on earth do you think helped orchestrate the coup in Guatemala against Arbenz's democratically elected government ? Oops, can't have Guatemala setting the U.S. a good example when it comes to non-familial changeovers of power...

I dont need you to lecture me on Americas social and political structure.

I'm not so sure.... ...but you are in dire need of a sense of humour implant.


Perhaps Sanctimonious Claus will bring you one for Chrismukkah.

[Blaupanzer]

If you have to explain the joke, it's not funny. Two brothers (or more) do not a dynasty make (read Kennedys and Dulleses). (Also, the Dulles brothers did not single-handedly overthrow Arbenz. They had lots of hysterical help for that travesty.)

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

I presumed you assumed that. Pity you only made an ass out of yourself though, and not me.

Note the winking smiley face in my original post, and the picture of Nixon as King Richard III. Then add one and one together, and get two.

Or in your case, add one and one together and presume you have 53....

Sometimes a smiley and a picture dont make what appears to be bitter sarcasm look any less like bitter sarcasm. It certainly doesnt make it funny.

Jeb Bush hasn't been President or a Presidential candidate YET.

However, both his father and his brother have been President, have they not ?

Which is why theyre more relevant to the discussion than Jeb is.

That was one of the definitions of 'dynasty' which I quoted. Works for the Bushes, Kennedys, Roosevelts, Adamses...

Maintains political power across generations. And as ive already pointed out, that applies to several leading political families in the UK as well, including during the period that UK has been a full democracy. Democracies, Republics, democratic republics, and democratic constitutional monarchies often have powerful political families.

I'm not so sure.... ...but you are in dire need of a sense of humour implant.

so says the person who thinks the following is funny.

Perhaps Sanctimonious Claus will bring you one for Chrismukkah.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom

It's very much not a troll, and not a red herring. Who on earth do you think helped orchestrate the coup in Guatemala against Arbenz's democratically elected government ? Oops, can't have Guatemala setting the U.S. a good example when it comes to non-familial changeovers of power...

IIUC, US support for the coup was motivated by a combination of economic interest (and United Fruit would have had some influence even if the Dulles brothers had no personal interest in it) and concern for Arbenz cooperation with Communists, not out dislike for his election per se, much less a desire for family power as a principle. its not like Dwight Eisenhower came from a powerful family.

And yes, i know you meant the above as a "joke". As long as you use misleading jokes to insinuate political content, i will respond to them as if they are meant literally.

[lord of the mark]

"Eisenhower was born to a German American in Denison, Texas, the third of seven sons born to David Jacob Eisenhower and Ida Elizabeth Stover, and their only child born in Texas. He was named David Dwight and was called Dwight. Later, the order of his given names was switched (according to the staff at the Eisenhower Library and Museum, the name switch occurred upon Eisenhower's matriculation at West Point). The Eisenhower family is of Pennsylvania Dutch descent. His ancestors were Mennonites who fled from Germany to Switzerland in the 17th century. Hans Nicol Eisenhauer and family came to Lancaster, Pennsylvania in 1741. The family joined the River Brethren and were pacifists during the nation's wars. The family joined some 300 River Brethren in creating a colony in Kansas. After a brief sojourn in Texas the family resettled in Abilene, Kansas, in 1892. Eisenhower's father was a college educated engineer. [1] Eisenhower graduated from Abilene High School in 1909."

OMG - Ikes dad was an engineer!, and not a factory worker. Classic american oligarchy at work.

Engineers tend to be wreckers, you know




Hardy har ha!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Sometimes a smiley and a picture dont make what appears to be bitter sarcasm look any less like bitter sarcasm. It certainly doesnt make it funny.

You can call it 'bitter' all you want, but you haven't yet shown what I'm supposedly being bitter about, despite my having asked you.

Don't blame me for your misinterpretations. You didn't find it funny- too bad. That says nothing to my intent.

Which is why theyre more relevant to the discussion than Jeb is.

And his Governorableness Jeb Bush I is still a member of the Bush Dynasty, is he not ? Whose campaign in Florida received financial support from his brother, did it not ?

Maintains political power across generations. And as ive already pointed out, that applies to several leading political families in the UK as well, including during the period that UK has been a full democracy.

I can't recall denying this. I still have yet to hear from you on exactly what comparable 'power' the Benns or the Churchills have had in comparison with, say, the Bushes, Adamses or Roosevelts.

so says the person who thinks the following is funny.

I like Joyce. So what ? At least I have a sense of humour.

IIUC, US support for the coup was motivated by a combination of economic interest (and United Fruit would have had some influence even if the Dulles brothers had no personal interest in it) and concern for Arbenz cooperation with Communists,

I'm glad you swallow the official line on Arbenz's supposed support for Communism. Of course if you believe Nixonian style propaganda, you'll believe anything.

...not out dislike for his (Arbenz's) election per se,

That's undoubtedly why he wasn't replaced with a dictatorial regime more to the U.S. government's and United Fruit's liking then.


Ooopsy ! Did I say 'wasn't' ?

I meant to say 'was', of course.

much less a desire for family power as a principle.

I don't recall suggesting the Dulles Brothers cooperated in Arbenz's overthrow to extend their family power base as 'a matter of principle'. However, as they both stood to greatly benefit from the coup financially, I'm sure this had no adverse effect on either of their careers or their ability to influence U.S. domestic and foreign policy.

As long as you use misleading jokes to insinuate political content, i will respond to them as if they are meant literally.

They only seem to mislead you, dear....

OMG - Ikes dad was an engineer!, and not a factory worker. Classic american oligarchy at work.

Gosh, and you accuse me of thinking things are funny when they aren't. That's really laboured sarcasm.

Inaccurate too, because the oligarchy can have members everywhere, can't it ?

The pressure mounted against UFCO and finally the company complained to the many friends it had within the U.S. government including President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, saying that Guatemala had turned communist.

Mmm. Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles. Possibly related to Allen Dulles who was

head of the CIA,

and had

served on UFCO's board of trustees.

Why yes! And of course John Foster Dulles

and his former New York law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, had long represented the company (United Fruit).

That was handy. From Hearst to UFCO, if they want a war, they can cook one up:

Ed Whitman, the company's top public relations officer, was the husband of Ann Whitman, President Eisenhower's private secretary. (Ed Whitman produced a film, "Why the Kremlin Hates Bananas," that pictured UFCO fighting in the front trenches of the cold war.) The fruit firm's success in linking the taking of its lands to the evil of international communism was later described by one UFCO official as "the Disney version of the episode." But the company's efforts paid off. It picked up the expenses of journalists who traveled to Guatemala to learn United Fruit's side of the crisis, and some of the most respected North American publications - including the New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, and New Leader - ran stories that pleased the company. A UFCO public relations official later observed that his firm helped condition North American readers to accept the State Department's version of the Arbenz regime as Communist-controlled and the U.S.-planned invasion as wholly Guatemalan."

Inevitable Revolutions : The United States in Central America by Walter La Feber, 1993.