Blair's War

[Flosshilde]

Intellectual bullying again are we, Simon? You have some nerve too when some of us are still waiting for your definition of "anarchism" and "extreme" leftists which you bottled out of on the Boston thread.

I'm not sure that 'bullying' is quite the right term - it's too ineffectual for a start. Whatever it is, there's very little that's 'intellectual' about it. As usual, he tries to bolster his (non) argument with the imaginary support of other people ("every other unbiased observer"), followed up by creepy patronising ("credit due to him for the shot - it was a good one."). All the while, of course, avoiding answering questions and arguments put to him.

But his style is too well known to need any analysis from me - it's best just to ignore him.

[Simon]

... he tries to bolster his (non) argument...

[...]

it's best just to ignore him.

I'd be very grateful to be ignored by such as you, little Flossie. And if I were you, I'd bow out of this one, cos you're way out of your league.

For starters, I didn't have a (non) argument - I simply asked a question. As, after a time, no answer was forthcoming, I repeated it. I didn't want definitions, I just wanted a brief response. When I got one, it was so obviously a cop-out that I said so.

It's not surprising, of course, that some like you will chip in to "support" someone with similar views, but it doesn't make any difference to the outcome. A thousand could post obnoxious personal comments against me, and I've still won this one, unless and untill S-A bothers to make a response. :ok:

As for creeping, the idea that I would wish to do that to Mr Barrett is insane. I have my faults, but creeping on this MB isn't one of them. It's not me who continually chips in to threads with lots of smileys and "supportive" one liners...

The reason for my comment was genuine. In spite of our massive differences, RB's posts are always worth reading in my opinion because he's very good at making his points. It's probably at a level you won't be able to grasp, but the one about which I commented was excellent and difficult to answer in a way that didn't defeat the purpose. (Unlike those from so many on here, whose pathetic attempts at debate are rarely worth a glance.)

[Serial_Apologist]

No we didn't.

Yes we did! If not a year ago maybe 2 - part of a long multiple exchange during which you asked me the very same question: what would I replace the present system with? I said it would have to go through several stages to what I would see as a sustainable solution, and outlined these as best as my capacities for foresight allowed. You were quite generous in considering my point of view as I remember it, but I was still new to you and unaware of your capacity to twist things.

But I'll take it, as no doubt will every other unbiased observer, as a "sorry - I have no answer."

In future, try not to make wild comments that you can't back up.

It was you who was asking with what would I replace the existing system, I provided no answer, and therefore stated nothing which needed back-up. The present system is imploding of its own accord in any case; whether or not I make wild statements is of little consequence in the greater scheme of things, as I am quite sure anyone in the secret services who might be keeping watch on anticapitalist dissidence on this board is all too aware.

And clever interventions from fellow-travellers like Mr. Barrett to try to get you off the hook don't hold water, either. (Though credit due to him for the shot - it was a good one. :ok: )

Yes it's sad that Mr Pee seems less enthusiastic about coming to your side on this forum these days, Simon.

[Simon]

Yes we did! If not a year ago maybe 2 - part of a long multiple exchange during which you asked me the very same question: what would I replace the present system with? I said it would have to go through several stages to what I would see as a sustainable solution, and outlined these as best as my capacities for foresight allowed. You were quite generous in considering my point of view as I remember it...

Well, in that case I'm sorry to have contradicted you. I don't remember it. I'd be pleased to have a link if anyone can.

As for being generous in considering your point of view - and despite your further comment (which I've omitted to quote) - if I come across a good argument, or something that makes me think, or change my mind, I will generally acknowledge it sincerely, with no desire to "twist" anything. And I think you know that. We don't always disagree.

[teamsaint]

Yes we did! If not a year ago maybe 2 - part of a long multiple exchange during which you asked me the very same question: what would I replace the present system with? I said it would have to go through several stages to what I would see as a sustainable solution, and outlined these as best as my capacities for foresight allowed. You were quite generous in considering my point of view as I remember it, but I was still new to you and unaware of your capacity to twist things.



It was you who was asking with what would I replace the existing system, I provided no answer, and therefore stated nothing which needed back-up. The present system is imploding of its own accord in any case; whether or not I make wild statements is of little consequence in the greater scheme of things, as I am quite sure anyone in the secret services who might be keeping watch on anticapitalist dissidence on this board is all too aware.



Yes it's sad that Mr Pee seems less enthusiastic about coming to your side on this forum these days, Simon.

S_A, would you say that the system is imploding because of the basic instability of the financial system on which our political system relies , or do you think that there are basic political instabilities coming into play?

[Serial_Apologist]

S_A, would you say that the system is imploding because of the basic instability of the financial system on which our political system relies , or do you think that there are basic political instabilities coming into play?

I would say both. We've both indicated sharpening class contradictions. Topically as of right now the contradiction of ruling class interests between freedom to invest and exploit the globalised system of supply, on the one hand; and on the other, the need to safeguard the nation state as a kind of fall-back position has characterised the Tory Party for a good 50 years now - carefully disguised in the meantime by blaming other things.

[Richard Barrett]

We had all this out about a year ago, Richard; it was a waste of time then, and it would be now.

I believe you.