Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shadowlord]

For Chile:

http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/for/chile-73.html

The largest single strike/lockout campaign was in Oct 1972. Originally it was called by a truck-owners' association in Punta Arenas, whose contract had been cancelled by a newly nationalized factory; the new management intended to build their own socialist truck fleet (Roxborough et al., p. 116). The campaign quickly expanded into a general strike/lockout throughout the country by other truckers, factory owners, wholesalers, retailers, professionals, and others. They demanded a reversal of much of the Unidad Popular program, but their leverage was not complete. Some economic activity continued, especially where Leftists seized locked-out facilities. A compromise settlement ended the plan for a socialized trucking industry, and brought 3 military officers into the cabinet, pledged to ensure orderly Congressional elections a few months later in March 1973.

It was a deliberate nationwide economic shut-down by the business elite that caused the hyper-inflation, not any specific economic policy of the government that caused this. Yeah shortages happened and that lead to massive price rises. But it was almost entirely due to moves orchestrated by the business elite. And these were people the CIA were definitely talking to, so it's entirely plausible that the CIA was involved with making this happen. After Allende left, any drop in inflation wasn't related to any amazing economic policies of Pinochet, but merely to the corporate elite re-opening all the factories they'd shut down.

But who is John Galt?

[Rolepgeek]

Hmmm.

Experiment.

Those of us willing to participate, I ask of you the following.

Those of us who are typically critical of America, what are you proud of it for?

Those of us who are typically defensive of America, what are you critical of it for(current political state notwitchstanding)?

And I mean the country's actions as a whole. Not the actions of presidents from the other political/ideological camp.

Oh, and somethingsomethingacceptablepolicystanceofopposingpartysomething.

[Amperzand]

Great question, I'll have to think on it a while, see you after I do dishes.

[Dorsidwarf]

Where do people who don't care much about the US as long as it stops Putin taking chunks out of NATO queue up?

[wierd]

Hmmm.

Experiment.

Those of us willing to participate, I ask of you the following.

Those of us who are typically critical of America, what are you proud of it for?

Those of us who are typically defensive of America, what are you critical of it for(current political state notwitchstanding)?

And I mean the country's actions as a whole. Not the actions of presidents from the other political/ideological camp.

Oh, and somethingsomethingacceptablepolicystanceofopposingpartysomething.

I am critical of the nation's intelligence agencies.

They rely too heavily on signals intelligence, and fail to respond properly to other forms of intelligence. See for instance, the position of the FBI vs Apple on encryption, the general ostritch posture they have concerning backdoored encryption being beyond useless in the face of sophisticated hackers, etc.

Throw on top of that the willfulness to conduct blatantly illegal signals gathering on a broad scale exposed by Snowden, and i find it very difficult to find them to be credible.  "incredulous" is more the adjective I would ascribe to them. They need to be told NO, in no uncertain terms, far more often, IMO.

[Amperzand]

The intelligence community had fifty years of whatever the goddamn they wanted to have, and they are understandably reluctant to abandon everything they've done and had.

Personally, I'd say that's too damn bad for them, but hey.

[mainiac]

Those of us who are typically critical of America, what are you proud of it for?

Those of us who are typically defensive of America, what are you critical of it for(current political state notwitchstanding)?

In mediation, if someone acknowledges something and then you ask them to acknowledge that again while acting like they didn't, what you are actually doing is making feel ignored and disrespected.

[Wolfhunter107]

Those of us who are typically critical of America, what are you proud of it for?

Those of us who are typically defensive of America, what are you critical of it for(current political state notwitchstanding)?

In mediation, if someone acknowledges something and then you ask them to acknowledge that again while acting like they didn't, what you are actually doing is making feel ignored and disrespected.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here.

[wierd]

Mainiac is just being passive aggressive, and asserting that it is not polite to ask people to repeatedly admit being incorrect/having a fault when trying to resolve an argument or conflict.

It's a passive voice method of saying "Hey brow, I already admitted that I was wrong, stop being a douche about it by pretending to ask the crowd when you totally intended to rub it in, M'kay?"

That's how I interpreted it anyway.

[mainiac]

Hey brow, I already admitted that I was wrong,

[wierd]

If I got the intent wrong, I do apologize, it is none of my business anyway. That's the problem with couched language to begin with. Intent can be difficult to tease out.

(to be brutally honest, I did not read the past 4 to 5 pages of thread for context, and took the statement at face value. I really dont care either way if anyone as actually slighted or not. In retrospect, the comment may have been about begging the question (logical fallacy type), instead of anyone actually responding having been previously in the wrong. The "they" is not well defined.)

[penguinofhonor]

RPgeek's question doesn't really boil down to wrong/right. You can be someone who generally criticizes America and say something you're proud of it for without contradicting the criticisms you've made.

I think Mainiac is opposed to everyone being sorted into a "criticizes America" or "praises America" camp because it seems disrespectful of people who both praise and criticize the country.

[wierd]

Agreed-- the question is more "For those that mostly criticize" and "For those that mostly support", implying that there is a spectrum, and not a black/white duality.

The question seeks to explore the nature of the spectrum, by inciting comment.

It still begs the question though-- it implies that everyone criticizes.

[BFEL]

I think Mainiac is opposed to everyone being sorted into a "criticizes America" or "praises America" camp because it seems disrespectful of people who both praise and criticize the country.

It also lets the people spying on us know which dissidents to start disappearing first...

[Culise]

RPgeek's question doesn't really boil down to wrong/right. You can be someone who generally criticizes America and say something you're proud of it for without contradicting the criticisms you've made.

I think Mainiac is opposed to everyone being sorted into a "criticizes America" or "praises America" camp because it seems disrespectful of people who both praise and criticize the country.

Ah, I read it as the opposite; that he was asserting that asking people who criticize it to praise it was "making them feel ignored and disrespected," because the latter is the opposite of their statements to the former's effect.  By extrapolation, it would follow that not only does he believe people should be sorted into "criticize" or "praise" camps, but they should belong exclusively to these camps; in other words, that one must entirely loathe or entirely worship America.  This, however, seemed odd enough, especially given his general statements in the past, that I'm not inclined to suggest it is accurate.

That said, I believe I would not be entirely averse to the idea of an individual, should the meaning of their posts not be readily apparent, instead acting to clarify their post in direct prose, as opposed to the converse of simply posting a smilie.