KrackedKris said:
Perhaps you can tell me a little what you mean by this statement? I don't get it - is it a joke?
- Thread starter NALs
- Start date
Dominican Republic: A Failed State?
Perhaps you can tell me a little what you mean by this statement? I don't get it - is it a joke?
KrackedKris said:All in how you interpret it
Well, it is too obtuse for me to interpret - so, I'll ignore it.... btw, South Afrikan is not spelt the same as Amerikan
(hint, hint) Perhaps you could reread Texas Bill's post - Even this dumb South AfriKan could interpret that one... It took a while, but I got it.... Thanks TB!(Nothing serious here folks, just giving as good as I get)
Well I jus dun no, mebe a Dominikan thig
My speling is vely bad, butt I thought any good Afrikaner would recognize that spelling, maybe a Dominican would not?
I still don't get TB's reference, only thought I had was somebody trying to claim the US purposefully started both Wars ,SA and WW II, but any one that served in WW II as TB did would hardly call PH a staged event.
Chris said:Well, it is too obtuse for me to interpret - so, I'll ignore it.... btw, South Afrikan is not spelt the same as Amerikan
(Nothing serious here folks, just giving as good as I get)
My speling is vely bad, butt I thought any good Afrikaner would recognize that spelling, maybe a Dominican would not?
I still don't get TB's reference, only thought I had was somebody trying to claim the US purposefully started both Wars ,SA and WW II, but any one that served in WW II as TB did would hardly call PH a staged event.
Chris said:Well, it is too obtuse for me to interpret - so, I'll ignore it.... btw, South Afrikan is not spelt the same as Amerikan
(Nothing serious here folks, just giving as good as I get)
Try this number for explanation +27(0)836283186.
KrackedKris said:
As jy die woord spel in Afrikaans, dan moet jy die res van die sin ook in Afrikaans skryf. Anders is jy net maar 'n rooinek.
TB's reference? those are some famous instances where the US got their *** kicked....
bienamor said:
I thought of that, also, but since it wasn't appropriate, I omitted that reference.
Actually, I was trying to be "obtuse" and facetious, but maybe I missed doing so.
Texas Bill
Correct!!Chris said:
But, then, in the aftermath, perservered and conquered.
The present conflicts, notwithstanding. Eventually, they'll get their act together, I hope.
However, Vietnam comes to mind where we finally saw that the effort was futile and took the only course open. An honorable retreat.
That course left a lot of "card punchers" with a very bloody nose and caused the military establishment to reevaluate their methods of combat. There was a period of introspection that followed and many corrections in military combat philosophy and discipline.
I'm not sure they (the military thinkers) have it right yet, but it is evident that they are working on the problems inherent in insurgency operations.
This is off topic, so I'll shut up.
Texas Bil
Nal0whs... I often enjoy you posts but I just wanted to comment on some
things in your essay, I could have done more but.. nah.
Some of your ideas, esp. in the first part were good, but in the last bit you
look a bit like me.. Somebody who's perpetually fighting deadlines and word
counts. It is also way too "emotional", and not what I consider "academic"
writing.. if that's the objective.
Minor stuff though, as I'm a modest servant and uninformed reader..:
It would have been useful with a definition of the concept "failed state".
The bit that made me cringe is where you refer to the "laws of nature" and
use those to strengthen your argument. Firstly, if I'm to be really difficult
I wouldn't be sure whether the laws of nature are always true, and I would
have you define "truth".. It's a tricky concept for me. Secondly, you're
not doing natural sciences, but a piece of social science, and the social
sciences are radically different. In physics, what goes up must come down,
but in the social science it MIGHT come down, but then again might not.
Haven't you done your Whatshisname Dilthey Or So? In short, even if
laws of nature are ALWAYS true, you can't use those in your argument as
your subject matter is people. Lawlike regularities beyond "Man. U. are
useless", "The Sun will rot in hell" and others are few and far between
really. Anyways, this isn't Basicphilosophyofscience1011.com so I'll leave
it, but be a bit careful with these things.
Being a most humble and modest uninformed reader, your essay wasn't bad
but I thought CC post was more helpful for me.
Finally, you write romances, I write satire, others write comedies or
tragedies even when we claim to be "objective". We tend to have our plots
and storylines, just like in other literature.. It's just how it is.
As for the DR and "failed state" status, I wouldn't know much. I don't
believe in progress ( a liberal, but slipping.. ), but I don't think it'll be
anywhere near the most unfortunate countries either.
Good luck to you and best wishes etc.
things in your essay, I could have done more but.. nah.
Some of your ideas, esp. in the first part were good, but in the last bit you
look a bit like me.. Somebody who's perpetually fighting deadlines and word
counts.
It is also way too "emotional", and not what I consider "academic"writing.. if that's the objective.
Minor stuff though, as I'm a modest servant and uninformed reader..:
It would have been useful with a definition of the concept "failed state".
The bit that made me cringe is where you refer to the "laws of nature" and
use those to strengthen your argument. Firstly, if I'm to be really difficult
I wouldn't be sure whether the laws of nature are always true, and I would
have you define "truth".. It's a tricky concept for me.
Secondly, you're not doing natural sciences, but a piece of social science, and the social
sciences are radically different. In physics, what goes up must come down,
but in the social science it MIGHT come down, but then again might not.
Haven't you done your Whatshisname Dilthey Or So?
In short, even if laws of nature are ALWAYS true, you can't use those in your argument as
your subject matter is people. Lawlike regularities beyond "Man. U. are
useless", "The Sun will rot in hell" and others are few and far between
really. Anyways, this isn't Basicphilosophyofscience1011.com so I'll leave
it, but be a bit careful with these things.
Being a most humble and modest uninformed reader, your essay wasn't bad
but I thought CC post was more helpful for me.
Finally, you write romances, I write satire, others write comedies or
tragedies even when we claim to be "objective". We tend to have our plots
and storylines, just like in other literature.. It's just how it is.
As for the DR and "failed state" status, I wouldn't know much. I don't
believe in progress ( a liberal, but slipping.. ), but I don't think it'll be
anywhere near the most unfortunate countries either.
Good luck to you and best wishes etc.
Pib said:
I had NO intentions of referring to the Alamo. That was someone else's interjection. Gess it's because of my handle, it was assumed to be the reference I intended. Truthfully, I was just trying to be obtuse.
And out lights just went out again, so I'll say Goodnight.
Texas Bill
Thank you Ave for being so helpful and not insulting. I really appreciate that alot and I'll try to follow your advice the next time, though don't complaint about my essays being too long then.
Anyways, I feel that I must disect my essay and let people know exactly what my intentions were when I incorporated other material that really had nothing to do with the DR. I shared this info with some posters already, but I feel I must express it to everyone.
Hopefully, everyone is capable of understanding what I am about to let you know. My reasons for mentioning that stuff about 9/11 and the "dotcom" bubble burst was simply to set the reader into the "economic failure" mood. An unbiased reader that simply reads the essay and then analyse it and then comes to his/her conclusions, would have enjoyed my essay inmmensly. Of course, those that are clinged to the idea that I blame the US or foreign influences for the DR problems posts their false and skewed ideas (maybe even racist?) on the main thread. They can't read anything I post without looking for something they can cling as anti-American rheteric.
My styles of writings includes engaging the reader into the mood of what's to come. I was not blamming the US for anything that happened in the DR, simply setting the mood, hence halfway through the paper I wrote "The DR was stabbed from abroad, but blead from within". What does that mean? Simply, that before the crisis the DR economy was beginning to shake a bit, like all economies around the world were. But the final blow came from within the DR, not abroad.
Also, the nature laws which always prove to be true, even in politicalsciences! How? Well, as previously stated by Ave, in nature what goes up will come down, but in political science what goes up does come down, eventually. It might not come down tomorrow, but it does come down. Nothing in this universe last forever and that is a factual reality. Thus, incorporating and emulating nature's way of doing thing (afterall, nature has made the most perfect living creatures, each being able to sustain extreme amounts of stress, etc - take human body as example, its tougher than most people think it is) so that we can enhance our lives in our capitalistic world and not have the pain of failures, when they could have easily been avoided. Now, why did I mention my belief in the eventual failure of globalization? It was simply to set the mind of the reader into that notion that this paper is going to be of criticism towards those who conclude of doom for the DR in a premature manner. Of course, you don't figure that out until later, but in your subcounscious mind you are suppose to get that feeling of me being critical of things and criticizing things.
Like I said in the beginning before the essay, read it in a neutral state and analyse the information after reading it. Then, come to your own conclusions based on the information and solely on the information you have grasped from my essay. Don't incorporate what you already believe and/or know, because what I want to know is exactly what you think of my essay, not how you can wrap your ideology around my essay's ideology. Hopefully, most people will get what I am saying here, and if you haven't got it yet, just read read at least this paragraph once more and in an unbiased way, judge it for what it is. In fact, that is all I wanted people to do, to judge my essay in an unbiased way based solely and only on the information set forth on the essay, ignoring everything else you know.
Also, the motor behind my optimism is hisotry. History has shown that every time the DR collapses it comes back stronger, better, and with a vengence, dwarfing any progress that was made in the previous moments of prosperity. Have a nice day!
Anyways, I feel that I must disect my essay and let people know exactly what my intentions were when I incorporated other material that really had nothing to do with the DR. I shared this info with some posters already, but I feel I must express it to everyone.
Hopefully, everyone is capable of understanding what I am about to let you know. My reasons for mentioning that stuff about 9/11 and the "dotcom" bubble burst was simply to set the reader into the "economic failure" mood. An unbiased reader that simply reads the essay and then analyse it and then comes to his/her conclusions, would have enjoyed my essay inmmensly. Of course, those that are clinged to the idea that I blame the US or foreign influences for the DR problems posts their false and skewed ideas (maybe even racist?) on the main thread. They can't read anything I post without looking for something they can cling as anti-American rheteric.
My styles of writings includes engaging the reader into the mood of what's to come. I was not blamming the US for anything that happened in the DR, simply setting the mood, hence halfway through the paper I wrote "The DR was stabbed from abroad, but blead from within". What does that mean? Simply, that before the crisis the DR economy was beginning to shake a bit, like all economies around the world were. But the final blow came from within the DR, not abroad.
Also, the nature laws which always prove to be true, even in politicalsciences! How? Well, as previously stated by Ave, in nature what goes up will come down, but in political science what goes up does come down, eventually. It might not come down tomorrow, but it does come down. Nothing in this universe last forever and that is a factual reality. Thus, incorporating and emulating nature's way of doing thing (afterall, nature has made the most perfect living creatures, each being able to sustain extreme amounts of stress, etc - take human body as example, its tougher than most people think it is) so that we can enhance our lives in our capitalistic world and not have the pain of failures, when they could have easily been avoided. Now, why did I mention my belief in the eventual failure of globalization? It was simply to set the mind of the reader into that notion that this paper is going to be of criticism towards those who conclude of doom for the DR in a premature manner. Of course, you don't figure that out until later, but in your subcounscious mind you are suppose to get that feeling of me being critical of things and criticizing things.
Like I said in the beginning before the essay, read it in a neutral state and analyse the information after reading it. Then, come to your own conclusions based on the information and solely on the information you have grasped from my essay. Don't incorporate what you already believe and/or know, because what I want to know is exactly what you think of my essay, not how you can wrap your ideology around my essay's ideology. Hopefully, most people will get what I am saying here, and if you haven't got it yet, just read read at least this paragraph once more and in an unbiased way, judge it for what it is. In fact, that is all I wanted people to do, to judge my essay in an unbiased way based solely and only on the information set forth on the essay, ignoring everything else you know.
Also, the motor behind my optimism is hisotry. History has shown that every time the DR collapses it comes back stronger, better, and with a vengence, dwarfing any progress that was made in the previous moments of prosperity. Have a nice day!
Hi Nal0whs
You seem like a nice, sincere guy so the first time you did this back in post #16 I didn't say anything.
This time, though, I gotta say something.
It seems that you want to ignore the criticisms you get and blame the readers for not reading your essay correctly. Anything that has to be explained three times must not have been explained clearly the first time.
I do admire you doing it, were I to try something like this in Spanish the result would be beyond comical... well into excruiating.
While, its true that this is not US1.com, it is this very thread that claimed no American says something bad about the US.
This is almost too easy, but WTF...
1. Assume that all politicians in all countries are corrupt -- yes, including the US. As someone posted before, unless the citizens of the DR rise up and demand change, nothing will change. The people will barely make enough to survive, the gov't will find ways to pocket or "redirect" financial aid that comes in and constant blackouts and rotting streets will make industries re-think any plans to move to the DR.
2. Cuba gets serious about capitalism. All that is needed is for one other island to get serious about being "business-friendly". Your free trade zones will become much like our Western ghost towns. I am in the IT field here in the US and between the Free Trade agreement and the off-shore migration, life is a major bitch. How will your people survive when the companies that employ the most workers find greener fields?
3. The continued exodus of your educated. If it is true that most of your college grads are forced to leave the DR to find a good job who's left to apply the brain power and determination you need to resolve your problems?
I am not being negative... and (Nal0whs) I am not a failure in life. In fact, I have every hope you guys can pull out and make the DR as great as you want it to be -- and I haven't even stepped onto your soil yet. (8 days and counting!)
Anyway, I hope that Nal0whs does not really blame the readers for getting his words wrong, I hope that he finds the nuggets he needs here to make the essay a salable product to many magazines. I also hope he gets well-paid for the finished product, when he finishes it.
You seem like a nice, sincere guy so the first time you did this back in post #16 I didn't say anything.
This time, though, I gotta say something.
It seems that you want to ignore the criticisms you get and blame the readers for not reading your essay correctly. Anything that has to be explained three times must not have been explained clearly the first time.
I do admire you doing it, were I to try something like this in Spanish the result would be beyond comical... well into excruiating.
While, its true that this is not US1.com, it is this very thread that claimed no American says something bad about the US.
This is almost too easy, but WTF...
1. Assume that all politicians in all countries are corrupt -- yes, including the US. As someone posted before, unless the citizens of the DR rise up and demand change, nothing will change. The people will barely make enough to survive, the gov't will find ways to pocket or "redirect" financial aid that comes in and constant blackouts and rotting streets will make industries re-think any plans to move to the DR.
2. Cuba gets serious about capitalism. All that is needed is for one other island to get serious about being "business-friendly". Your free trade zones will become much like our Western ghost towns. I am in the IT field here in the US and between the Free Trade agreement and the off-shore migration, life is a major bitch. How will your people survive when the companies that employ the most workers find greener fields?
3. The continued exodus of your educated. If it is true that most of your college grads are forced to leave the DR to find a good job who's left to apply the brain power and determination you need to resolve your problems?
I am not being negative... and (Nal0whs) I am not a failure in life. In fact, I have every hope you guys can pull out and make the DR as great as you want it to be -- and I haven't even stepped onto your soil yet. (8 days and counting!)
Anyway, I hope that Nal0whs does not really blame the readers for getting his words wrong, I hope that he finds the nuggets he needs here to make the essay a salable product to many magazines. I also hope he gets well-paid for the finished product, when he finishes it.
bienamor said:
Solve the hundred year old mystery please, how did the sinking of Maine cause US to get "*** kicked?"
KrackedKris said:
Go to US1.com to discuss this issue... Pib has given us a warning! you may not recognize it...
Nal0whs, I also have to say the same thing that other posters are saying. If we give you feedback, you want to explain that we've read incorrectly. The reading comprehension from the bunch of people on this thread I would suggest is quite high. So, my final word of input, you have to rewrite portions of your essay to make it convincing.
Chris said:
I "recognize" the post quite nicely, thanks for your attempt at sarcasm and running at the same time, quite typical of some
I didn't post anything about the US, but replied to posts that were in their own way were trying to comment on the "essay" of "Why the DR is/isn't a doomed Republic"
Quite on topic until a few of you thought attacking US was more in line.
Actually I think the SA1 forum is much more interesting, especially when you throw out a few names
As Johnny Abbes would say:
Rockkon,
The DR has experienced corrupt officials & an exodus of many of its intellectuals for the past 100 years. That hasn't prevented recovery from previous economic crises. I accept your point about Cuba, though.
The DR has experienced corrupt officials & an exodus of many of its intellectuals for the past 100 years. That hasn't prevented recovery from previous economic crises. I accept your point about Cuba, though.
Lambada said:
That is true, however the country would be much better off if it would retain its brain power within its borders. Right now, Cuba is in the perfect position to become an economic tiger, it has much of its brain power and it is ready, just waiting for Castro to die basically. However, once Cuba is "opened", it would be a brain drain that will soon follow, guaranteed. It has happened in every country in the world that has been opened up, give or take a few.