Harding_Blvd_Hustla wrote: Thunderstruck wrote: If you were trying to impress me with that, saying you know more about Gorbachev than me is a BOLD statement. Say, since you know so much about Gorbachev, he gave a small summit speech in 1990 after he won the Nobel Peace Prize. He mentioned something concerning Locke and Hobbes.
What was it, oh-so-smart one?
If I knew it all, I would post in every topic :-). But I don't, and I confine myself to topics that I know and can articulate very easily. That way, it creates an illusion of superiority that is
never really there. Some notice it subtly, some don't at all. Scholars aren't any smarter than your average farmer. What the scholar knows in philosophy the farmer knows in agriculture. If I spout off a name or an event, challenging my knowledge on such isn't the smartest idea, probably because I know said topic in and out. Do I make outrageous claims to know something better than someone and give a half-assed reason as to why? No.
Look at any posts on African-American history. I'm not very fond of it, and I'm not very well versed in it, so I'm not very visible around there. I know keynote people, actions and events. But I am anything BUT familiar with anything pre-1860.
Regarding Gorbachev: He alluded to the ever changing circle of government. The momemtum shift from libertarian to authoritarian. It's all relevant to one another, and there are no countries not bound by it. We as the U.S. move closer to an authoritarian country, as it will become one sooner or later by way of military seizure. Then, revolution for the former.
It happens in every country, and it will continue to happen. You can't take the best of both worlds, it is impossible to do so and maintian it.
http://www.biography.com/blackhistory/
