To Miranda sans Delgado's one line Block

[Eddier1]

Eddier do I sense some paranoia?

Perhaps, you do, but the fact is that I am persecuted first as a
commie, who has been one for well over half a century. Do I have
a persecution complex about that?, NO!, because my scientific
socialism sustains me and prevents me from being paranoid.
Secondly, it is only natural that I am burdened with persecution
since I am a Puertorriqueno and sense the colonialized status
we Puertorriquenos have had for over 5 centuries.

First of all this is the web, where everyone deals in a face less challenging manner. If you haven't learned it by now it's about time you got your act together. If I made you angry, GOOD! Why?

I said always, (and others like Suki, et al, can attest to it) that on
the "internay", we are what we write! So prose and presentation
involving imagery is the matrix of our identity. I have no problems
with those parameters. If I want face to face stuff and nonsense,
I can go to a coffee house or some odd fellows scene like Starbucks.
Your act is to instigate, I have no act, only reality!

Because through anger one sometimes sharpens thoughts, realigns , and comes back sharper. However you just lowered yoursef to El Jibaro's level with your last post, not a good sign.

I unmasked you for what you are, and had to, as it was implied in
everything I have posted to you lately. It is a show-down that was
long in the making, and now that I am sure, I ascended by telling
the truth about you, and not lowering myself to being any hypocrite
like that Maitreya Liar and Slanderer is. You are simplicistic as an
instigator, and show that you can't even get along with other
conservatives. The seventh seal or sign is what the Maitreya is about,
and that is the bad sign you experience. No one has to take your or
his GUFF!

I've always rejected labels or to be put into intellectual boxes. Maybe that's why you make these strange generalizations about me. I don't seem to fit in one of your boxes.

Don't flatter yourself, you are obviously into cynicism and sadistic abuse
of boricuas, big time. You will fit in the intellectual box of a cynic, and
it will accept the last nail driven into that box whether you like it or
not.

So what do you do, label me conservative, which I think is your way of insulting. Once again you're too simplistic.

"Insulting", you have the nerve to say I insult you by telling you the
truth about what you are really? Oh yeah, 'the truth hurts' is the
classic adage and not simplistic at all.

About Lind, he is NOT my ultimate guru. Yes, I agree with many of his ideas. Although he's not a Noam Chomsky, he nevertheless has some interesting insights on how the United States is ruled. It's interesting that conservatives and Liberals don't like him.

You are being confusing in your writing. Who is the one that the
conservatives and liberals don't like; is it Lind or is it the anarchist
Chomsky? And Lind is not a Chomsky seems to imply that you think
more of the latter than the former; is Chomsky then your ultimate
guru? If he is, then you are definitely on the road to being a neo-con
who is an anarcho-fascist.

If you haven't read his book, then don't quote from secondary sources, go to the real thing and then make up your own ideas. No, Lind is not within the theoretical writings of Marx, he deals with the U.S. as a lay man with some common sense.

Now you are rambling, and again writing confusingly. If you mean Lind,
of course, I read his book quite a while ago. I am not using any
secondary sources to quote him. BTW, you haven't done any
exegesis of his book, quoting him and substantiating your views
about his "importance". He ain't a lay man, you contradict yourself
since you said that he is by profession a 'conservative historian'.

And Eddier continued saying:

"You accept Independence, because in your views the Empire doesn't want statehood for Puerto Rico. So I see now that it is not a choice of your own ideology, but a bowing to the will and power of the Empire. It makes you a
'lacayo' by force. However, you are a conservative openly now so you can drop the sham of masking yourself as an Independent."

What I said above is good; you ought to be advised by it

Although you won't accept it, I've always believed in Independence. There was a time I thought it was a lost cause because the majority of us were against it, but then I began reading guys like Lind. What I learned was that it doesn't matter what the majority wants. Short of a massive revolution that will over throw the full system, it's the interests of the metropolis that dictate our lives. The most we can do is decipher what the Overclass wants at this stage of history and then apply it to the future of Puerto Rico.

Yep, what the majority in P.R. wants in a colonial situation doesn't matter.
And you make political decisions a matter of the Overclass in the
'gigante del norte'. Well that overclass doesn't know what it wants
since only less than 18% of the voting eligibles in the U.S. ever vote,
and that ain't the hollowed majority opinion of the overclass. You
allow yourself to be led by the nose based on erroneous assumption.

I truely believe that Statehood is NOT the ultimate option. Even a rabid Statehooder like POV has begun to get strange feelings about it, however there is always a ray of hope with American citizenship. Nevertheless I think this can also be over looked if the powers that be want to send it down the toilet.

POV is professional military of the U.S.. And soldiers obey; if statehood is
down the tubes, POV will obey and change his tune for sure. Let's be
optimistic he isn't any Nacionalista that is a self acclaimed assassin, a
sniper and morter expert who will destroy from ambush cover.

There was a time , in the late 70's , when statehood might have been an option, not for us, we don't decide anything, for the Navy! As the Cold war came to an end and 9-11 drove the U.S to affirm it's dormant nationalism, Puerto Ricans were sent in a downward spiral, specially those of the Statehood persuasion.

Being nostalgic about statehood, eh...how cute even though I am not
sure what you want to convey due to the syntax by you. If you
are trying to write off the impact of the civil disobedience in Vieques
which proved effective on Bush (like he said "Puerto Ricans are our
friends) you are wrong!

I find it folkloric everytime someone here comes up with a post asking, "what is the best status choice?" "I think it's statehood because we will become a Banana Republic if given Independence." Like if "the powers that be" care for our feelings.

Those feelings expressed are not "folkloric", they have moral implications
based on the horrible history of banana republics of Latin America. You
are being cynical in the worst way. You are excluding the classic cynicism
that had virtue or ethics as part of its philosophy. Hence, you are a crass
cynic 'sin moral' which is what modern cynics usually are.
Too bad for you that such is your point of view on these matters.

[L_F_Miranda]

Upps, I came upon this post FIVE DAYS TOO LATE! How could I have over looked one of Eddier's rants?

Anyhow, as I read the post I said to myself, why do I bother to respond? I have other more important things to do. But thinking about it again, I said to myself, If Eddier always gives me a response, the least I can do is make him feel good. So here it is, I'm giving Eddier a second of my time.

[Eddier1]

L.F., I answered you point for point that you made in your post.
So how can you classify it as a rant? First, I wrote and did not
talk to you. And, therefore, I was analytical in what I posted.
And most of all, I did not talk or scold you violently. I tried
my best to reason with you and have a disquisition that was
civil about topics that are volitile, and that isn't a piece of
cake, or easily done.