Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 73
  1. #21
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,927

    Re: US Soldiers (Afghanistan) How good are they?

    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Nope, I have no idea what I'm saying either.
    Well, thank Christ for that.

    On a more serious note, I suspect I disagree with you substantively. There's no need to "civilize" the bulk of the Muslim world. The problem is that the absolutist nature of their religious sects are horrifically damaging to civilization. If the reins of power in the Muslim world weren't in the hands of the Wahabi, who with every passing day I become more convinced are truly the malevolent, decadent buffoons they frequently appear to be (a 'must read') I don't think the American mouth-frothing you mention would even matter.

    Then again, we wouldn't have ever seen 9/11 come to pass - either of them - or 7/7.

    You make reference to Osama's "strong horse" - but do you <REALLY> think Christian - Western - civilization is weak? I don't. However, I firmly believe that we are chock-a-block full of navel-gazing seditious vermin, whose self-loathing is so strong and whose secret desire to be punished for their success overrides any recognition they have of the obvious superiority of their culture. Of course, "Left" is the easy term, so you dismiss my use of it. Before the cancer of this fully-funded program by the USSR, did we fret and whinge about needing to be on good terms with Muslims? Of course we didn't - instead, we tried to help them lift themselves up by their bootstraps. I know, in part because my own Grandfather was part of an agricultural mission to Afghanistan.

    As to the scourge of affluence, I doubt that's going to strike too many backs in the wider Arab world. From the citizens I have known of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt, they are either urbane, cultured, and wealthy - or they are illiterate, impoverished, and likely to remain that way because they are manipulated by their own governments. Wait, I <am> talking about the Arab world, aren't I?

    P.S. the zealotry bit isn't aligned with impoverished circumstances, if you had swallowed that particular Leftist cobbler. I can provide more than sufficient evidence to the contrary if you need; it is in fact the "radical" element among the urbane, wealthier classes that fill the ranks of the Jihadis.

    P.P.S. what makes you think we "beat" the USSR? America is collapsing in no small part thanks to their 5th column's well-funded efforts (the navel-gazing I mentioned).

  2. #22
    IncGamers Member LozHinge the Unhinged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Tech Support! TECH SUPPORT!!
    BattleTag FTITCTAJ
    Posts
    6,988

    Re: US Soldiers (Afghanistan) How good are they?

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    Well, thank Christ for that.
    I'm going to thank Jack Burton, he's wa-a-ay cooler.

    On a more serious note, I suspect I disagree with you substantively.
    I was criticised on a forum once for using the word substantive. I feel vindicated now and you may bask in my glow of well-being.

    There's no need to "civilize" the bulk of the Muslim world. The problem is that the absolutist nature of their religious sects are horrifically damaging to civilization.
    Cut off the head and the problem is solved? I hope so, genuinely I do.

    If the reins of power in the Muslim world weren't in the hands of the Wahabi, who with every passing day I become more convinced are truly the malevolent, decadent buffoons they frequently appear to be (a 'must read') I don't think the American mouth-frothing you mention would even matter.
    I must read that

    Point of order: I don't exclude other Western powers from frothy-mouth syndrome. The French are just as prone ... Hell. Link? Where's my link? I'm at work, I should be working not linking.

    Then again, we wouldn't have ever seen 9/11 come to pass - either of them - or 7/7.
    If I google The Other 9/11, will I find something? Kudos for remembering 7/7 though

    You make reference to Osama's "strong horse"
    I do?


    - but do you <REALLY> think Christian - Western - civilization is weak?
    Weakening, yes. It's suffered from too much I have achieved what I've set out to achieve, on the micro and the macro level. History indicates that a civilisation (they are only called Empires retrospectively) falls when it loses its hunger for "stuff".

    I don't. However, I firmly believe that we are chock-a-block full of navel-gazing seditious vermin, whose self-loathing is so strong and whose secret desire to be punished for their success overrides any recognition they have of the obvious superiority of their culture.
    "Our nation is strong, except that it is chock-a-block full of weakness." You see a problem there?

    Of course, "Left" is the easy term, so you dismiss my use of it.
    I dismiss your apparent use of amphetamines and hallucinogens.

    Before the cancer of this fully-funded program by the USSR, did we fret and whinge about needing to be on good terms with Muslims? Of course we didn't - instead, we tried to help them lift themselves up by their bootstraps.
    Installing friendly dictators, and such. Hey, I'm not knocking it, what's good for The West is good for The West.

    I know, in part because my own Grandfather was part of an agricultural mission to Afghanistan.
    Being part of one of the good things The West does for its less fortunate neighbours is not an automatic denial of the existence of the less honourable things The West has done.

    As to the scourge of affluence, I doubt that's going to strike too many backs in the wider Arab world.
    I bet they said that of serfdom in Henry IV's time, too. Well, no, they probably didn't but you see the point.

    From the citizens I have known of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt, they are either urbane, cultured, and wealthy - or they are illiterate, impoverished, and likely to remain that way because they are manipulated by their own governments. Wait, I <am> talking about the Arab world, aren't I?
    Heh. Score one for you, Tully.

    P.S. the zealotry bit isn't aligned with impoverished circumstances, if you had swallowed that particular Leftist cobbler. I can provide more than sufficient evidence to the contrary if you need; it is in fact the "radical" element among the urbane, wealthier classes that fill the ranks of the Jihadis.
    "Leftist cobbler"? You do know what the term "The Left" means, right? It isn't a collective noun for absolutely everything I disagree with, right?
    The "radical element" of any people's struggle against poverty (and tyranny) has always, in modern times anyway, had its champions from the upper echelons of society's ranks. Intelligentsia is one term for it, but it's not exclusively a left-wing phenomenon.

    P.P.S. what makes you think we "beat" the USSR? America is collapsing in no small part thanks to their 5th column's well-funded efforts (the navel-gazing I mentioned).
    See above regarding my discussion of decadence. You're looking for external enemies when a civilisation's worst enemy is its own imperfect citizens.

  3. #23
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,927

    Re: US Soldiers (Afghanistan) How good are they?

    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    I'm going to thank Jack Burton, he's wa-a-ay cooler.
    Not a chance in Hell. Plus, MacReady was substantively cooler than Burton; the hat alone puts him layers above mere mortals.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    I was criticised on a forum once for using the word substantive. I feel vindicated now and you may bask in my glow of well-being.
    Never let others make you embarrassed for your literacy. Your spelling of "criticized", OTOH...
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Cut off the head and the problem is solved? I hope so, genuinely I do.
    Well, it's much worse than just a 'head' of course. A significant portion of their clergy/leadership buys into the whole deal in order to continue their power & exploit their fellows. Not much different than Socialism really: "The stupid, led by the evil".
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    I must read that
    A word to the wise - do so before eating.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Point of order: I don't exclude other Western powers from frothy-mouth syndrome. The French are just as prone ...
    Yes, but the French don't tie themselves in knots and accuse each other of vile motives - they simply accuse others of such. When the French unilaterally invade a <FAR WEAKER> nation and kick its arse up between its ears, mostly it's just quiet back-slapping and claims about necessity - where when the U.S. invades a country that had the world's fourth-largest military, on its own turf, at a distinct military disadvantage (the simplistic 3:1 attacker's ratio), there's screams and back-stabby glee from the French quarter.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    If I google The Other 9/11, will I find something? Kudos for remembering 7/7 though
    You'd call it Benghazi. Also, some of us actually care about the conflict.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    I do?
    Of course - you just didn't recognize you were saying the same thing he did. You expound on the same thing below.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Weakening, yes. It's suffered from too much I have achieved what I've set out to achieve, on the micro and the macro level. History indicates that a civilisation (they are only called Empires retrospectively) falls when it loses its hunger for "stuff".
    In Europe, I'd agree that's undeniable. In the U.S., it need not be that way, and I don't believe the populace is as far gone as yours is. However, I didn't think we'd elect the SCoaMF for a second term, and the political class remains the same as it has been, so it's entirely possible I'm mistaken.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    "Our nation is strong, except that it is chock-a-block full of weakness." You see a problem there?
    Not at all. A nation can have any number of "weakness pockets" yet still be strong - it is when these pockets are allowed to metastasize that the cancer can spread and bring the host down.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    I dismiss your apparent use of amphetamines and hallucinogens.
    One man's hallucination...
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Installing friendly dictators, and such. Hey, I'm not knocking it, what's good for The West is good for The West.
    Correct. We helped ourselves by helping others; the very definition of compassionate conservative belief. Far be it from me to pretend we were ALWAYS beneficial; there's plenty of examples where we ACTUALLY exploited others or took the money and ran. However, just taking some USAID planning books I recall as an example, we poured billions of dollars into impoverished countries - it was often their OWN governments or elites stealing from their countrymen, not our supposed "colonial" behavior. The Arab world is well-known for such behavior, which is why it pissed me off so to have that cretin Llad12 blathering on here about American Hegemony (without ever setting foot outside Oklahoma).
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Being part of one of the good things The West does for its less fortunate neighbours is not an automatic denial of the existence of the less honourable things The West has done.
    Not saying that. Saying that the Western establishment, generally on the Left side of the spectrum for over 40 years (due to USSR funding), hoists the less honorable things to the top of the flagpole and parades them about the nations, while discounting and spitting upon the true benevolence. One need only look at the way the Left doesn't really give a shyte about the "human rights" issues it was beating the "right" side of the establishment with for the past 40 to recognize the truly treasonous mentality that was deliberately planted.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    I bet they said that of serfdom in Henry IV's time, too. Well, no, they probably didn't but you see the point.
    I could quote Jesus Christ, but you hopefully already know what he said. That's also why I became such an unabashed conservative capitalist (during a long road trip in Iraq with another officer, ala Fear & Loathing) - I recognized that American capitalism truly <is> the 'tide that lifts all boats' while all the socialist variants are actually just get-rich-quick schemes by "Levellers" types, who feel that the tearing down others is the best way to achieve equality.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    "Leftist cobbler"? You do know what the term "The Left" means, right? It isn't a collective noun for absolutely everything I disagree with, right?
    Have I ever used it incorrectly? I tend to shy away from saying "Progressive" because the "Progressives" of the 'right' don't qualify, and I hate the misnomer "Liberal" more than I hate the misnomer "Neocon". In this case, the storyline was that America wasn't ripping its testicles off and handing them out in the Arab street hard enough, and therefore we caused the various attacks on ourselves. A significant number of people, including many respected by the American mainstream establishment, parroted this false claim.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    The "radical element" of any people's struggle against poverty (and tyranny) has always, in modern times anyway, had its champions from the upper echelons of society's ranks. Intelligentsia is one term for it, but it's not exclusively a left-wing phenomenon.
    I'd accept this as plausible, though I'd tend to want wider proof before really believing it as a principle. The Left generally is the side that revels in destruction and revolution, as well as anarchy employed in a unilateral fashion (strange, that), while the 'right' tends to want to preserve the status quo and stamp out rebellion. Just as the American Founders were subversives from the Crown's point of view, the Jihadis are subversives in the eyes of the House of Saud. The fact that both parties want to usurp rule from a far more domineering power that may or may not be of the 'right' doesn't necessarily change the stance.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    See above regarding my discussion of decadence. You're looking for external enemies when a civilisation's worst enemy is its own imperfect citizens.
    America isn't decadent, thanks in part to our Republican system. That's why so many are dedicated to destroying it and making it an oligarchy instead; the decadent are easier to manipulate & rule.

  4. #24

    Re: US Soldiers (Afghanistan) How good are they?

    Quote Originally Posted by Urzuxo View Post
    Every time I hear about a fire fight it's something like this "20 talibans were killed and 1 american was injured".
    "3 taliban insurgents were killed, as well as 10 Afghani bystanders, 6 Afghani children, and the one US citizen that was the actual target of the strike. The CIA drone operator sprained his finger on the space bar, and US officials say they will be bringing in an understudy to ensure that the bombings of the just-arrived ambulance and eventual funeral procession will proceed as planned."

  5. #25
    IncGamers Member LozHinge the Unhinged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Tech Support! TECH SUPPORT!!
    BattleTag FTITCTAJ
    Posts
    6,988

    Re: US Soldiers (Afghanistan) How good are they?

    You forgot about the puppies. No airstrike is successful without puppy casualties.

  6. #26
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,927

    Re: US Soldiers (Afghanistan) How good are they?

    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    You forgot about the puppies. No airstrike is successful without puppy casualties.
    Thanks to Saro for demonstrating the self-flagellation I mentioned previously. No, the other sort.

    It's undeniable that we are causing civilian casualties, but there are two faults with the B.S. he claims (and the larger claims made by the seditious Left). First, the claims are deliberately inflated for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that the U.S. participates in the "blood money" convention. "Why yes, we had three girls killed in your airstrike. They were the apple of our eyes, as we deeply cherish all females. What? NO, you can't see the bodies! That would be against Islam and besides their ghosts would haunt us if we disclosed where their four corpses were interred (before sunset)." That's where the Lancet claims came from, alongside openly biased census-takers.

    Second, the line between insurgent and bystander is easily crossed, simply by removal of the armaments, and again elimination of evidence burial of the victims must be prior to sundown on the day of their death. Commonplace in "Palestine", it's also seen in Afghanistan where the ISI works hand-in-glove with the Talibs; it's not like anyone is going to check. Most ironic of all is that U.S. funding of Pakistan is going directly to the Talibs via the ISI through the channels <America> set up to stop the USSR, and at the same time we're keeping the Pakistanis afloat and supposedly allied against the Talibs.

  7. #27
    IncGamers Member LozHinge the Unhinged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Tech Support! TECH SUPPORT!!
    BattleTag FTITCTAJ
    Posts
    6,988

    Re: US Soldiers (Afghanistan) How good are they?

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    Not a chance in Hell. Plus, MacReady was substantively cooler than Burton; the hat alone puts him layers above mere mortals.
    The hat did indeed kick sit-upon but let us not forget that Burton shook the Pillars of Heaven whereas Mac "It's Gone" Macready is, well, a popsicle.

    Never let others make you embarrassed for your literacy.
    *blush*

    Your spelling of "criticized", OTOH...
    Yeah, I know. Amazing what a few decades in a country will do to you.

    Well, it's much worse than just a 'head' of course. A significant portion of their clergy/leadership buys into the whole deal in order to continue their power & exploit their fellows. Not much different than Socialism really: "The stupid, led by the evil".
    Not a lot different from the kind of control the Western churches once held. "The ignorant, led by the greedy."

    A word to the wise - do so before eating.
    I've already eaten. I intend to safeguard the chicken I had. Priorities, dear boy.

    Yes, but the French don't tie themselves in knots and accuse each other of vile motives - they simply accuse others of such. When the French unilaterally invade a <FAR WEAKER> nation and kick its arse up between its ears, mostly it's just quiet back-slapping and claims about necessity - where when the U.S. invades a country that had the world's fourth-largest military, on its own turf, at a distinct military disadvantage (the simplistic 3:1 attacker's ratio), there's screams and back-stabby glee from the French quarter.
    Weird, I don't feel an instant antipathy to what you've said here. I hope it's nothing serious ...

    [...]

    Of course - you just didn't recognize you were saying the same thing he did. You expound on the same thing below.
    But ... but ... that would mean that Obama isn't wrong. WTF?

    In Europe, I'd agree that's undeniable. In the U.S., it need not be that way, and I don't believe the populace is as far gone as yours is. However, I didn't think we'd elect the SCoaMF for a second term, and the political class remains the same as it has been, so it's entirely possible I'm mistaken.
    I do hope you're right, though.

    Not at all. A nation can have any number of "weakness pockets" yet still be strong - it is when these pockets are allowed to metastasize that the cancer can spread and bring the host down.
    |Already started <<<< we are here >>>> Already there|

    Not to scale.

    [...]

    Correct. We helped ourselves by helping others; the very definition of compassionate conservative belief. Far be it from me to pretend we were ALWAYS beneficial; there's plenty of examples where we ACTUALLY exploited others or took the money and ran. However, just taking some USAID planning books I recall as an example, we poured billions of dollars into impoverished countries - it was often their OWN governments or elites stealing from their countrymen, not our supposed "colonial" behavior. The Arab world is well-known for such behavior, which is why it pissed me off so to have that cretin Llad12 blathering on here about American Hegemony (without ever setting foot outside Oklahoma).
    Llad12 was after my time. Or before it. Either. Which way is the Arrow of Time pointing today? Never mind, doesn't matter. There wasn't enough in your statement that I disagreed with.

    Not saying that. Saying that the Western establishment, generally on the Left side of the spectrum for over 40 years (due to USSR funding), hoists the less honorable things to the top of the flagpole and parades them about the nations, while discounting and spitting upon the true benevolence. One need only look at the way the Left doesn't really give a shyte about the "human rights" issues it was beating the "right" side of the establishment with for the past 40 to recognize the truly treasonous mentality that was deliberately planted.
    Ah, there it is, the cockeyed opinion for which I have almost no sympathy. I know where I am again.

    Western Society has, RIGHTLY or WRONGLY, leant to the left of the political spectrum over the past forty years because:

    • It remembers the greed of land barons, the mismanagement of the capitalist economy in the 1920's (and later), the widening gap between the richest and the poorest members of society
    • It feels that the concept of civilisation (society) is best expressed by a consensus of citizens, not just by individuals with enormous personal wealth and political connections
    • Any other socio-economic reason you could suggest.


    or
    • Because the former USSR has paid for it to go that way.


    *cough*


    I could quote Jesus Christ, but you hopefully already know what he said. That's also why I became such an unabashed conservative capitalist (during a long road trip in Iraq with another officer, ala Fear & Loathing) - I recognized that American capitalism truly <is> the 'tide that lifts all boats' while all the socialist variants are actually just get-rich-quick schemes by "Levellers" types, who feel that the tearing down others is the best way to achieve equality.
    Capitalism is undoubtedly the best single-shot solution to the question of how to move a civilisation on from a resource-rich, low-capacity industrial basis to where we are today. There are probably better ways of doing it, involving pragmatic methodologies rather than dogmatic ones, but that's highly hypothetical. Capitalism will get her done. And believe me, I used to be in love with the principle of Enlightened Self-Interest but the shine has been worn well and truly off that lapel-button. Too many greedy, stupid and short-sighted exponents of Capitalism (as practised in the real world) has tarnished its reputation for me.

    Have I ever used it incorrectly? I tend to shy away from saying "Progressive" because the "Progressives" of the 'right' don't qualify, and I hate the misnomer "Liberal" more than I hate the misnomer "Neocon". In this case, the storyline was that America wasn't ripping its testicles off and handing them out in the Arab street hard enough, and therefore we caused the various attacks on ourselves. A significant number of people, including many respected by the American mainstream establishment, parroted this false claim.
    That's a whole lot of conversation we won't be having. We've touched upon it before - what America has done and has not done to bring Terrorism down upon itself. There is no simple answer to that and I am concerned that you will run out of froth long before we exhaust that issue.

    I'd accept this as plausible, though I'd tend to want wider proof before really believing it as a principle. The Left generally is the side that revels in destruction and revolution, as well as anarchy employed in a unilateral fashion (strange, that), while the 'right' tends to want to preserve the status quo and stamp out rebellion. Just as the American Founders were subversives from the Crown's point of view, the Jihadis are subversives in the eyes of the House of Saud. The fact that both parties want to usurp rule from a far more domineering power that may or may not be of the 'right' doesn't necessarily change the stance.
    Tell me, was George III a lefty?

    Left-wingers are seen to revel in destruction and revolution generally because most left-wing takeovers have taken place in countries ruled and oppressed by right-wing regimes. There was no scope for a peaceful move to the Left. Your "revels" statement is akin to stating that most forest fires occur in areas where there are trees.

    America isn't decadent, thanks in part to our Republican system. That's why so many are dedicated to destroying it and making it an oligarchy instead; the decadent are easier to manipulate & rule.
    America isn't decadent (I hope) because that particular clock hasn't been ticking for as long as it has been elsewhere in the world. And the decadent are not easy to rule - they tend to be a temporary population who are likely to be replaced by folks who aren't going to be easy to rule.

  8. #28
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,927

    Re: US Soldiers (Afghanistan) How good are they?

    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    The hat did indeed kick sit-upon but let us not forget that Burton shook the Pillars of Heaven whereas Mac "It's Gone" Macready is, well, a popsicle.
    TBH, I thought Burton was cheesy in the extreme. Whereas Mac rocks eternal.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Not a lot different from the kind of control the Western churches once held. "The ignorant, led by the greedy."
    Apt comparison is apt. Particularly if anyone watched the State of the Union address last night. Which I wouldn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Weird, I don't feel an instant antipathy to what you've said here. I hope it's nothing serious ...
    Well, you're British. I expect if you supported Unification you'd need a lobotomy, STAT!
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    But ... but ... that would mean that Obama isn't wrong. WTF?
    Wait, Obama? Or Osama? NOW YOU'RE DOING IT!

    Personally I don't buy the "Strong Horse" claim; while culture (society) leads politics that doesn't mean that the stronger culture will automatically prevail. Otherwise cult followings would hold far wider sway.

    {Shoot my argument in foot}
    Spoiler

    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    I do hope you're right, though.
    In case I'm not, you better stockpile some water or buy a filter. The Thames may be cleaner now than I recall, but... ew.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Which way is the Arrow of Time pointing today? Never mind, doesn't matter. There wasn't enough in your statement that I disagreed with.
    So I shouldn't run about shouting "EXTERMINATE!!", right?
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Ah, there it is, the cockeyed opinion for which I have almost no sympathy. I know where I am again.
    Why is it you feel the issue is "either/or"? It is undeniable that the USSR extensively supported movements on the political Left which even an impartial observer might conclude were seditious. That doesn't mean the era of the so-called 'Robber Barons' didn't happen. It <DOES>, however, make clear that the supposedly critical issues confronted by the Left are not only more illusions than the giants Don Quixote was attacking, but that they're also several decades dead & buried. Callback to my disdain for claims of GOP racism by the very same party that ran the KKK and killed Lincoln.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Too many greedy, stupid and short-sighted exponents of Capitalism (as practised in the real world) has tarnished its reputation for me.
    That's right, you haven't seen one of my anti-Microsoft screed/rants. We're not that dissimilar, horror of horrors. Difference is that I believe that policing of markets can & should be minimal, as the opposite relies upon the work ethic and righteousness of people like thee and mee. Socialist bureaucracy not only worked so well in not only preventing the Housing Crisis, but it made absolutely sure it can't happen again as well as punishing the miscreants.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    There is no simple answer to that and I am concerned that you will run out of froth long before we exhaust that issue.
    There's actually a very simple answer to that. You can choose which one you prefer: "What did Lars Hedegaard ever do to them?", or "If taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean living at the pleasure of Rage Boy, and that I am not prepared to do."

    Claiming that "we" brought this upon "ourselves" is... what's that word you love? Oh yeah. Sophistry.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Tell me, was George III a lefty?
    Not a stupid question, as you doubtless would have intended it be. He was by definition a Statist - he <was> the State, AKA Crown. So he would align with Progressives against individual freedom, even though those seeking freedom might have included the bourgeois of the time.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Left-wingers are seen to revel in destruction and revolution generally because most left-wing takeovers have taken place in countries ruled and oppressed by right-wing regimes. There was no scope for a peaceful move to the Left. Your "revels" statement is akin to stating that most forest fires occur in areas where there are trees.
    Invalid, and you ought to know better. Numerous (a majority?) of said revolutions have taken place in weak democracies, rather than oppressive regimes. Marx explicitly made that connection. Communists don't seek redress, but rather domination and conquest - they simply use any handy excuse, and envy is always handy. Many might try to lay the insurrections in Latin America at the feet of the landed elites rather than the gov't, but those same elites are often among the new 'Politburo' once the dust settles. Seems like many times it's more personal than political.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    And the decadent are not easy to rule - they tend to be a temporary population who are likely to be replaced by folks who aren't going to be easy to rule.
    Again you disappoint me - of COURSE the decadent are easy to rule; they are indolent and are addicted to their amusements. Control of those amusements grants control of the body politic: bread & circuses! The "I am Spartacus" crowd may be a threat, but they certainly aren't going to motivate the corrupt to join them; they're generally regarded as on the opposition's side.

  9. #29
    IncGamers Member LozHinge the Unhinged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Tech Support! TECH SUPPORT!!
    BattleTag FTITCTAJ
    Posts
    6,988

    Re: US Soldiers (Afghanistan) How good are they?

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    TBH, I thought Burton was cheesy in the extreme. Whereas Mac rocks eternal.
    Ha, go either/or yourself, Merv! Mac rocks and Burton was the pinnacle of cheese, just as intended. Neither condition precludes Burton is Best.

    Apt comparison is apt. Particularly if anyone watched the State of the Union address last night. Which I wouldn't.
    Missed it, damn it, damn the Devil to Hell. And stuff.

    Well, you're British. I expect if you supported Unification you'd need a lobotomy, STAT!
    You're confused, I am British, which means I want a lobotomy but I have to wait for one, but I am also American, which means I want a lobotomy and fries, super-sized, RIGHT NOW!!!one!!eleventy-one!!!!!

    Wait, Obama? Or Osama? NOW YOU'RE DOING IT!
    I'll turn the thermostat down for you.

    *turns the thermostat up*

    Personally I don't buy the "Strong Horse" claim; while culture (society) leads politics that doesn't mean that the stronger culture will automatically prevail. Otherwise cult followings would hold far wider sway.
    Stronger in this context will need to do a quick head-count, size does matter. Or else we'd all be Lacedaemonians.

    {Shoot my argument in foot}
    Spoiler
    Broken link is broken. I shot it though, two centre mass and one in the goolies - it pays to be sure.

    In case I'm not, you better stockpile some water or buy a filter. The Thames may be cleaner now than I recall, but... ew.
    So I shouldn't run about shouting "EXTERMINATE!!", right?
    The Thames is so clean it has fish. In it, not just on it!

    Hmm, Dr Who ... half a dozen episodes over the years may have been tolerable, I can think of two that I actually liked but generally I find that series a horrible embarrassment.

    Why is it you feel the issue is "either/or"?
    See what i did back there at the top of the post!

    It is undeniable that the USSR extensively supported movements on the political Left which even an impartial observer might conclude were seditious. That doesn't mean the era of the so-called 'Robber Barons' didn't happen. It <DOES>, however, make clear that the supposedly critical issues confronted by the Left are not only more illusions than the giants Don Quixote was attacking, but that they're also several decades dead & buried. Callback to my disdain for claims of GOP racism by the very same party that ran the KKK and killed Lincoln.
    It's not an either/or, I just do not feel that the Soviets' efforts in this regard - whose existence I won't dispute - have made any real difference; that their activities obtained any traction. Clearly the USSR had a tremendous effect on the West, but I just don't feel that they bankrolled a huge Leftist conspiracy that you say exists now. The Soviets couldn't even keep themselves together, they certainly didn't create a conspiracy that survived it. Call me naive, if that helps.

    That's right, you haven't seen one of my anti-Microsoft screed/rants. We're not that dissimilar, horror of horrors. Difference is that I believe that policing of markets can & should be minimal, as the opposite relies upon the work ethic and righteousness of people like thee and mee. Socialist bureaucracy not only worked so well in not only preventing the Housing Crisis, but it made absolutely sure it can't happen again as well as punishing the miscreants.
    I feel quite queasy. We probably differ in this regard by degree instead of philosophically. ...

    Nah. You're wrong, but I can't tell you why
    That's better.

    I have been getting in touch with my own inner Rage Boy over the past few years over this kind of issue. I try, most days, to say to myself that this outrageous behaviour from over in the East is a symptom of the original failings of the West, the Wages of Sin if you like. It's getting harder to position myself as a moderate though, as a voice of reason even to myself.

    Claiming that "we" brought this upon "ourselves" is... what's that word you love? Oh yeah. Sophistry.


    No, that would not be sophistry. Sophistry is, for example, the decision taken to defend Kuwait from an aggressor. Trust me on that.

    The "brought it on ourselves" aspect stems from the Brits, and much later, the US, and their machinations in the Arab World *coughPalestinecough*. I won't do a blow-by-blow account, but some of those actions I feel were honorable in their way, and/or justified, but there's more that went on that was definitely neither. I cannot stress to you how important I feel it is to deal honorably with a people. It's rare for a whole nation to be degenerate, so dealing decently cannot be considered wasted effort.

    Not a stupid question, as you doubtless would have intended it be. He was by definition a Statist - he <was> the State, AKA Crown. So he would align with Progressives against individual freedom, even though those seeking freedom might have included the bourgeois of the time.
    Too slippery. Your definition of Leftist often seems chimeric and ephemeral. The people you are really railing against are people hold on to power and position at the expense of others - not the sole province of the Left, of course. And your hatred of the stranglehold that The State would hold over you is not too dissimilar to my disgust at the private citizens with the money and the power to make things happen that disadvantage me. The difference between us is I distrust both sets of would-be elites.

    Invalid, and you ought to know better. Numerous (a majority?) of said revolutions have taken place in weak democracies, rather than oppressive regimes. Marx explicitly made that connection. Communists don't seek redress, but rather domination and conquest - they simply use any handy excuse, and envy is always handy. Many might try to lay the insurrections in Latin America at the feet of the landed elites rather than the gov't, but those same elites are often among the new 'Politburo' once the dust settles. Seems like many times it's more personal than political.
    I'm not going to do the research to argue this issue. However, I will point out that the Lefties that are storming the Presidential Palace and shooting up the place are not people I would vote for, whereas the "Lefty" currently in the White House (who, your protestations notwithstanding, seems right-wing to the Brit inside me) would probably receive my vote.

    Again you disappoint me - of COURSE the decadent are easy to rule; they are indolent and are addicted to their amusements. Control of those amusements grants control of the body politic: bread & circuses! The "I am Spartacus" crowd may be a threat, but they certainly aren't going to motivate the corrupt to join them; they're generally regarded as on the opposition's side.
    Au contraire, Merv, it is you that disappoint me! I'll spell it out:

    The aforementioned decadent population, who are admittedly easy to rule for a short time, often disappears, or gets absorbed by the invaders that rush in to take their lands away from them. This has happened often in history and If you squint really hard, and maybe drink more than is a good idea, you can see that happening now, with immigration, both legal and illegal, that occurs in the US and the UK as we speak. The decadent baby-boomers are getting gradually replaced by hard-working people (in some cases) or hardened criminals (in other cases ) who all expect a lot less from life but are nonetheless prepared to fight for it.

  10. #30
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,927

    Re: US Soldiers (Afghanistan) How good are they?

    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Ha, go either/or yourself, Merv! Mac rocks and Burton was the pinnacle of cheese, just as intended. Neither condition precludes Burton is Best.
    Meh. I don't enjoy schlock, even if it's of the highest caliber. Calibre? Why is it that I get British spell checking here but Yank spell checking at work?
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Missed it, damn it, damn the Devil to Hell. And stuff.
    Well, you're in good company.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    You're confused, I am British, which means I want a lobotomy but I have to wait for one, but I am also American, which means I want a lobotomy and fries, super-sized, RIGHT NOW!!!one!!eleventy-one!!!!!
    Since when did you become American? Surely you're not fleeing the Isle?!?
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Stronger in this context will need to do a quick head-count, size does matter. Or else we'd all be Lacedaemonians.
    Sure, but the same applies to Osama and his band of merry murderous thugs. Catching the imagination of the populace does not equate to leading it, which is why despite upwards of 60% of Muslims thinking Shar'iah and Jihad are peachy, under 10% are actually interested in doing anything about it and perhaps less than 1% think that strapping on a heavy vest of firecrackers or picking up an AK are good things to do.

    The "Arab Street" perceives offing old Yankees in wheelchairs or European nuns as the mark of true heroism, and our quiescence supports their thinking. If, OTOH, we had the Russian or Chinese attitude, AKA "The Chicago Way", the filthy subhumans wouldn't dare crawl out from under their rocks and the "Street" would view them more the way we do. They feel emboldened specifically BECAUSE we wet our drawers over feeble analogies about torture, imprecise and stupid actions by prison guards, and endless apologies with desperate attempts to bribe, cajole, or appease. Instead, we ought to be employing their own massive psychological insecurities against them, not catering to the same.

    That isn't exactly the "Strong Horse". More like a panto.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Broken link is broken. I shot it though, two centre mass and one in the goolies - it pays to be sure.
    Grr. Feckin' spotted blogs. Here's a re-use with typical frothy garbage tacked on underneath.
    Spoiler


    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    The Thames is so clean it has fish. In it, not just on it!
    Maybe there's something TO all this environmental stuff after all, huh?
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Hmm, Dr Who ... half a dozen episodes over the years may have been tolerable, I can think of two that I actually liked but generally I find that series a horrible embarrassment.
    Really? I'm surprised. I never enjoyed it that much, but I'd watch my back after that statement...
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    It's not an either/or, I just do not feel that the Soviets' efforts in this regard - whose existence I won't dispute - have made any real difference; that their activities obtained any traction. Clearly the USSR had a tremendous effect on the West, but I just don't feel that they bankrolled a huge Leftist conspiracy that you say exists now. The Soviets couldn't even keep themselves together, they certainly didn't create a conspiracy that survived it. Call me naive, if that helps.
    Well, Knave, what I'm saying is not that there's still a secret cabal that the COMINTERN manages, so much as that Obama's Communications Director is a Maoist, his Science Czar is a Malthusian, and Cherie Blair was one of the grubby Greenham Common slatterns. It was money quite well spent, as far as I'm concerned; the "fellow travelers" influence is wide and deep. Imagining that they don't make a difference or that their activities gained no traction seems, well, stupid. These people would NOT have become anti-Nationalist on their own; the whole point of these GRU operations were to instill an indecisive, self-doubting, HIGHLY contrary attitude to the highest levels of the enemy nations as could be achieved. Tell me that's not been spectacularly successful, even if the USSR collapsed under its own weight?
    [QUOTE=LozHinge the Unhinged;8490904]Nah. You're wrong, but I can't tell you why
    That's better.[/quote]
    Sigh. You, Kris, and Dave, all denial and no grounds for.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    I try, most days, to say to myself that this outrageous behaviour from over in the East is a symptom of the original failings of the West, the Wages of Sin if you like. It's getting harder to position myself as a moderate though, as a voice of reason even to myself.
    Well, if it matters, the "original failings of the West" view was promulgated by Edward Said, and if I could go back in time and behead him I'd have to give it serious consideration. That view completely ignores and obscures the cold hard fact that the Muslims were directly responsible for the Dark Ages, and that the supposed Golden Age of Islam is a crock of... propaganda.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    No, that would not be sophistry. Sophistry is, for example, the decision taken to defend Kuwait from an aggressor. Trust me on that.
    Sorry, you're not at all trustworthy. I was there. Kuwait should certainly have been held culpable for the cross-drilling, but that's why they liked having America as Daddy. Much as does Europe.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    I won't do a blow-by-blow account, but some of those actions I feel were honorable in their way, and/or justified, but there's more that went on that was definitely neither. I cannot stress to you how important I feel it is to deal honorably with a people. It's rare for a whole nation to be degenerate, so dealing decently cannot be considered wasted effort.
    What I contend is that just because Yalta was an exercise in hubris, it hardly excuses decades worth of savagery that is largely trumped up. There was no "occupation". There was no "Palestinian People". The invading Arab armies were responsible for the bulk of what is now considered "ethnic cleansing" during the Naqbah. At what point do people recognize, "enough is enough, and we're living a lie"? Even the Irish got that, and before Ian Paisley kicked the bucket IIRC.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    The people you are really railing against are people hold on to power and position at the expense of others - not the sole province of the Left, of course.
    Untrue - the former, not the latter. I rail against that oppression on any front, but while I characterize that oppression generally as "Progressive", I hold particular hate for those who do it in the name of "The People" or "The Working Man", AKA the Left.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    The difference between us is I distrust both sets of would-be elites.
    There's no difference: I am wiser because I recognize that private hands remain weaker than public hands no matter how much money's in them. Bill Gates found this out to his chagrin, while George Soros used Socialism and took the governmental path to wickedness and prosperity.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    I'm not going to do the research to argue this issue.
    See? Kris and Dave must be proud.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    whereas the "Lefty" currently in the White House (who, your protestations notwithstanding, seems right-wing to the Brit inside me) would probably receive my vote.
    More fool you, then. He's to the left of "Red" Ken; he's just far more cunning and discreet.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    The aforementioned decadent population, who are admittedly easy to rule for a short time, often disappears, or gets absorbed by the invaders that rush in to take their lands away from them. This has happened often in history and If you squint really hard, and maybe drink more than is a good idea, you can see that happening now, with immigration, both legal and illegal, that occurs in the US and the UK as we speak. The decadent baby-boomers are getting gradually replaced by hard-working people (in some cases) or hardened criminals (in other cases ) who all expect a lot less from life but are nonetheless prepared to fight for it.
    Well, I'll grant you the immigration argument, but I hardly characterize the 'wetback' population as being the same as 'Spartacus', despite the slave status both of them hold compared to the decadent crowd. I guess I'm looking at the population and culture, where you're actually looking at time. However, I'm hungry (and putting off drink at least on weekdays since work's tough currently) so I'll have to pick this up tomorrow.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •