This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

2012 Presidential Election

13468931

Comments

  • At face value, Ron Paul is a cool old man who loves freedom, pot, and Apple Pie. At his core, Ron Paul is everything I hate about America.
    I have yet to see a better description of Ron Paul.

    Hell, I'm all for social libertarianism, but his fiscal/regulatory libertarianism frightens me. It makes me wonder if he's ever studied history given all the nasty crap that went down when we effectively did have unregulated markets.
  • Thank you Churba I had massive nerd rage over the inane idea that America invented the UN. What next? That it invented freedom after winning war? All wars. Ever.
  • At face value, Ron Paul is a cool old man who loves freedom, pot, and Apple Pie. At his core, Ron Paul is everything I hate about America.
    I have yet to see a better description of Ron Paul.

    Hell, I'm all for social libertarianism, but his fiscal/regulatory libertarianism frightens me. It makes me wonder if he's ever studied history given all the nasty crap that went down when we effectively did have unregulated markets.
    Oh he remembers, he remembers that those days were great - if you were really, really rich. Since he is really rich, it's all the better for him.
  • edited September 2011
    Hell, I'm all for social libertarianism, but his fiscal/regulatory libertarianism frightens me. It makes me wonder if he's ever studied history given all the nasty crap that went down when we effectively did have unregulated markets.
    Ron Paul introduces the idea of three kinds of libertarian - Little L libertarians, like say Rym and Scott, or you. The Big L Libertarians, who tend to be a hair's breadth from anarchists, and also Ayn Rand fans. And then the third type, fucking mad as a cut snake holy shit get away from me you crazy motherfucker Libertarians.
    Thank you Churba I had massive nerd rage over the inane idea that America invented the UN. What next? That it invented freedom after winning war? All wars. Ever.
    S'arite. And to be fair, the "USA won WW2/if not for us you'd all be speaking german" misconception is a common one, because that's most of what you get from Hollywood and video games. I mean, how many movies are there about The landings at ANZAC cove and the Gallipoli campaign in WW2? Fuck all - though there was a very good one called Kakoda, though naturally, it's an Australian production. How many movies are there about the Russian front? Only about eight that I can remember, and most of them are about Stalingrad. One turned out to be a romance, which was a little strange. How many about America or Americans being seemingly bloody everywhere doing everything, or so poorly pretending that they're English that it's easy to forget they're meant to be english? Oh, somewhere in the 20-30 kind of range, at least.

    And while I don't mean to say that American historical education is woefully insufficient - though from what I'm told, as pure anecdotal evidence, the one taught in history classrooms for quite a long time was rather closer to "Hollywood WW2" rather than, y'know, reality - it's a perfectly reasonable idea that over time, the majority of media relating to WW2 that people consume tends to be very America-centric, leading to the idea that America went round the world kicking the shit out of nazis and the Japanese alike.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • And while I don't mean to say that American historical education is woefully insufficient - though from what I'm told, as pure anecdotal evidence, the one taught in history classrooms for quite a long time was rather closer to "Hollywood WW2" rather than, y'know, reality - it's a perfectly reasonable idea that over time, the majority of media relating to WW2 that people consume tends to be very America-centric, leading to the idea that America went round the world kicking the shit out of nazis and the Japanese alike.
    US history education tends to be fairly terrifying, but I'm not sure how much of it can be blamed on a poorly-funded and seemingly-unmotivated Department of Education, and how much of it lies with a mislead culture.

    For example, my fiance works as a Veterinarian at a local vet hospital. There are two other doctors and about 8 technicians, who would be the people marking "High School Diploma or Equivalent" on the Education portion of any survey. The doctors are, obviously, doctors with a high degree of education. She heard on the radio one day that something like 1/4 people don't know who we fought the Revolutionary War against, and thought that those statistics had to be off, so she did an informal little survey of all the people working in the office that day.

    Of the 8 technicians, only 3 of them actually knew it was the English. The rest had no idea, because they didn't like History in school.

    Sweet. Baby. Jesus. We need more money and attention paid to our education system, horribly soon.
  • edited September 2011
    I mean, how many movies are there about The landings at ANZAC cove and the Gallipoli campaign in WW2?
    None, seeing as how the Gallipoli campaign occurred during World War 1...
    image
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • edited September 2011
    None, seeing as how the Gallipoli campaign occurred during World War 1...
    Blah, that's an embarrassing typo, but it's a fair cop, since I'm not entirely sure where I was going with that example. If you want WW2 examples, Bardia, Tobruk, the Defence of Greece where the British all but deliberately sent us to die, the attempt to capture Dakar, Malaya, Singapore, Battle for Australia, Papua, New Guinea, Philippines, mopping up the Solomons(Oh, that was a fun one, sorting things out after the US failed to finish the job), Borneo, our significant spec ops contributions in the pacific theatre, and so on.

    Though, one typo on my part does not an excuse for an extraordinarily widely held misconception make. And hey, it's not like we don't like a good fight, and we're always willing to help out a mate when that mate starts a war in south east Asia over predominantly jungle terrain, when they know nothing about fighting in the jungle.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • edited September 2011
    Blah, that's an embarrassing typo, but it's a fair cop, since I'm not entirely sure where I was going with that example. If you want WW2 examples, Bardia, Tobruk, the Defence of Greece where the British all but deliberately sent us to die, the attempt to capture Dakar, Malaya, Singapore, Battle for Australia, Papua, New Guinea, Philippines, mopping up the Solomons(Oh, that was a fun one, sorting things out after the US failed to finish the job), Borneo, our significant spec ops contributions in the pacific theatre, and so on.

    Though, one typo on my part does not an excuse for an extraordinarily widely held misconception make. And hey, it's not like we don't like a good fight, and we're always willing to help out a mate when that mate starts a war in south east Asia over predominantly jungle terrain, when they know nothing about fighting in the jungle.
    What are you arguing? That a largely American based entertainment industry which makes the vast majority of it's income from targeting the U.S. audience should make films that don't focus on the U.S. involvement in military conflicts? There is more American films because the American film industry is proportionally much larger than international industries. It's just simple math. That's why a lot of the Russian front films are made by Russians. That why Kakoda is made by Aussies, naturally.

    Please don't presume to lecture me on my own culture.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • S'arite. And to be fair, the "USA won WW2/if not for us you'd all be speaking german" misconception is a common one, because that's most of what you get from Hollywood and video games. I mean, how many movies are there about The landings at ANZAC cove and the Gallipoli campaign in WW2? Fuck all - though there was a very good one called Kakoda, though naturally, it's an Australian production. How many movies are there about the Russian front? Only about eight that I can remember, and most of them are about Stalingrad. One turned out to be a romance, which was a little strange. How many about America or Americans being seemingly bloody everywhere doing everything, or so poorly pretending that they're English that it's easy to forget they're meant to be english? Oh, somewhere in the 20-30 kind of range, at least.
    I have friends who study modern history at MA/PHD level and I have seen them leave rooms at points when people start to talk about the "well im sorry buddy but with out us" crap. Also as far as I can tell, Im not a modern historian but a medieval, the Anzac forces were fairly epic where ever they fought reguardless of time or place. To quote a VC prisoner "It was not Vietcong jungle it was Australian, we did not go there. We wanted to live".

    US history education tends to be fairly terrifying, but I'm not sure how much of it can be blamed on a poorly-funded and seemingly-unmotivated Department of Education, and how much of it lies with a mislead culture.
    Again my reseach takes me into contact with a lot of German people. A good friend of mine called Robert did an overseas exchange with a school I belive in Washington (it was 4 years ago). He was astounded when a teacher told the class that after the Night of Broken Glass the whole of Germany became Nazi overnight. The teacher would not accept that this was wrong despite one of his grandparents being an objector to the war. Not to say that the UK has a spotless record when it comes to teaching but that did cause a circle face palm.
    Of the 8 technicians, only 3 of them actually knew it was the English. The rest had no idea, because they didn't like History in school.
    Big problem the subject has is old men being dull. Practical history is the way to go. Nothing gets the attention of a group of school kids more than an angry man from Scotland showing them how a broadsword works on a human body.
  • edited September 2011
    What are you arguing? That a largely American based entertainment industry which makes the vast majority of it's income from targeting the U.S. audience should make films that don't focus on the U.S. involvement in military conflicts? There is more American films because the American film industry is proportionally much larger than international industries. It's just simple math. That's why a lot of the Russian front films are made by Russians. That why Kakoda is made by Aussies, naturally.
    You mistake me - I'm genuinely giving more(and better) examples after I made a small mistake, from one dude familiar/interested in military history to another. The latter part is more tongue-poking than arguing. I sound grumpy and a bit brusque with it, but we're cool, sorry if I seemed otherwise.
    I have friends who study modern history at MA/PHD level and I have seen them leave rooms at points when people start to talk about the "well im sorry buddy but with out us" crap. Also as far as I can tell, Im not a modern historian but a medieval, the Anzac forces were fairly epic where ever they fought reguardless of time or place. To quote a VC prisoner "It was not Vietcong jungle it was Australian, we did not go there. We wanted to live".
    Our millitary history seems to swing wildly between horrible failures(Defence of Greece, the failed capture of Dakar), corageous, tenacious, determined and vicious shitfights(Gallipoli, or Kakoda), and balls-out spartan-style insanity.

    What kind of insanity am I talking about? Well, for one example, the charge of the light horse at Barsheeba, during WW1, where the entire strategy hinged on the fact that the Turkish were used to British cavalry, who dismounted before they fought, and thus waited to fire till they dismounted. We didn't dismount - We said "fuck it", drew bayonets(admittedly, this is in the days when a Bayonet isn't a 6 inch combat knife, but rather two feet of razor sharp steel), and charged straight into them, leaping over their fortifications before the turks had time to realize what was going on, and doing what comes naturally from there. It pretty much turned the tide of the war against the ottoman empire.

    And another quote for you, from a vietcong leader - ""Worse than the Americans were the Australians. The Americans style was to hit us, then call for planes and artillery. Our response was to break contact and disappear if we could. The Australians were more patient than the Americans, better guerilla fighters, better at ambushes. They liked to stay with us instead of calling in the planes. We were more afraid of their style."

    Not to mention it really says something about our nation that the basic issue cutlery from the ration packs - the FRED - consists of a single small unit which contains a spoon, a can opener, and a bottle opener. This is what it looks like. Then again, it might say a little less, considering it's the invention of a nation whose historical national hero was a filthy criminal, and whose last words amounted to "eh, fuck it."
    Big problem the subject has is old men being dull. Practical history is the way to go. Nothing gets the attention of a group of school kids more than an angry man from Scotland showing them how a broadsword works on a human body.
    Speaking of Madmen with swords, Guess where Mad Jack Churchill(Famous for wading through WW2 with little more than a sword, bow and bagpipes, as well as being one of the first modern commandos - he wasn't sure what commandos actually were at the time, but it sounded dangerous, so he signed on) ended up, teaching Land-air warfare? You get one guess. We also ended up borrowing the almost equally crazy Mitch Paige.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • Putin/Genki Sudo 2012.
  • Our millitary history seems to swing wildly between horrible failures(Defence of Greece, the failed capture of Dakar), corageous, tenacious, determined and vicious shitfights(Gallipoli, or Kakoda), and balls-out spartan-style insanity.
    Its shifting more over here to "Dam those chaps were rather good".
    Speaking of Madmen with swords, Guess where Mad Jack Churchill(Famous for wading through WW2 with little more than a sword, bow and bagpipes, as well as being one of the first modern commandos - he wasn't sure what commandos actually were at the time, but it sounded dangerous, so he signed on) ended up, teaching Land-air warfare? You get one guess. We also ended up borrowing the almost equally crazy Mitch Paige.
    Haha we did farm out our mad men. Though the Australian commandos and special forces did have a rather wonderful relationship with the UK.
  • edited September 2011
    Its shifting more over here to "Dam those chaps were rather good".
    I meant more by distinguishing features or outcome, rather than overall, but still, yes, I suppose we are somewhat outstanding in our field. Still, English tanks have Tea-making facilities, and ours don't, so we clearly have room to improve. Also, I'm not joking, they really do have tea-making facilities.
    Haha we did farm out our mad men. Though the Australian commandos and special forces did have a rather wonderful relationship with the UK.
    And they still do, we're quite fond of the SAS and the SBS down here. There is a friendly competition in training between the two of us, but I'm unsure of who is currently winning - though last I heard(admittedly quite a while ago) it was us, by a metaphorical hair, and a literal matter of millimeters. Also, both Services are pioneers in counter-terrorism and modern special operations - for example, modern explosive door and wall breaching methods were tested by the SASR before they went into wide use.

    We're real fond of the Americans, too, they've long proven themselves to not only be able to run with the big boys, they can outpace them from time to time.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • Big problem the subject has is old men being dull. Practical history is the way to go. Nothing gets the attention of a group of school kids more than an angry man from Scotland showing them how a broadsword works on a human body.
    Yeah, but the American Revolution was pretty damn action-packed. If cannons, muskets, and rampant amputations don't get their attention away from their Game Gears and Turbo-Grafix 16s I'm not sure what would.
  • Its shifting more over here to "Dam those chaps were rather good".
    I meant more by distinguishing features or outcome, rather than overall, but still, yes, I suppose we are somewhat outstanding in our field. Still, English tanks have Tea-making facilities, and ours don't, so we clearly have room to improve. Also, I'm not joking, they really do have tea-making facilities.
    Haha we did farm out our mad men. Though the Australian commandos and special forces did have a rather wonderful relationship with the UK.
    And they still do, we're quite fond of the SAS and the SBS down here. There is a friendly competition in training between the two of us, but I'm unsure of who is currently winning - though last I heard(admittedly quite a while ago) it was us, by a metaphorical hair, and a literal matter of millimeters. Also, both Services are pioneers in counter-terrorism and modern special operations - for example, modern explosive door and wall breaching methods were tested by the SASR before they went into wide use.

    We're real fond of the Americans, too, they've long proven themselves to not only be able to run with the big boys, they can outpace them from time to time.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Australian special forces adapt the motto "We Dare."?
  • Also, I'm not joking, they really do have tea-making facilities.
    Yep was the best weekend I spent on Dartmoor.
    Haha we did farm out our mad men. Though the Australian commandos and special forces did have a rather wonderful relationship with the UK.
    And they still do, we're quite fond of the SAS and the SBS down here. There is a friendly competition in training between the two of us, but I'm unsure of who is currently winning - though last I heard(admittedly quite a while ago) it was us, by a metaphorical hair, and a literal matter of millimeters. Also, both Services are pioneers in counter-terrorism and modern special operations - for example, modern explosive door and wall breaching methods were tested by the SASR before they went into wide use.
    Yarp it would not surprise me.
    Yeah, but the American Revolution was pretty damn action-packed.
    See the Napoleonic war.
  • Yep was the best weekend I spent on Dartmoor.
    Making brew for spam in a can? You're easy to please, my good man.
    Yarp it would not surprise me.
    It was not always advisable - we've had something close to 40 deaths in the SAS, but only 6 in combat, the rest were training accidents.
    See the Napoleonic war.
    TO THE TARDIS!
    Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Australian special forces adapt the motto "We Dare."?
    Yes and No. The SASR use that motto, and a similar cap badge(but instead of White and blue, it's white and gold), 1st Commando is "Strike Swiftly", 2nd commando is "Foras admonitio"(latin for "Without warning"), 4RAR's motto before they were renamed 2nd Commando and the 4RAR regiment/colours suspended was "Duty First", and I'm not sure if the Incident response regiment has one, but one of the nicknames for Special operations command is Doctor Socko, from the Acronym "SOCOMD."
  • Yep was the best weekend I spent on Dartmoor.
    Making brew for spam in a can? You're easy to please, my good man.
    It was nice and warm. That and I read a load of Discworld novels.
    See the Napoleonic war.
    TO THE TARDIS!
    We can have a night on the town with Marshall Ney.
  • Some good jokes in there. Cain being all 9's, Ron Paul as a berzerker...
  • Now Perry is out of the race. AnotherOneBitesTheDust.mp3

    The only sad thing from this announcement is no more new funny bits on The Daily Show or Colbert Report.
  • The only sad thing from this announcement is no more new funny bits on The Daily Show or Colbert Report.
    Dont't worry, we still have "Surging" Santorum.

  • The term frothy will never be the same for me EVER again.
  • "And the brown counties are the Santorum." Whoever was making the infographics for CNN the day of the Iowa Caucuses was trolling.
  • edited January 2012
    man, I am really hoping Newt Gingrich pulls off South Carolina, so we can move closer to a broker convention!
    Looks like Leroy won South Carolina. The borked convention continues.

    On an even more amusing note, Hermain Cain gets 1% of the vote more than likely due to Colbert"
    Post edited by Rochelle on
  • edited January 2012
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • Newt has less chance of getting elected than Romney because anyone who is literate and has the internet can read about him. He's one of the slimiest characters in politics.
  • My roommate/friend is 100% pro Ron Paul and constantly asserts that Obama is a lying, rat bastard who hasn't done anything no matter the proof that is presented in front of him.

    He also wants Obama to get assassinated.

    I think I need to find some new friends.
  • Newt has less chance of getting elected than Romney because anyone who is literate and has the internet can read about him. He's one of the slimiest characters in politics.
    Oh, but he has gone scorched earth on the media. People are going to rally behind his "real person" reaction to media questions. And never underestimate the power of commiseration; there are lots of people who are miserable in or stepping out on their traditional marriages. People can sympathize with that aspect of his life and dismiss it because they understand it.

Sign In or Register to comment.