January 6th hearings on Trump's failed insurrection.

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
the Charlie Brown football thing is often referred to by men i speak with (not meaning this post) IRL and here.

you guys have really been traumatized by that; the writer didn't realize what he was doing to our future men by emasculating.

FTW i am not a fan of Charlie Brown franchise even as a kid;; had to watch it because it was what was on. Lucy was a bully and then some.
I never really thought of it as emasculating, but I can see how that would be the case for some. I always just thought of it as a perfect metaphor for someone who always screws someone else over at the last second by tricking them into thinking they won't this time.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
I never really thought of it as emasculating, but I can see how that would be the case for some. I always just thought of it as a perfect metaphor for someone who always screws someone else over at the last second by tricking them into thinking they won't this time.
but thats what she does so not a metaphor- it's an action that she repeats over and over..fool me once shame on you..but fool me twice?
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
but thats what she does so not a metaphor- it's an action that she repeats over and over..fool me once shame on you..but fool me twice?
I just never looked at it from a view of it being a girl schooling a boy is what I meant. The metaphor is by just saying 'Lucy and the football' to get the point across of why I didn't trust Meadows saying he was going to work with the investigation into the attempted insurrection. Or am I mistaken, metaphor is one of those tricky things that I really never made sure to nail down the exact definition, kind of like 'literally' or whatever it was that the actual definition was changed to encompass how people always mistook it for.
 

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
but thats what she does so not a metaphor- it's an action that she repeats over and over..fool me once shame on you..but fool me twice?
I see that as an illustration of her (sex-unrelated) narcissism and his codependent driving need to finally kick that thing, leaving him with a sort of Stockholm syndrome.
 

printer

Well-Known Member
'Stop the Steal' rally organizer cooperating with Jan. 6 committee:
The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Ali Alexander, a right-wing provocateur and longtime Republican operative, is cooperating with the House panel’s probe following a subpoena in October. He appeared for a deposition

Congressional investigators subpoenaed Alexander, who was born Ali Abdul Akbar, on Oct. 7. He was listed on a permit application for the “One Nation Under God” event, which was meant to be a rally for “the election fraud in the swing states.”

“Mr. Alexander explained it was the intention of Stop the Steal to direct earlier attendees of a rally on the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6 held by Women for America First and ‘sponsored’ by Stop the Steal to march at the conclusion of that rally to Lot 8 on the U.S. Capitol Grounds, which is the location for which the [U.S. Capitol Police] granted the permit for the ‘One Nation Under God,’ rally,” the committee wrote in a statement.

Alexander’s reported cooperation comes following several subpoenas by the committee. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the vice chair of the panel, announced on Thursday that the panel has already met with almost 300 witnesses and has “received exceptionally interesting and important documents” from witnesses, including former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows.

“I want to be crystal clear at the outset. I had nothing to do with any violence or lawbreaking that happened on January 6,” Alexander will say in his opening remarks.

“I had nothing to do with the planning. I had nothing to do with the preparation. And I had nothing to do with the execution. Any suggestion on the contrary is factually false. Anyone who suggests I had anything to do with the unlawful activities on January 6 is wrong. They’re either mistaken or lying,” he added.

Alexander is one of the rally organizers who has been vocal about allegedly cooperating with lawmakers ahead of Jan. 6. He has revealed on livestreams that he had discussions with Reps. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.).
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
I see that as an illustration of her (sex-unrelated) narcissism and his codependent driving need to finally kick that thing, leaving him with a sort of Stockholm syndrome.
it..does..exist.


she was a sadistic bitch!

but in the beginning it was Charlie Brown who publicly and cruelly mocks her.

good article.

1639080663167.png
 
Last edited:

Guitar Man

Well-Known Member
well, you're fucked then...you got to 61 and you never got over being an angry young man...everyone i know like that has died before 65, stroke, heart attack, gun shot wound from running their mouths to the wrong people...hope you do better...
Not angry until I see people like you running off their mouths about nothing but bullshit. But even then, I can get a good laugh in the midst of the chaos. Chill the fuck out, Rubber man. ;) This is a MJ forum where people are supposed to be talking about MJ. I wish they would delete this political section.
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Not angry until I see people like you running off their mouths about nothing but bullshit. But even then, I can get a good laugh in the midst of the chaos. Chill the fuck out, Rubber man. ;) This is a MJ forum where people are supposed to be talking about MJ. I wish they would delete this political section.
well then, why don't you get the fuck out of it? doesn't sound like you hate it, sounds like you like having a place to come and insult people, and be a general pain in the ass. i'll tell you what...i'll ignore you, and make it that much less appealing. then it ought to be easier for you to go back to giving shitty weed advice on the mj forum, and stay out of the adults way. by by now...
 

Guitar Man

Well-Known Member
You have it backwards.

The Old South never had a chance during the Civil War. Their hope was that people of the North would decide war to preserve the Union was not worth the cost. They were wrong about that, among other things. Same with the shit going down today. The invasion and sacking of our Capitol Building was a failure in that Trump did not manage to overturn our election and murder his enemies. As with the South's violent attempt at secession, after they failed on Jan 6, it became necessary to use the might and will of the US government to ensure this does not happen again.

Too bad for you it hurts your feelings.
Not so fast. The South did have a chance at winning this war.


"After the war, various Confederate generals expressed their views that the war had been winnable. In 1874, Joseph E. Johnston insisted that the South had not been “guilty of the high crime of undertaking a war without the means of waging it successfully.” Pierre G. T. Beauregard added, “No people ever warred for independence with more relative advantages than the Confederates.” E. Porter Alexander’s retrospective assessment was more modest than Beauregard’s, but he too thought the South could have won:

When the South entered upon war with power so immensely her superior in men & money, & all the wealth of modern resources in machinery and transportation appliances by land & sea, she could entertain but one single hope of final success. That was, that the desperation of her resistance would finally exact from her adversary such a price in blood & treasure as to exhaust the enthusiasm of its population for the objects of the war. We could not hope to conquer her. Our one chance was to wear her out.

Much of Europe expected (and desired) a Confederate victory. The downfall of “the American colossus,” opined the Times, would be good “riddance of a nightmare. . . . Excepting a few gentlemen of republican tendencies, we all expect, we nearly all wish, success to the Confederate cause.” Joining in was the Earl of Shrewsbury, who cheerfully predicted: “that the dissolution of the Union is inevitable, and that men before [sic] me will live to see an aristocracy established in America.” As late as 1863, Russia’s minister to the United States declared, “The republican form of government, so much talked about by the Europeans and so much praised by the Americans, is breaking down. What can be expected from a country where men of humble origin are elevated to the highest positions?”

A Southern victory was not out of the question. After all, it had been only eighty years since the supposedly inferior American revolutionaries had vanquished the mighty Redcoats of King George III and less than fifty years since the outgunned Russians had repelled and destroyed the powerful invading army of Napoleon."
 

Guitar Man

Well-Known Member
well then, why don't you get the fuck out of it? doesn't sound like you hate it, sounds like you like having a place to come and insult people, and be a general pain in the ass. i'll tell you what...i'll ignore you, and make it that much less appealing. then it ought to be easier for you to go back to giving shitty weed advice on the mj forum, and stay out of the adults way. by by now...
You made the bad call by insulting me with your premature analysis about who I am. You're the one spending all day on this forum because you have nothing better to do. Go experience life and find out what you're missing. What are your accomplishments? What have you really done to change the World? I've haven't darkened the door of RIU for years because people like you have ruined it.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Not so fast. The South did have a chance at winning this war.


"After the war, various Confederate generals expressed their views that the war had been winnable. In 1874, Joseph E. Johnston insisted that the South had not been “guilty of the high crime of undertaking a war without the means of waging it successfully.” Pierre G. T. Beauregard added, “No people ever warred for independence with more relative advantages than the Confederates.” E. Porter Alexander’s retrospective assessment was more modest than Beauregard’s, but he too thought the South could have won:

When the South entered upon war with power so immensely her superior in men & money, & all the wealth of modern resources in machinery and transportation appliances by land & sea, she could entertain but one single hope of final success. That was, that the desperation of her resistance would finally exact from her adversary such a price in blood & treasure as to exhaust the enthusiasm of its population for the objects of the war. We could not hope to conquer her. Our one chance was to wear her out.

Much of Europe expected (and desired) a Confederate victory. The downfall of “the American colossus,” opined the Times, would be good “riddance of a nightmare. . . . Excepting a few gentlemen of republican tendencies, we all expect, we nearly all wish, success to the Confederate cause.” Joining in was the Earl of Shrewsbury, who cheerfully predicted: “that the dissolution of the Union is inevitable, and that men before [sic] me will live to see an aristocracy established in America.” As late as 1863, Russia’s minister to the United States declared, “The republican form of government, so much talked about by the Europeans and so much praised by the Americans, is breaking down. What can be expected from a country where men of humble origin are elevated to the highest positions?”

A Southern victory was not out of the question. After all, it had been only eighty years since the supposedly inferior American revolutionaries had vanquished the mighty Redcoats of King George III and less than fifty years since the outgunned Russians had repelled and destroyed the powerful invading army of Napoleon."
Confederate generals. The guys who lost. They say they would have won if they hadn't lost. You also cite absolutist monarchs who believed that God had picked THEM to rule. It's ironic that a right wingnut from the 2020's would align themselves with plantation owners and divine right despots. I'll give you a pro tip: The South Will Not Rise Again. Also, feudal Europe was only great for the tiny number of people who were at the top. And you cite those people as if their opinion carries weight. lol

Europe at the time was ruled by entrenched absolutist monarchs. You know what? After Antietam, the powers in Europe took one look at the casualties and wanted no part of tangling with the US. Also, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation ended any moral support for the South as well. Your argument is a dead end. "If we hadn't lost, we would have won". The south didn't just lose, it was defeated. The war ended because the South was out of men, money, food and the will to fight. They never had a chance and the defeat was total.

You are citing Confederate Generals, the same ones who lost.

It wasn't even close.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Breaking: Appeals Court Rules Against Trump In White House Doc Fight

NBC News Justice Correspondent Pete Williams on the breaking news that a DC appeals court has ruled against former President Trump on White House record.
 

Guitar Man

Well-Known Member
Confederate generals. The guys who lost. They say they would have won if they hadn't lost. You also cite absolutist monarchs who believed that God had picked THEM to rule. It's ironic that a right wingnut from the 2020's would align themselves with plantation owners and divine right despots. I'll give you a pro tip: The South Will Not Rise Again. Also, feudal Europe was only great for the tiny number of people who were at the top. And you cite those people as if their opinion carries weight. lol

Europe at the time was ruled by entrenched absolutist monarchs. You know what? After Antietam, the powers in Europe took one look at the casualties and wanted no part of tangling with the US. Also, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation ended any moral support for the South as well. Your argument is a dead end. "If we hadn't lost, we would have won". The south didn't just lose, it was defeated. The war ended because the South was out of men, money, food and the will to fight. They never had a chance and the defeat was total.

You are citing Confederate Generals, the same ones who lost.

It wasn't even close.
That's your opinion. Wars are a fickle anatomy that can go any direction via the unexpected. The Japanese thought Americans were weak and soft. Vietnam became riddled in politics. Afghanistan is marbled in ancient tribalism that even the greatest military powers on Earth can seem to penetrate.
 
Top