unofan
Well-known member
Literally, I have never heard anyone say, "now is not the time to talk about abortion laws."
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
Literally, I have never heard anyone say, "now is not the time to talk about abortion laws."
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
I know a hawk from a handsaw. You were being snarky. Deftly, but still.
I know a hawk from a handsaw. You were being snarky. Deftly, but still.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
Or a Muslim Ban. Or a respect the flag/anthem orgy. Or a build the wall barbecue. Those things never stop.
Or a Muslim Ban. Or a respect the flag/anthem orgy. Or a build the wall barbecue. Those things never stop.
The flag/vet worship started at about 7pm on 9/11/01?? Or does it go back to Kuwait??
MissThundercat
Are the cis okay?
Kuwait. Listening to the radio in 1991, I heard "God Bless the USA" by Lee Greenwood every day.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
November 4, 1979. Iran hostages. That's when the derp really kicked into high gear, and the networks tripped all over their dicks competing for who loves Our Brave Lads more and how the flag was sniff the most moving lovely symbol in the universe sniff.
Bumblef-ckwittery is only 37 years old. It just seems eternal.
November 4, 1979. Iran hostages. That's when the derp really kicked into high gear, and the networks tripped all over their dicks competing for who loves Our Brave Lads more and how the flag was sniff the most moving lovely symbol in the universe sniff.
Bumblef-ckwittery is only 37 years old. It just seems eternal.
Last edited:
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
That's the Department of Symbolism and the ribbons.
That's the Department of Symbolism and the ribbons.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
"A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon." - Napoleon
"A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon." - Napoleon
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
You're not familiar with how poorly American Vets were treated after Vietnam I take it?
You're not familiar with how poorly American Vets were treated after Vietnam I take it?
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
I am. I was thinking all the rah-rah stuff of WWII, including quite a few propaganda films.
I am. I was thinking all the rah-rah stuff of WWII, including quite a few propaganda films.
Watch "Best Years if Our Lives"
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
Much of the patriotism during WW2 was legitimate. It wasn't the store-bought marketing of the Reagan Era and afterwards. There was plenty of government force-fed rah rah, but it wasn't the truly disgusting brand we've seen before and especially since.
There's always been propaganda --the WW1 propaganda was hamfisted and the government rammed it in and curtailed freedom of speech and assembly because anti-war was conflated with anti-aristocracy. But in WW2 we really were all in the same boat. It wasn't just billionaires sending the Poors to die for their marketshare like the other 20th century wars, and it wasn't the herpa-derp nationalism of Manifest Destiny like the 19th century wars.
The TV-Industrial Complex stuck its marketing tongue into the as-s crack of the military in 1979 and it's never removed it.
Much of the patriotism during WW2 was legitimate. It wasn't the store-bought marketing of the Reagan Era and afterwards. There was plenty of government force-fed rah rah, but it wasn't the truly disgusting brand we've seen before and especially since.
There's always been propaganda --the WW1 propaganda was hamfisted and the government rammed it in and curtailed freedom of speech and assembly because anti-war was conflated with anti-aristocracy. But in WW2 we really were all in the same boat. It wasn't just billionaires sending the Poors to die for their marketshare like the other 20th century wars, and it wasn't the herpa-derp nationalism of Manifest Destiny like the 19th century wars.
The TV-Industrial Complex stuck its marketing tongue into the as-s crack of the military in 1979 and it's never removed it.
Last edited:
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
Was that about the Nisei? That's another really loathsome period in American history.
Like any empire, we have our pogroms, too. Dump is trying to fire another up as we speak, which is why it's so important to sabotage the machine. Every day we stop it advancing is that much less time we all have to spend in hell for our sins.
Was that about the Nisei? That's another really loathsome period in American history.
Like any empire, we have our pogroms, too. Dump is trying to fire another up as we speak, which is why it's so important to sabotage the machine. Every day we stop it advancing is that much less time we all have to spend in hell for our sins.
I think it was a Capra movie in the "Why We Fight" series. It was full Yellow Peril.
The movie "The Purple Heart" about the trial of the Doolittle Raiders (made during the war so much was fictionalized) had the stereotypical perfidious Japanese.
The Pacific War was a no rules, let's see who could be more brutal than the other guy war. Soldiers were collecting ears and heads of dead Japanese.
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
I'm going to throw this question in here, primarily because it's not intended to start a pizzing contest or degenerate into issues on gun control, etc...
Events like the one in Las Vegas, in my mind, are simply a version of murder/suicide. It's really no different than when a guy goes home and kills his wife or kids and then offs himself. Murder/suicide seems to fall into three broad subsets based upon the relationship, or lack of relationship, of the parties. You have the "family" type relationship where the persons involved might be family or in a personal relationship, or a personal relationship has been sought but denied. You have the "business" type most frequently demonstrated in workplace shootings by unhappy employees or former employees, but can also involve business partners, etc... Finally, we have the "stranger" subset of murder/suicide like Las Vegas.
But here is my questions. Have there been any legitimate studies done that address the process that leads to a murder/suicide? In other words, is the suicide a byproduct of the murder where the shooter simply decides he doesn't want to face the consequences of his actions, or is horrified at what he's done? Is the suicide really the primary objective, which then somehow causes the shooter to think he needs to take the family member, the business associate or some random strangers with him, and the murder becomes the byproduct? Or is it something else entirely?
I have no psychology or psychiatry training whatsoever, but it has always seemed to me these start out as suicides, especially the stranger shootings. There is no specific anger the shooter could have against random people at a concert. But that's part of the reason I was inquiring about good studies on the issue, because with relationship (family, business) murder/suicides there is certainly the possibility or even likelihood of anger on the part of the shooter directed at the victims. To me, suicides have always seemed a cry for help or attention, with the splashier large stranger murder/suicides just that much louder a cry.
I'm going to throw this question in here, primarily because it's not intended to start a pizzing contest or degenerate into issues on gun control, etc...
Events like the one in Las Vegas, in my mind, are simply a version of murder/suicide. It's really no different than when a guy goes home and kills his wife or kids and then offs himself. Murder/suicide seems to fall into three broad subsets based upon the relationship, or lack of relationship, of the parties. You have the "family" type relationship where the persons involved might be family or in a personal relationship, or a personal relationship has been sought but denied. You have the "business" type most frequently demonstrated in workplace shootings by unhappy employees or former employees, but can also involve business partners, etc... Finally, we have the "stranger" subset of murder/suicide like Las Vegas.
But here is my questions. Have there been any legitimate studies done that address the process that leads to a murder/suicide? In other words, is the suicide a byproduct of the murder where the shooter simply decides he doesn't want to face the consequences of his actions, or is horrified at what he's done? Is the suicide really the primary objective, which then somehow causes the shooter to think he needs to take the family member, the business associate or some random strangers with him, and the murder becomes the byproduct? Or is it something else entirely?
I have no psychology or psychiatry training whatsoever, but it has always seemed to me these start out as suicides, especially the stranger shootings. There is no specific anger the shooter could have against random people at a concert. But that's part of the reason I was inquiring about good studies on the issue, because with relationship (family, business) murder/suicides there is certainly the possibility or even likelihood of anger on the part of the shooter directed at the victims. To me, suicides have always seemed a cry for help or attention, with the splashier large stranger murder/suicides just that much louder a cry.
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
As long as Harvey Weinstein was producing hit movies, everyone somehow managed to look the other way or rationalize away his sexual misbehavior. Once he was no longer a "power player," it became safe to turn on him, once enough news was out there to validate the rumors. Then suddenly everyone become eager to demonstrate that they really truly didn't know how bad it was. (yeah, right....)
I wonder if the same thing is starting to happen to the Clintons now. The Washington Post and The Hill have been running highly critical stories lately.
As long as Harvey Weinstein was producing hit movies, everyone somehow managed to look the other way or rationalize away his sexual misbehavior. Once he was no longer a "power player," it became safe to turn on him, once enough news was out there to validate the rumors. Then suddenly everyone become eager to demonstrate that they really truly didn't know how bad it was. (yeah, right....)
I wonder if the same thing is starting to happen to the Clintons now. The Washington Post and The Hill have been running highly critical stories lately.