wdg3rd on May 02, 2012, 06:09:14 pm
Based on the history mentioned today (5/2/'12) in the EFT universe, neither Scott nor I get to die in bed.
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

myrkul999 on May 02, 2012, 07:48:09 pm
Based on the history mentioned today (5/2/'12) in the EFT universe, neither Scott nor I get to die in bed.


Just so. But at least we get to die free.

Andreas on May 03, 2012, 08:28:23 am
neither Scott nor I get to die in bed.
That's good if you're a viking. Not so good if you're an incurable lech. ;D
See? It all depends on perspective.

macsnafu on May 03, 2012, 09:12:29 am
Based on the history mentioned today (5/2/'12) in the EFT universe, neither Scott nor I get to die in bed.


Maybe people were shot in bed.  After all, if you're going to raid a home, the middle of the night's a great time to do it.
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

myrkul999 on May 03, 2012, 12:09:38 pm
Based on the history mentioned today (5/2/'12) in the EFT universe, neither Scott nor I get to die in bed.
Maybe people were shot in bed.  After all, if you're going to raid a home, the middle of the night's a great time to do it.

Well, there you go. I feel much better now.

Andreas on May 04, 2012, 02:07:55 am
I wonder if that would satisfy viking honor... well, maybe if one sleeps armed, and gets off at least a bit of a counter...

But knowing the state of US/NATO tactical versus strategic weapons readiness, I think a nice flurry of cruise missiles is more likely than actual door-to-door invasion.
Too costly. Maybe unless they've outsourced it all to China - they put the spend in expendable.

Bob G on May 10, 2012, 09:27:16 am
I wonder if that would satisfy viking honor... well, maybe if one sleeps armed, and gets off at least a bit of a counter...

What? You don't sleep armed?!?

Quote
But knowing the state of US/NATO tactical versus strategic weapons readiness, I think a nice flurry of cruise missiles is more likely than actual door-to-door invasion.
Too costly. Maybe unless they've outsourced it all to China - they put the spend in expendable.

Who said anything about invasion? In the last century, more civilians were killed by agents of their own government than by any invader.

And cruise missiles would be counterproductive; it's difficult to tax rubble and corpses. Holdouts are much more likely to be targeted by a 'surgical' strike from a UAV, if that makes you sleep any more soundly.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 12:30:42 am by Bob G »
Whatsoever, for any cause, seeketh to take or give
  Power above or beyond the Laws, suffer it not to live.
Holy State, or Holy King, or Holy People's Will.
  Have no truck with the senseless thing, order the guns and kill.

The penultimate stanza of Rudyard Kipling's MacDonough's Song

Andreas on May 13, 2012, 12:20:08 am
Yes, civilians get killed, but NO, they do not kill them by door-to-door home invasion.
If they want to make an example of a state that tries to non-violently secede; they will do it with air power, not in melee.
After all, the troops might balk at the job, while missile launch staff have less psychological problems from their part of the job. Not looking the victims in the eye helps.

Scott on May 14, 2012, 01:13:35 pm
You may not be aware that we have experienced increasing instances of police SWAT teams storming homes and murdering innocents after looking them in the eye. Police culture has degraded significantly in the past 25 years and especially in the past decade, as war veterans are getting hired onto police forces.
Furthermore, I mentioned "Sino/NATO forces" for a reason: foreign troops are much less likely to feel sympathy for their victims.

But I don't expect to die in Wyoming. That's Boston T's dream, not mine.

Andreas on May 15, 2012, 12:02:13 am
You may not be aware that we have experienced increasing instances of police SWAT teams storming homes and murdering innocents after looking them in the eye. Police culture has degraded significantly in the past 25 years and especially in the past decade, as war veterans are getting hired onto police forces.
Furthermore, I mentioned "Sino/NATO forces" for a reason: foreign troops are much less likely to feel sympathy for their victims.

But I don't expect to die in Wyoming. That's Boston T's dream, not mine.

Yeah, the Chinese are probably the only nation with enough people to spare that they can spend it on a house-to-house campaign... it would still be very costly.
From over here it's hard to track "actual" reality in the mess of supposed, proposed and imposed "reality" that makes up the news- and other feeds.
It seems like the US police culture has it's own age-old problems, and the US armed forces has theirs... if those two sicknesses get mixed to a large extent then you guys are so screwed.

Killydd on May 15, 2012, 11:27:00 am
Yes, we are screwed.  With the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, they are trying to convince us that military doctrines are the solution to Civil problems, which is flagrantly illegal.  And at least there is finally some fighting back:  some states have at least declared that "No, you cannot just declare someone an enemy combatant on our territory."

customdesigned on May 15, 2012, 11:41:30 am
Yes, we are screwed.  With the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, they are trying to convince us that military doctrines are the solution to Civil problems, which is flagrantly illegal.  And at least there is finally some fighting back:  some states have at least declared that "No, you cannot just declare someone an enemy combatant on our territory."
You forgot the War on Poverty and the War on Child Pornography.  I always figured "War on xxx" was just a euphemism for unconstitutional.

Apparently more people are figuring that out, because there is a new twist this election.  The leftists are using "war" to describe constitutional proposals.  For e.g. the "War on Women" (i.e. refusing to provide federal taxpayer funded contraceptives).

Killydd on May 16, 2012, 02:12:33 am
Because there is nothing that says "violently opposed to" than "at war with" is the real answer to the politics there.  Of course, at least admit that the accusations in the War on Women go a bit further than that:  http://pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/ although in at least some cases it seems the argument is simply that women happen to have larger numbers in the targeted groups.

customdesigned on May 16, 2012, 09:46:22 am
Because there is nothing that says "violently opposed to" than "at war with" is the real answer to the politics there.  Of course, at least admit that the accusations in the War on Women go a bit further than that:  http://pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/ although in at least some cases it seems the argument is simply that women happen to have larger numbers in the targeted groups.
Good link.  Apart from refusing to subsidize xxx with federal taxpayer dollars in most of the points, the top two points seem to be talking about opposition to the Violence Against Women Act.  VAWA was an attempt to address the problem of women not reporting violent crimes.  It provides, among other things, that an arrest *must* be made when a female accuses a male of violence, regardless of any corroborating evidence, or lack of it.  (This was to combat the problem where women would be threatened with worse violence if they squeal.)  Furthermore, the accused male is presumed guilty until proven innocent EVEN if the female later retracts her accusation.  (This was to combat the problem where women would initially report domestic violence, then realize on monday that her man needs to go to work to pay the bills.)

All of this is blatantly unconstitutional (although addressing a serious problem that needs addressing), but most interesting is the change in society.  Before VAWA, violence was most often committed by males.  A decade after VAWA, most violent [domestic] crime is now committed by females!  Apparently, the predominance of male violence was due to the fact that they could get away with it.  Now that the tables have turned, females don't seem to be the saints some of us imagined them to be.

Edit: *domestic* violence has switched from predominantly male to predominantly female
« Last Edit: May 16, 2012, 08:16:28 pm by customdesigned »

mellyrn on May 16, 2012, 12:58:35 pm
Quote
Now that the tables have turned, females don't seem to be the saints some of us imagined them to be.

Yeah, we're imagined to be either angels or whores.  Why's it so hard (even for women) to think of us as "people"?

 

anything