You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18303
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by BoSoxGal »

Big RR wrote:
Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:41 pm
Maybe darts dipped in a cyanide solution? Ordinarily, ingestion of poison is a problematic way of committing suicide as people will often throw it up; the darts could provide a different way of administering it without that problem. Of course, it did work fairly well in Jonestown. I guess you could also mix it with sulfuric acid in your own "gas chamber", but containing the poison gas could prove to be difficult.
One of the reasons people choose cyanide as a method of suicide is that it is nearly foolproof; death occurs within minutes of ingestion so the vomiting issue you raised is not really relevant, especially because it takes only a very small amount of cyanide to kill an adult human being.

The difference being that when a person takes a bunch of pills to suicide, most substances they might take have to be absorbed into the body and have sufficient time to cause the organ damage or respiratory failure that is the ultimate cause of death. Cyanide on the other hand very quickly blocks the ability of cells to absorb oxygen and death occurs very rapidly - hence the cyanide capsules carried by spies.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

Big RR
Posts: 14052
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Big RR »

I forgot about the spy capsules, BSG; you are right.

Thanks.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Scooter »

Image
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18303
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by BoSoxGal »

He really is the Antichrist.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

This seems as good a place as any to post this. Normally I'd hesitate to pass this on except that it's hilarious. Unfortunately there are people who believe what this idiot says.

Image

I especially love the 'except for Gettysburg' bit. Maybe I should have posted it in 'Laffs.'

Big RR
Posts: 14052
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Big RR »

I love statement that the civil war would have been over in one day if Lee commanded the northern army (presumably the army of the Potomac?); I have great respect for hsi strategic skills, but one day? Trump has shown once again that he is a big ass.

And Lee in Afghanistan? What, on horseback using Napoleonic tactics? As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a maroon".
Last edited by Big RR on Thu Sep 09, 2021 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
eddieq
Posts: 461
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:08 am

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by eddieq »

Unhinged has always been the kindest thing I could think of to say about TFG.

CNN segment on the letter

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

On the subject of the mythology which has arisen around Lee, The Atlantic published this in June. I doubt that The Atlantic is on Trump's reading list. There's a pretty high bar to entry to that exclusive set.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20707
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Big RR wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:31 pm
I love statement that the civil war would have been over in one day if Lee commanded the northern army (presumably the army of the Potomac?); I have great respect for his strategic skills, but one day? Trump has shown once again that he is a big ass.

And Lee in Afghanistan? What, on horseback using Napoleonic tactics? As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a maroon".
Army of Northeastern Virginia actually - under McDowell until after 1st Manassas/Bull Run. McClellan took charge of the Department of the Potomac and that of Virginia and cancelled out the Union losers, creating the Army of the Potomac in July 1861. Good name change - otherwise one wonders what Lee would have called his lot?

One day - well, would that have been at 1st Manassas one wonders? Or earlier, before the armies could even get to grips, waving a magic wand? Lee was as inept as anyone in those early days, viz his nicknames of Granny Lee and King of Spades, unable to save Kanawha (where McClellan farted about successfully) and thank you Lee, there's West Virginia.

Note that the Confederacy didn't think so highly of his skills either - having lost at Cheat Mountain he was banished to coastal defences in SC and GA. He did well (King of Spades) in engineering those. It wasn't until the "best general" in the Confederacy Joe Johnston was wounded that Lee was put in his place at the head of the Army of Northern Virginia (not to be confused with McDowell's mob earlier). That was JUNE 1862 one full year after 1st Bull Run - not one full day.

Gettysburg did not destroy the Confederacy or the AONV. Vicksburg did the first and, by extension, the second. Lee LOST Gettysburg, a most badly mismanaged battle. He invaded the North twice and LOST both times - his strategy and his tactics questionable after Chancellorsville. Can't blame JEB Stuart for his absence from the Gettysburg campaign - Lee gave him permission to make a choice, one of which was disastrous and that's what JEB chose. Can't blame Ewell for failing at Culp's Hill on day 1 - Lee with his patrician "if practicable" laid out Ewell's cautious course there. Both predictable given the character of the sub-commanders.

Would Lee have been swiftly successful in command of the National army from day one? Maybe - he certainly made the template that Grant followed in '64 when he smashed McClellan (and much of his own army) on the Peninsula in '62. If USG was a butcher, then Lee was equally so. IMO

Trump is a historilliterate.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20707
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

PS thanks ex-kA - I've saved that Atlantic article to read later. In the meantime, here's what my pal Snooks wrote about Lee (and he should know, having served under him):
Lee’s affection for [his soldiers] was more like that of the owner toward a thoroughbred horse—the animal may be magnificent and worthy of great emotion and care but in the end, it is just glue.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Big RR
Posts: 14052
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Big RR »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 11:54 am
PS thanks ex-kA - I've saved that Atlantic article to read later. In the meantime, here's what my pal Snooks wrote about Lee (and he should know, having served under him):
Lee’s affection for [his soldiers] was more like that of the owner toward a thoroughbred horse—the animal may be magnificent and worthy of great emotion and care but in the end, it is just glue.
What other kind of affection could a commander have of the men he was sending to their deaths? He cared for and appreciated them, but anything more and it would be difficult to make the command decisions he had to make?

Re Gettysburg, I think the absence of the deceased Stonewall Jackson and Lee's health at the time played a big hand in the outcome. I think Gettysburg was a gamble to force an end to the war by bringing it north, encouraging them to just end it before more fighting occurred in their backyards. It was a desperate strategy, but I think Lee knew that his supplies or armaments and men were dwindling, and that he would lose because of that if the war went on long enough (I think that was the view of many northern generals as well); for a number of reasons it did not work

As for the Atlantic article, it was interesting, but I would have liked to see some footnoting to support some of the allegations made; they may well be true, but I would like to see what they were based on. Like many men, Lee was complex and hardly a god (or devil for that matter). He was a white supremacist (as were many white people at the time, including Lincoln), held and trafficked in slaves (as did many, even in the north, especially the border states), and did a number of the behaviors stated, but there are others I am not sure of. And it would have been interesting to see what Virginia would have done had Lincoln followed Lee's counsel and not sent an army into the state to quell the secession.

As I have said many times, I can understand the southern position far more than that of the north; they were fighting for their homes and their right to govern themselves as they saw fit (including a continuation of slavery) while the north was fighting to compel them to remain in a union in which they were nor really wanted (and not to end slavery, at least for a number of years). And, as in all wars, there was nobility and sacrifice on both sides, and plenty of blame to pass around.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20707
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Big RR wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:43 pm
And it would have been interesting to see what Virginia would have done had Lincoln followed Lee's counsel and not sent an army into the state to quell the secession.

As I have said many times, I can understand the southern position far more than that of the north; they were fighting for their homes and their right to govern themselves as they saw fit (including a continuation of slavery) while the north was fighting to compel them to remain in a union in which they were nor really wanted (and not to end slavery, at least for a number of years). And, as in all wars, there was nobility and sacrifice on both sides, and plenty of blame to pass around.
Hmmm, what was Lee's counsel to Lincoln? I missed it.

Your time flow is a bit off there. Virginia had already done what Virginia did before Lincoln (or Winfield Scott) sent troops into the state. Virginia voted against secession on April 4; Fort Sumter SC was attacked on April 12; Lincoln called for all states to raise troops to subdue the rebellion on April 15; Virginia's General Assembly voted to secede on April 17; Lee resigned April 20; Lee took command of Virginia state forces on April 23; Virginia's popular vote approved the ordinance of secession May 23; National troops moved into Alexandria on May 24.

We don't need to be apologists for rebellion and treason. “If Virginia stands by the old Union,” Lee told a friend, “so will I. But if she secedes (though I do not believe in secession as a constitutional right, nor that there is sufficient cause for revolution), then I will follow my native State with my sword, and, if need be, with my life.”
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Big RR
Posts: 14052
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Big RR »

Point taken Meade--I grant you that the actual march into Virginia was later, but Lincoln's first action was to raise an army and march south (necessarily through Virginia) to quell the rebellion; and I imagine this is what led the Virginia General Assembly to vote to secede two days later. I also concede that Lee's comments may have been delivered to Scott (not directly to Lincoln), but Lee's position was clearly that he would not take arms against his native state (even though he thought secession was illegal and did not support the confederacy). If I recall correctly, he even told Scott that he would remain int he army if he did not have to participate in the war (but, not surprisingly, was rebuffed).

And FWIW, I am not an apologist of any sort, but believe the secession was legal and still think things may have turned out far better (for the remaining states) if we just let the seceding states go (but, of course, we did not, and still deal with the fallout of that decision today). I could understand a war to end slavery, but the civil war was clearly not this as the many slaves were legally held in the border states, even after the Emancipation Proclamation; what I cannot understand is a war to force people who did not want to be in the same (supposedly democratic) country to remain against their collective will. While should need not be apologists for the south or embrace the fiction that the perpetuation of slavery had nothing to do with their actions, let's not pretend the north acted for truly high minded moral reasons. Of course, the victors write the accepted history, so that's the fiction we are stuck with.

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18303
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by BoSoxGal »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 2:16 pm
“If Virginia stands by the old Union,” Lee told a friend, “so will I. But if she secedes (though I do not believe in secession as a constitutional right, nor that there is sufficient cause for revolution), then I will follow my native State with my sword, and, if need be, with my life.”
Sounds like a lemming?
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18303
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by BoSoxGal »

B335A677-68CF-4A63-951E-295ABDB0DF5F.jpeg
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20707
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Big RR wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 4:09 pm
Point taken Meade--I grant you that the actual march into Virginia was later, but Lincoln's first action was to raise an army and march south (necessarily through Virginia) to quell the rebellion; and I imagine this is what led the Virginia General Assembly to vote to secede two days later.
OK well we're getting somewhere... no, Lincoln's first action was not to raise an army and march south. His first action (in this area) was to call upon the states to send men to form an army. Neither he nor any national army marched anywhere at all. Virginia seceded merely because he "called" for an army to respond to the attack on the United States in South Carolina. I bet you know that waging war against the US by any internal part of it is treason. You can imagine what you want but it ain't so.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Big RR
Posts: 14052
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Big RR »

Calling for an army is raising an army, pure and simple. And why was it raised? To march south. and how would it get south? Through Virginia. This was what Virginia didn't want.

As for treason, believe what you want.

Burning Petard
Posts: 4050
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Burning Petard »

Treason? believe what you want.

Me, I prefer to believe something with a predominance of evidence.

The USofA and the CSA were in a state of war between them. The CSA lost. The surrender of the CSA included imposition of the will of the USofA.
That entity held that The CSA was in a condition of rebellion against its lawful sovereign, the people of the USofA. The USofA declared that this was an act of treason, and then granted pardon for that act.

That says to me, without reasonable doubt, that the CSA was a treasonous organization.

snailgate

Big RR
Posts: 14052
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Big RR »

Except the signers of the Dcclaration of Independence may not agree with you; they provided a list of grievances, said that the sovereign knew these existed and claimed the right to secede from the British empire. Sure, the British objected and started/pursued a war over it, but one would have hoped that the government which sprang from this would have been more sympathetic--as we know it was not. The issue of secession is settled now (at least until someone has a superior force and demands it), but it was hardly settled in 1861. One man's treason is another's freedom fighting.

Face it, either we subscribe to the compact form of government, where states and peoples can choose to leave or remain (and governments only exercise power derived from the consent of the governed), or we subscribe to the might makes right theory (where the one with the biggest army wins and can govern without the consent) , in which you can leave only if you can force me to let you go or I decide to let you. I have always favored the former, but the civil war made it clear which the national government prefers.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20707
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

And thus the Constitution is rendered null and void . . .

But for those who believe in the Constitution . . . https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... clauses/39
It was not enough, Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion emphasized, merely to conspire “to subvert by force the government of our country” by recruiting troops, procuring maps, and drawing up plans. Conspiring to levy war was distinct from actually levying war. Rather, a person could be convicted of treason for levying war only if there was an “actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing a treasonable design.” (1807)

The Constitution specifically identifies what constitutes treason against the United States and, importantly, limits the offense of treason to only two types of conduct: (1) “levying war” against the United States; or (2) “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States], giving them aid and comfort.”
And if we are going to reduce military options to simplistic "going south means marching through Virginia" then there's an end to serious analysis of history. Virginia chose to aid and abet an actual attack on the United States and to resist legitimate recovery of US property/personnel and reinstating Federal laws and rights by whatever route the National government might choose - which could have been (and in the end was) via the Mississippi, let alone via amphibious landings. Virginia declared itself an enemy of the United States and THEN reaped the whirlwind. Not the other way round.

To prefer the "erring sisters leave in peace" way of thinking, agrees neither with the Constitution nor the nation nor the overly excused Lee who himself did not "believe in secession as a constitutional right, nor that there is sufficient cause for revolution". He says of himself then that he went against what was legally binding and engaged in revolution - or rebellion - against what was correct and lawful.

But in the end, as Big RR points out, it has been decided because the rebels lost and the nation won.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Post Reply