James Arryn

Members
  • Content count

    12,941
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About James Arryn

  • Rank
    Vice President of the Autocracy

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

9,833 profile views
  1. MLB 2016: Win for Vin

    I think you might want to consider not pitching to Donaldson at this point. He's just crushing baseballs. Yesterday's 4 at bats went: 1) 110 MPH 417ft HR 2) 103.8 MPH 397ft HR 3) 106.4 MPH 399ft HR 4) 101.1 MPH 344ft fly out. ...and he just hit another one out in his second at bat today.
  2. Watch, Watched, Watching: The Workprint Prototype Version

    Caught a few episodes of the Night Manager on a looooong flight to Oz, am totally hooked. Wish I'd not wasted time earlier with Batman vs. superman, but Steve Jobs definitely was worth the time.
  3. NFL 2016 Offseason: THIS Is The Year!

    Lol. But seriously, just watched his interview on this, and he came off way more eloquent, sincere and humble than I'd ever have expected. Football interviews he always seems to be going through the motions, but here he was engaged, he was hearing the questions and subtext to them, and he addressed the military snag like a seasoned politician. Maybe this is his future.
  4. NFL 2016 Offseason: THIS Is The Year!

    Even liberal Americans tend to get weirdly John Wayne about the flag shit...especially in sports...so I expect there will be reasons found why he's wrong here.
  5. Do conservative people lack imagination?

    Only consistent difference I see is that they are much more fearful.
  6. Of course the relationship is adversarial...do you suppose their contribution came about voluntarily? This is like crediting the police with your Miranda rights.
  7. US Elections - There is 'Ahead in the Polls' behind you

    I get what you're thinking, but alluding to something you don't want t say outright might play into Trump's hand. If he demands clarification, it gives him the initiative. If she does so,he can call her out for lack of proof...if she doesn't he gets to go off on rants about typical Washington bs and all that, to play his (completely fraudulent) 'straight-talker' card. The fact that he'd be being hypocritical is kinda irrelevant, people seem to either overlook his constant contradictions or are already past them?..it's not a scholastic debate point, but would make for an ad-hom tv moment. You want him flustered and ranting, but you don't want to feed him the means to actually have a valid point behind his ranting. I think you either bring upsomething outright...thereby being prepared to also discuss his allegations against you, or you deflect. If you try and score points on defense, I think you're potentially giving him an opening, and what's more HC's personality won't help this...she often comes off peevish, passive-aggressive and condescending when getting defensive. Her non-apology apologies aren't great, but they don't really hurt her too much either. She has real holes in her armour, so I think she ought to play defense on her most vulnerable spots, and win almost everywhere else. I'll say it again, though...Democrats are their own worst enemies in the run-up to debates, always without fail talking about how the R is gonna get smoked, and thereby almost always giving the opposition apparent close losses/ties/victories just by being able to form complete sentences and not shoot anyone during the broadcast.
  8. NFL 2016 Offseason: THIS Is The Year!

    It's never the crime, it's the cover-up that nails you.
  9. Lois Lane's hair colour has been all over the place, though. Mostly back, but also lighter brown, auburn, red...basically everything but blonde. Not sure it's much of a defining characteristic.
  10. US Elections - There is 'Ahead in the Polls' behind you

    That this line keeps being casually blurred by so many is freaking scary. It's like we're time travelling.
  11. US Elections - There is 'Ahead in the Polls' behind you

    There is no way any sentence that starts like this can be used to discuss actual policy.
  12. I get you, sorry for verging off into semantics. What I meant to say was that I think the models overall present value, ie this is how expansive/imperial states tend to act, tend to react, etc. And that can be looked at in this case in terms of decline, though it's important to remember contextual priorities. As an illustration, to the medieval mind, they were at the apex of civilization even while knowing that they couldn't build/administer/rule like the Romans had. Because their priorities had shifted to the spiritual, and there they thought themselves the most advanced. So in any age, the idea of ascent/decline etc. is not necessarily along the lines we'd agree with now. We currently prioritize technology, and thst's the rubric we use to measure past societies, but to a medieval mind we'd be in a terrible state, most of us damned to eternal torment. To someone from classical Greece we would seem terribly homogenized, politically...we'd be thought to have forgotten all but one or 2 voices from the choir of political thought...Macedonians would be cool with that part, but find us mostly effete submissive clerks. Etc. I get way off point pretty quickly the closer a discussion gets to my areas of study...
  13. Well, that and the fact that the military forces were eventually composed of almost entirely 'barbarian' forces of various romanization. This was not so much an issue of composition as the definition of a Roman constantly evolved but that towards the end it wasn't so much 'barbarians' put through the Roman system as entire bodies of troops recruited and used in their own traditional way who happened to be fighting for the empire. Auxiliaries had always worked that way, but after a certain point the entire army was almost auxiliary. Edit: but as to your point about integration, absolutely. I mean, Rome was a city. The entire concept of Roman was necessarily elastic and evolving, else they'd be trying to run the world with the people of one town. The history of Rome is waves of redefinition of Roman in often huge blocks of incorporated citizens. Without that pattern, Rome would never have even been anything at all...some historians credit their elastic citizenship as the crucial mechanism that allowed them to transcend the more insular/colonial Greek model.
  14. I always find the comparisons unworkable as 1:1, anyways. The US as an imperial power has existed for a fragment of the time the Roman Empire endured, to the point that there were only vague academic understandings of the world before them...very much not the case with the current situation. And that sense of realistic permanence had significant effects on how both Romans and non-Romans behaved. For example, almost none of the 'barbarian' states that brought about the fall of the Western Empire wanted to do any such thing...they were actually mostly fighting to become accepted into the Roman Empire.