James Arryn

That’s what makes you uncomfortable? When you’re making racism into a zero-sum scenario? If Nazi Germany had fought Imperial Japan, which one would have thereby stopped being racist? This is a pretty flimsy construct.

It’s like you’re not reading what I’m writing. I am NOT talking about what the right does why. I am saying that once you justify (our ‘side’) doing any/everything by w/e they (the other side) do, it’s not nearly as important who wins. If we effectively become them with different jerseys, why bother fighting? Yeah, I guess it’s better to kill than be killed, but once you win that, if you win that...if you’ve effectively said all methods are valid if you think the other side’s bad, do you really think it’ll ever end? Not doing the wrong thing should still matter. Doing the wrong thing should still matter. Everything else is just logistics. To come full circle to my original point, the Nazis/Fascists got to power BECAUSE people justified their actions by virtue of how bad the communists were. It’s riding the tiger. *Cue the Devil speech from A Man For All Seasons.*

To me, this is like Birthism or the Riverboat thing with Kerry...I think they don’t care if they lose on the particulars, they’re looking at the broader strokes. Like with Rivetboats, on paper it’s a clear loser...the people on the side of the AWOL silver spoon war-avoider keep hitting the Vietnam note against the decorated war hero. Makes no sense, or as you say, something’s missing. But Rove was using a shot gun, not a rifle. In a situation where you had an unpopular war dragging out, US prestige and credibility seriously under fire and related deceptions, scandals and illegal acts getting attention, repeatedly re-raising the spectre of Vietnam was pushing the Lesson Learned button. And the actual lesson most Americans learned about Nam has nothing to do with just cause or legal action or even being right, it had to do with losing because of doubt/questioning, and the grim spectacle of national depression that followed as a result. So raising the issue...even while technically losing...was in fact a win in the general consciousness. Same with Birthism. Even if you lose on the specifics, you have successfully raised race, activism and ‘real’ Americanism as a broader issue. This one (Warren) is slightly different, raising race in the context of libs bending over backwards to empathize/make relevent being a minority. So, the more they can raise this kind of tone, it’s playing well to the people who aren’t terribly interested in the individual notes. And even some in the middle, finding it as confusing as you do, will be susceptible to suggestion that this being much ado about nothing must speak to the left constantly trying to make minorities a something. And then, again, just generally raising race as the backdrop.

Well I’ll clearly have to re-evaluate this position. No, you’re misunderstanding my point, which has nothing to do with how they’ll react and being afraid of same. I’m worried where we ALL go if everything is justified by what the others do.

Sorry, bit confused here. When you responded to links to the Proud Boy violence by saying “While we're here, might I also mention the situation in Portland where leftist thugs routinely take over the streets while the police do nothing?” and linking the Portland scene, that was you implicitly condemning the PB violence and racism? Because, to the untutored eye, it looks like classics...almost hilariously classic...whataboutism. I mean, if you replaced ‘while we’re here’ with ‘but what about’ it probably doesn’t get past the satire filters.

The Nazis and Fascists both literally started as organized street fighters united in their zeal to defeat communism one broken head at a time. So they are trying to regenesis. If enough RW Americans perceive Antifa ( or immigrants or communists or socialists or homosexuals or muslims or eventually Democrats) as an existential threat, they get their mandate. (Which is why I’m also against organized Punch a Nazi movements.)

*sweetpea commences furious search for whatabout*

I get what you’re saying, but isn’t the entire point of the SC and lifetime appointments in particular supposed to be about being beyond making decisions based on personal gain?

I thought the racism at war aspect was pertinent, especially as it was cited re: Fog of War, and I must say that killing hundreds of thousands of civilians for humanitarian reasons always raises my eyebrows, but I’ll take your point about it being too much of a detour.

I was all geared up to get bucked about my A-Bomb comments in the Nam thread, so take that into account.

Yeah, exactly. ‘He had Rice’ is often said as THE argument which is surprising when half his career/rings went by before Rice graduated. Montana is ‘81 was about as close as you’ll get to a 1 man NFL championship, at least from what I can see in the numbers/on film. Even by ‘84 they’d only really added Roger Craig in terms of anyone worth noting on offense, and he was a rookie playing FB. (They were stacked on D, though).

Sure, stickum and Lester Hayes and Cliff Branch and Jack Tatum and...eh, name escapes me but the guy always mentioned with Hayes, names kinda similar. I can name more, and to be fair both of these teams are before my time, I only know from watching lots of NFL stuff, like Top Tens...and it’s possible some of my Raiders mentioned are different era. But my point is more that I’d expect to know some if I was proffering definitive opinions about how Plunkett et al compared with others and was specifically citing their teammates as a decisive factor. Edit: Stickum is Belitnikov? Not sure on spelling, always just remember he was famous for being soaked in the stuff and tough for a little guy. Oh, and obviously Marcus Allen, thought i’d said his name first.

I don’t think it’s an either/or. Especially because both performed at that level without each other.

The official reasons for Hiroshima/Nagasaki have gone down as ‘less costly/bloody than an invasion’ because of all the actual reasons it sounds the best, but in reality that was a relatively minor consideration for the people making the decisions. If you haven’t eaten recently, go and look up the communiques between the various officials/departments at the time. The REAL reasons were more like: 1) Show the world what we can do, especially but not exclusively Russia. 2) Kill lots of @&*#%#@ing Japs, Pearl Harbour Pearl Harbour. 3) Return on investment. 4) Take control before the USSR gets too involved in this sphere. 5) Unconditional surrender, accept no substitutes. big gap Other stuff. Because, while it was undeniably true that an actual invasion could prove disastrously costly, very few people thought it was even necessary. Time was very much working against a Japan cut off from any supply, and the Brits could (and did) speak very eloquently about how decisive that was for an island nation. The trouble with that method is highlighted in the list above...it was much less effective at scaring the rest of the world, no dramatic payoff, might take a bit to get to unconditional, not nearly as satisfyingly vengeful for PH and above all it probably ceded some regional control to the Soviets if it took long enough. But, beyond that, the terms used casually in the communiques about the Japanese is shockingly vitriolic and vengeful and...juvenile. Even if you accept the racism as par for the times, the sheer volume and quantity of descriptive epithets and glee at their expected suffering is just unbelievable for any kind of high level governmental/military discussion. Honestly, it’s just bizarre. But we must remember that bringing Japanese heads home as souvenirs was a thing in America. Hell, there’s a Time cover of a smiling soldier posing with the souvenir (ie head) he sent his...wife? Sister? Girlfriend? Can’t remember, but anyways, the cover is NOT by ways of an expose, either. Just mementos. There’s nothing like this about Germans. And before you say Pearl Harbour, I say Operation Drumbeat/Rolling Thunder. When you say ‘what?’ I say ‘exactly.’

Montana had 2 rings before Jerry Rice was even drafted. Aside from Dwight Clark, famous for the Catch, can you name any offensive player from the ‘81 team?