Michael Moore = Douchebag

[Gary M]

 

There was a lot of that mentality in the 18th and 19th century. And, from the perspective of those centuries it makes sense.

 

And pretty much why we are not a British colony any longer. They just couldn't give up that "line up and fire" tradition.

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

It's war. It's messy. The point is to kill the enemy. Protect your own. I guess we could have been manly and tried a ground war on Japan in 1945 but the US pussied out and dropped the bomb.

THey kind of started the bombing. We just ended it.

[Azalin]

 

There was a lot of that mentality in the 18th and 19th century. And, from the perspective of those centuries it makes sense. I worked with a stunt guy here who is an edge weapon expert (the kind of guy who choreographs sword fights and the like) and he still feels that way despite serving 20 years in the Marines.

He has a point (no pun intended ), but I would lump all firearms - long & short range, artillery, mines, grenades, etc into that group. Sadly, we're really good at killing each other.

 

 

I've heard the same rationale for internet debate.

Without a doubt. 95% of all internet douchebaggery would vanish if such comments and discussions were made in a face-to-face environment.

[keepthefaith]

THey kind of started the bombing. We just ended it.

Well said.

[Dante]

THey kind of started the bombing. We just ended it.

I know but were we cowardly for dropping the A bomb instead of taking them on face to face on the beaches of Japan? Losing a couple hundred thousand more of our own? That seems to be the reasoning.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Dante

[Ozymandius]

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/green-beret-sniper-hilariously-destroys-michael-moore-open-letter

[DC Tom]

I remember reading that that was pretty much the attitude towards firearms in general when they were first introduced on the battlefield. They didn't require the skill that a swordsman needed to have, and could kill from a safe distance, without having to directly face your opponent.

You can go back further than that. No doubt the French nobility felt the same about English longbows at Crechy and Agincourt. Certainly the ancient Greeks felt that way about archery.

[Azalin]

You can go back further than that. No doubt the French nobility felt the same about English longbows at Crechy and Agincourt. Certainly the ancient Greeks felt that way about archery.

King Arthur's men certainly felt that way over the French hurling a cow at them from the castle wall.

[/dev/null]

King Arthur's men certainly felt that way over the French hurling a cow at them from the castle wall.

Fetchez la vache

[Dante]

 

Who, besides Moore (and to a much less political extent, Seth Rogen), is "babbling" about this movie or trying to make a point that isn't self serving?

 

 

Here is a pretty good rundown of the left misinformation effort.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396768/kyle-derangement-syndrome-ian-tuttle

Edited January 20, 2015 by Dante

[Deranged Rhino]

Here is a pretty good rundown of the left misinformation effort.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396768/kyle-derangement-syndrome-ian-tuttle

 

I think you just proved my point.

[IDBillzFan]

Here is a pretty good rundown of the left misinformation effort.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396768/kyle-derangement-syndrome-ian-tuttle

 

It amazes me how many times progressive bloggers for places like Salon or DailyKos write articles basing an opinion on a book or movie they admit they never read or watched.

 

But when gatorman is your flagbearer, we probably shouldn't be surprised.

[DC Tom]

Here is a pretty good rundown of the left misinformation effort.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396768/kyle-derangement-syndrome-ian-tuttle

 

I stopped after the first section. Bitching about the Guardian's hatred of America is like bitching about Bill Belichick cheating: it makes no sense, but it's not going away and you just have to accept it.

 

It amazes me how many times progressive bloggers for places like Salon or DailyKos write articles basing an opinion on a book or movie they admit they never read or watched.

 

But when gatorman is your flagbearer, we probably shouldn't be surprised.

 

Why would that surprise you? Progressive legislators passed a bill they admitted they never read.

[GG]

 

I worked with a stunt guy here who is an edge weapon expert (the kind of guy who choreographs sword fights and the like) and he still feels that way despite serving 20 years in the Marines.

 

Make sure to park your SUV straight to avoid any suspicion.

[Dante]

 

I stopped after the first section. Bitching about the Guardian's hatred of America is like bitching about Bill Belichick cheating: it makes no sense, but it's not going away and you just have to accept it.

 

 

He just wanted more examples of left wing babbling other than Rogan and Moore.

[B-Man]

‘American Sniper’ Dominates Again with $64.4 Million Weekend

Associated Press,

 

Original Article

[Tiberius]

I remember reading that that was pretty much the attitude towards firearms in general when they were first introduced on the battlefield. They didn't require the skill that a swordsman needed to have, and could kill from a safe distance, without having to directly face your opponent.

Not really, it was the bow they replaced, not swordsmen. And with bayonets they took on the aspect of the ancient phalanx, shoot, then charge. And they fired volleys because the weapon was so inaccurate. So they did face their opponent in most cases.

[DC Tom]

Not really, it was the bow they replaced, not swordsmen. And with bayonets they took on the aspect of the ancient phalanx, shoot, then charge. And they fired volleys because the weapon was so inaccurate. So they did face their opponent in most cases.

 

This is...surprisingly accurate.

 

Only thing you got wrong was comparing bayonets to phalanges. The phalanx was an offensive formation, using spears (or sarissa). Bayonets supplemented, then replaced, pike formations, which were largely defensive formations.

 

And that doesn't change the contempt in which they were held...but that contempt stems directly from the contempt archers were held in.

[IDBillzFan]

This is...surprisingly accurate.

 

Only thing you got wrong was comparing bayonets to phalanges. The phalanx was an offensive formation, using spears (or sarissa). Bayonets supplemented, then replaced, pike formations, which were largely defensive formations.

 

And that doesn't change the contempt in which they were held...but that contempt stems directly from the contempt archers were held in.

 

Jeez, he can't even copy and paste schitt properly.

[Azalin]

Not really, it was the bow they replaced, not swordsmen. And with bayonets they took on the aspect of the ancient phalanx, shoot, then charge. And they fired volleys because the weapon was so inaccurate. So they did face their opponent in most cases.

 

 

This is...surprisingly accurate.

 

Only thing you got wrong was comparing bayonets to phalanges. The phalanx was an offensive formation, using spears (or sarissa). Bayonets supplemented, then replaced, pike formations, which were largely defensive formations.

 

And that doesn't change the contempt in which they were held...but that contempt stems directly from the contempt archers were held in.

I should have specified that I was referring directly to close-quarters combat.