A thread for Democrats Only
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 137 of 725
SECOND, for some reason, your name (and everyone else's) shows up as all caps in the "attribution" line; at least for me.
I would still like an explanation of the following. Not meaning to pick a fight, but just very curious how you fit "liking" and "winning" into the same sentence about the same people. I'm hoping that you can provide an example of how you can "like" someone enough to "win" ... surely, you must have thought about what you would have done differently if you were in charge.
Quote:
It is the fundamental problem with language. Only telepathy will do what I need in as few words as I'm willing to use. Since Signym is not telepathic, the following probably won't clear up anything, either, but let me just say that a lot of soldiers (not all draftees, obviously, or the war would have been even crazier than it was) who went to Vietnam after 1970 were resentful that they were even there. They took out their resentment on the people who idealists like me were fighting for. They resented the South Vietnamese. That is a crazy way to fight: resenting the people you are there to defend. I, second, can't win all by myself when most of the people around me and most of those back in the USA don't think the war is worth fighting. Nuke all of Vietnam, North and South, declare victory and go home, was the best imaginable strategy for the resentful soldiers. - SECOND
I thank you for those words, and would appreciate more. Let's imagine that the military service, from draftee up thru the ranks to the highest generals AND the President, shared your idealism. What would "winning" have looked like, to you, and -perhaps more importantly - HOW would you have achieved that goal/ won the war? - SIGNY
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
As long as you insist that everything is the Republicans'/ Democrats' fault, then you fail to grasp the REAL problem with American politics.
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
New York files suit against President Trump, alleging his charity engaged in 'illegal conduct'
The New York attorney general on Thursday filed suit against President Trump and his three eldest children alleging “persistently illegal conduct” at the president’s personal charity, saying Trump repeatedly misused the nonprofit — to pay off his businesses’ creditors, to decorate one of his golf clubs and to stage a multimillion dollar giveaway at his 2016 campaign events.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/new-york-files
-suit-against-president-trump-alleging-his-charity-engaged-in-illegal-conduct-20180614.html
T 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I know many soldiers that think the Vietnam War could have been "won". Nothing ever changes their minds. So I stopped even attempting that, on Vietnam or anything else. If I don't like 'em, I treat them like they have moved to another planet beyond communication range. In business, where I can't do that, I use the carrot and the stick. People can do as they please, but I will either reward or fire them depending on what they do. No minds need to be changed by me. I only change my associations until I found some that are compatible, ones that don't cheat, steal, lie.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, for some reason, your name (and everyone else's) shows up as all caps in the "attribution" line; at least for me.
I would still like an explanation of the following. Not meaning to pick a fight, but just very curious how you fit "liking" and "winning" into the same sentence about the same people. I'm hoping that you can provide an example of how you can "like" someone enough to "win" ... surely, you must have thought about what you would have done differently if you were in charge.
Quote:
It is the fundamental problem with language. Only telepathy will do what I need in as few words as I'm willing to use. Since Signym is not telepathic, the following probably won't clear up anything, either, but let me just say that a lot of soldiers (not all draftees, obviously, or the war would have been even crazier than it was) who went to Vietnam after 1970 were resentful that they were even there. They took out their resentment on the people who idealists like me were fighting for. They resented the South Vietnamese. That is a crazy way to fight: resenting the people you are there to defend. I, second, can't win all by myself when most of the people around me and most of those back in the USA don't think the war is worth fighting. Nuke all of Vietnam, North and South, declare victory and go home, was the best imaginable strategy for the resentful soldiers. - SECOND
I thank you for those words, and would appreciate more. Let's imagine that the military service, from draftee up thru the ranks to the highest generals AND the President, shared your idealism. What would "winning" have looked like, to you, and -perhaps more importantly - HOW would you have achieved that goal/ won the war? - SIGNY
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
As long as you insist that everything is the Republicans'/ Democrats' fault, then you fail to grasp the REAL problem with American politics.
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
Not being a politician, I don't need to change a majority of Americans in my district, I just need to filter out the ones that are useless. Signym, for example, is useless, completely incompatible with me and would be fired in the first month as a time wasting moron who can't stop communicating.
My winning strategy for the Vietnam War would have been for Congress to disbelieve every word from Kissinger, Agnew, and Nixon (KAN for short) on Vietnam. But Congress was, back then and even until today, too trusting, too lazy, too deferential toward authority for disbelief in KAN to control 2/3rds of Congress. In an ideal world, Congress should have removed KAN, despite the unwise voters placing all power in KAN. Americans being who they are, and Congress deferring to the voters, that wouldn't happen. But America had the good fortune when Nixon still had a functioning conscious, perhaps because of his Quaker background. He removed himself out of shame at what he had done. Then the Vietnam War ended for the US. Given some time, the Vietnamese won when the South Vietnamese President, placed there by KAN, gave up the fight. Decades passed before the mess of that war was cleaned up by the Vietnamese.
Nowadays, we have a President without a functioning conscious, unlike Ni
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SECOND, at one point you said that we didn't "like" the Vietnamese enough to "win". Now, you say it COULDN'T have been "won"
Quote:You implied at one point that the war could have been conducted differently (i.e stop shooting water buffaloes) and follow it by saying
I know many soldiers that think the Vietnam War could have been "won". Nothing ever changes their minds.
Quote:That's not a "strategy" of any sort. So what does that MEAN? Does it mean that we shouldn't have started military action at all? That we should have depended on more "carrot" (development aid) than "stick" (killing)?
My winning strategy for the Vietnam War would have been for Congress to disbelieve every word from Kissinger, Agnew, and Nixon (KAN for short) on Vietnam.
What was your GOAL for S Vietnam, if any? A democratically-elected government? A small-business capitalist economy? Simply rooting out N Vietnamese influence? How would you have handled S Vietnamese who were sympathetic to communism? Kill them because they were ideologically suspect? Leave them alone because they were S Vietnamese? How would have treated S Vietnamese who were anti-American, without being pro-communist? Respect them because of their nationalism?
The reason why I'm drilling down on this is because YOU claim that "Americans" are the cause of our problems because of their "goals", then make the case that KAN had goals which they didn't even share with the American people, and that they (not average Americans) were mandating our actions in Vietnam.
All you seem to do is "react" to what you "hate". But don't you know what you want? Don't you have any idea how to get there?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
As long as you insist that everything is the Republicans'/ Democrats' fault, then you fail to grasp the REAL problem with American politics.
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oddly enough, when I go to your link, the article is from 2016. And the study the article is about (which is linked in the article) uses data from 2013-2014. "Changes in Life Expectancy by Race and Hispanic Origin in the United States, 2013–2014".
Originally posted by SECOND:
The headline says it all: "Life Expectancy Drops For Whites, Rises For Blacks and Hispanics" www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/articles/2016-04-20/life-expectanc
y-drops-for-whites-rises-for-blacks-and-hispanics
I think you need to reference the most recent data, rather than out of date information, if you want to look like anything other than a total irrelevancy.
And THEN, you go on to makes gross assumptions and illogical conclusions based on the bad data you misleadingly referenced. Very sloppy, lazy, and biased.
SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:Quote:Oddly enough, when I go to your link, the article is from 2016. And the study the article is about (which is linked in the article) uses data from 2013-2014. "Changes in Life Expectancy by Race and Hispanic Origin in the United States, 2013–2014".
Originally posted by SECOND:
The headline says it all: "Life Expectancy Drops For Whites, Rises For Blacks and Hispanics" www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/articles/2016-04-20/life-expectanc
y-drops-for-whites-rises-for-blacks-and-hispanics
I think you need to reference the most recent data, rather than out of date information, if you want to look like anything other than a total irrelevancy.
And THEN, you go on to makes gross assumptions and illogical conclusions based on the bad data you misleadingly referenced. Very sloppy, lazy, and biased.
SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).
So? 1kiki, you cannot in good faith knockdown 2016 data unless you, and by that I mean 1kiki, present actual data. Using the word "sloppy" does not make it sloppy. You have to bring something new to the here and now. You have to do it yourself. I will simplify it for you: the Americans who die younger and younger are the White Republican Americans that make bad decisions in their personal life. It is unsurprising that when they vote, their judgment of Trump isn't any better than their other judgments, say for example, overdose, overeat, drive drunk, under-exercise, etc. None of that will extend the lifespan of a GOP voter. And voting for Trump didn't fix anything his voters keep doing to shorten their own lives.
I see that Trump has been up to his old tricks of stealing other people's money, lying about it, then cheating on his taxes. And that was only yesterday:
www.vox.com/2018/6/14/17465038/trump-foundation-lawsuit-new-york-attor
ney-general
www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-donald-j-trump-foundation-explai
ned/ar-AAyEWpd?ocid=spartandhp
But Trump voters will have forgotten it all, just as they forget to not overeat, forget to exercise, forget to not drive drunk, etc.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yanno SECOND< you spend endless hours bitching and "blaming the victim".
But I have a hard time taking ANYthing you say seriously because you lack clarity of thought and purpose. Take your experience in Vietnam, which seems to have been significant. You react badly to events, but can't imagine any alternatives (What were your essential goals? What should have been done differently, in your opinion?)
One way to hone your understanding of the world is to create different models, and then beat them against reality. But the only "lesson" that YOU seem to have learned from Vietnam is to BITCH ENDLESSLY ABOUT AMERICANS. Yep, that's you! The endless-bitcher-and-white-victim blamer! (BTW, you're racist; did you know that? It seeps thru everything you post.)
The only OTHER lesson that you seem to have learned is that unearned wealth make you a superior being.
So, what is it that you have to say, again?
Oh, nothing? I thought so.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
As long as you insist that everything is the Republicans'/ Democrats' fault, then you fail to grasp the REAL problem with American politics.
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Nixon needed the Vietnam War to get elected, then reelected. Winning Vietnam was not his real agenda, although he talked as if it was. Winning was my agenda, being young, brave, and gullible. But once I got there I wasn't stupid enough to continue believing that would happen. The tactics and strategy used by the Army were incredibly stupid. Little did I know that the policy set by the White House was just as bad. And the policy change came with Nixon:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, at one point you said that we didn't "like" the Vietnamese enough to "win". Now, you say it COULDN'T have been "won"Quote:You implied at one point that the war could have been conducted differently (i.e stop shooting water buffaloes) and follow it by saying
I know many soldiers that think the Vietnam War could have been "won". Nothing ever changes their minds.Quote:That's not a "strategy" of any sort. So what does that MEAN? Does it mean that we shouldn't have started military action at all? That we should have depended on more "carrot" (development aid) than "stick" (killing)?
My winning strategy for the Vietnam War would have been for Congress to disbelieve every word from Kissinger, Agnew, and Nixon (KAN for short) on Vietnam.
What was your GOAL for S Vietnam, if any? A democratically-elected government? A small-business capitalist economy? Simply rooting out N Vietnamese influence? How would you have handled S Vietnamese who were sympathetic to communism? Kill them because they were ideologically suspect? Leave them alone because they were S Vietnamese? How would have treated S Vietnamese who were anti-American, without being pro-communist? Respect them because of their nationalism?
The reason why I'm drilling down on this is because YOU claim that "Americans" are the cause of our problems because of their "goals", then make the case that KAN had goals which they didn't even share with the American people, and that they (not average Americans) were mandating our actions in Vietnam.
All you seem to do is "react" to what you "hate". But don't you know what you want? Don't you have any idea how to get there?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
As long as you insist that everything is the Republicans'/ Democrats' fault, then you fail to grasp the REAL problem with American politics.
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
In October 1968, Nixon’s lead over his Democratic opponent, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, was dwindling, partly because Humphrey had proposed a halt to U.S. bombing of North Vietnam. Five days before the election, President Lyndon Johnson announced the halt, hoping to convene peace talks. One impediment, however, was South Vietnam’s reluctance to participate. Its recalcitrance reflected its hope that it would be better supported by a Nixon administration.
On July 3, 1968, a Nixon campaign aide, Dick Allen, sent a memo proposing a meeting with Nixon and Anna Chennault, a Chinese American active in Republican politics. She would bring to the meeting South Vietnam’s ambassador to Washington. The memo said the meeting must be “top secret.” Nixon wrote on the memo: “Should be but I don’t see how — with the S.S. [Secret Service].” On July 12, however, she and the ambassador did meet secretly in New York with Nixon who, she later said, designated her his “sole representative” to the Saigon government.
The National Security Agency was reading diplomatic cables sent from South Vietnam’s Washington embassy to Saigon, where the CIA had a listening device in the office of South Vietnam’s president. The FBI was wiretapping South Vietnam’s embassy and monitoring Chennault’s movements in Washington, including her visit to that embassy on Oct. 30.
On Nov. 2 at 8:34 p.m., a teleprinter at Johnson’s ranch delivered an FBI
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The secret to my wealth is “The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need”
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yanno SECOND< you spend endless hours bitching and "blaming the victim".
But I have a hard time taking ANYthing you say seriously because you lack clarity of thought and purpose. Take your experience in Vietnam, which seems to have been significant. You react badly to events, but can't imagine any alternatives (What were your essential goals? What should have been done differently, in your opinion?)
One way to hone your understanding of the world is to create different models, and then beat them against reality. But the only "lesson" that YOU seem to have learned from Vietnam is to BITCH ENDLESSLY ABOUT AMERICANS. Yep, that's you! The endless-bitcher-and-white-victim blamer! (BTW, you're racist; did you know that? It seeps thru everything you post.)
The only OTHER lesson that you seem to have learned is that unearned wealth make you a superior being.
So, what is it that you have to say, again?
Oh, nothing? I thought so.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
As long as you insist that everything is the Republicans'/ Democrats' fault, then you fail to grasp the REAL problem with American politics.
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Only_Investment_Guide_You%27ll_Ever_
Need
I purchased a paperback edition in 1980. I retired from my job, where I never was paid more than $66,226/year (that number is from Social Security) in 1996 at the age of 44. I repeat for the slow learners who voted for Trump: It is my secret to getting wealthy. The author, who is alive, well, and a Democrat, keeps updating the book. Anybody can buy it or get it for free from pirates. Most people won’t do anything. Too bad for them.
www.amazon.com/Only-Investment-Guide-Youll-Ever/dp/0544781937/
https://torrentz2.eu/searchA?f=The+only+investment+guide+you%27ll+ever
+need
The book is the operating instructions for capitalism. If you don’t read it, understand it, and actually do it, then very likely your life will be far poorer than it could be. Join me in the Top 1%. Or keep defending Trump in the futile hope that he will make your life better. It is your life and your choice.
www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-
percent-world.asp
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME