halialkers: Cartoon of stick figure at computer with caption "Someone is wrong on the Internet," (A drama queen thou art)
I have one comment to make about this in two and a half parts: 

1) You stupid sonsobitches got us here in the South into the Ulysses S. Grant and His Amazing Friends show the last time you tried that shit. I do not think letting that happen again is a good idea. We got lucky with Grant being the kind of person who wouldn't be believable if he were in a story. We won't be that lucky in today's era where people are much less romantic about freedom and democracy than they were then.

2) Secession sticking requires a war. If you start one, bring the A Game otherwise you're going to be at the mercy of the victors. And I rather doubt we'd see any modern secessionists given six months to form a government. If you want to play Tamil Tigers, you're going to need to have also people whose idea of fighting a war is more complicated than "LEEROY JENKINS!" because that kind of thing didn't work then and it ain't gon' work now. Nor will being murderous brutes, as it doesn't work elsewhere in the world and it won't here.

2.5) Go fuck yourselves with an electric eel.

halialkers: Raven from Teen Titans cartoon caption "I'm surrounded by idiots." Grey skin, purple hair/eyes (Idiots. I am surrounded by them.)
[livejournal.com profile] panookah  dismisses statements that the Nazis were out to get the USSR and to annihilate its entire civilization as "activist history." This is precisely why I stopped taking him seriously or as anything other than a bullshit artist a long time ago. If he shows up to flail about activist history when that history is grounded in the actual sources as opposed to pulling something out of his ass, well fuck that bullshit. He has never had a single discussion on history where he actually named his sources, and almost all of his statements have been both factually and often even morally wrong, to which he flounces artfully wth the 'activist' huff, as though even if it were activist that would make it wrong. I'd compare him to 67th Tigers but that's actuallly an insult to that particular Briton who can at least name the sources he uses in a discussion about something that REQUIRES SOURCES.

Anyhow.......

halialkers: Grey-skinned purple-haired Raven shooting red beams from her eyes (Rage of the worlds burning)
No link to the article here, as it's just too damn squicky for that, and the actual content behind a cut for sheer squick: 

not safe for work, you have been warned )


halialkers: Pale woman with red lips licking lips (Anna H'vat Ta'eris)
When someone who claims to favor human life is willing to even debate the question of whether or not a felon qualifies as life and does this after asking how it could possibly be that pro-lifers' motivations are other than what they say they are, such people are the reason I view the anti-abortion cult of the fetus with the utmost contempt. I have no respect whatsoever for a notion that if a zygote just fertilized is human life that someone on death row, be he innocent or especially be he guilty is not life. Such a mentality is precisely what it accuses its so-called rivals of being: assuming to itself the power to decide who is worthy of life and who is worthy of death. And to Hell with it.
halialkers: (Ioseb Jugashvili)

In the latest installment of the "FDR and Stalin were moral equals" series, [livejournal.com profile] badlydrawnjeff was again presented with the same conversation he was presented all the other times. He once again claimed that he did not say what anyone else with a fraction of intellectual honesty or sincerity would have realized he very much did say. The offending comment that started this whole thing was when he claimed, in one of the most breath-taking and bald examples of the big lie I've ever seen that FDR and Stalin were moral equals, and that the New Deal was directly comparable to the generic social programs of Ioseb Jugashvili.

Social programs, I might add, which were starve people and take their stuff, and enslave in giant slave-labor camps anyone he objected. His actual comment included the amazingly stupid line about not being sure whether or not the Internment camps involved slave labor, to morally compare the spasms of racist bigotry in WWII America targeting ethnic Japanese on the mainland to the Gulag Archipelago in the USSR, where people could literally face the prospect of show trials for non-existent crimes in the Gulag after being sent to the Gulag for non-existent crimes to start with.

However, in this installment he upped the ante by being deliberately asked whether or not he sincerely meant that the USA had a program akin to collectivization in the Soviet Union. This would be the root of the Ukrainian Terror-Famine, which was part of a USSR-wide phenomenon at its most lethal in the entire USSR in Kazakhstan, which lost 25% of the population to Stalin's Terror.

At this point, he's gone as far off the deep end as 67th Tigers in *his* recent comment about a MODERATE British action in the case of intervention in the ACW being the deliberate burning of the entirety of New York City at the time, without specifying even that civilians would be evacuated first ala Atlanta.

halialkers: The Big Bang, dawn of the Universe (Adrian Chaliel)
The Numbered Feline is at it again:

Again with the strawman.

Show me a post where I claim there were 200,000 in the ANV. Good luck.

After tempting the pitiiless unforgiving Internet: 

BTW: As surprised as I was, I've recently found out McClellan's 50,000 odd Army of the Potomac (figures from the Surgeon General) indeed was facing 200,000 Confederates. Lee had about 73,000 "Federal" troops when he took over and was reinforced with 53,000 more "Federal" troops to give 126,000 men. In addition, Virginia actually called out the state militia. Estimates are that 10% of the free population actually turned out, which is an additional 110,000 men....

His response?

I said Lee had about 126,000 - which is about right.

I said Letcher also embodied the state militia, which may have been as high as 110,000 men - which we now know is high, since the state militia were largely incorporated in Volunteer units. Only about 11,000 militiamen were in the Richmond defences. The rest were elsewhere.

I never stated the Va Militia were all at Richmond. That's your lazy assumption

____________

Yes, this is BadlydrawnJeff's English counterpart all right.



halialkers: Picard looking left and gesturing with caption "WTF is this shit?" (WTF is this shit)
The offending paragraph to the British JeffBot (my comments in Italics with S_F, his in Bold with Numbered Feline):

S_F:
The Union Army of the US Civil War was 1.5 million strong, but in terms of the structure, it was created by convoluted patterns of enlistment, as well as recruiting from both US states and states controlled by the so-called Richmond government, such that the Civil War is one case where numbers can only be estimates. Thus while I say the Union army was 1.5 million strong, it might have been larger at various points, or alternately it might include in several cases counting one person twice or thrice due to multiple enlistments.
cut for length and sheer concentrated stupidity )

The Union Army of the US Civil War was 1.5 million strong, but in terms of the structure, it was created by convoluted patterns of enlistment, as well as recruiting from both US states and states controlled by the so-called Richmond government, such that the Civil War is one case where numbers can only be estimates. Thus while I say the Union army was 1.5 million strong, it might have been larger at various points, or alternately it might include in several cases counting one person twice or thrice due to multiple enlistments.

But I digress, this is why I sometimes loathe AH.com as now that I've met the JeffBot I happen to recognize this version of trolling when I see it.
halialkers: Cartoon of stick figure at computer with caption "Someone is wrong on the Internet," (A drama queen thou art)
The aforementioned clusterfuckery on Alternatehistory.com, mentioned in that post yesterday, has at this point claimed another victim and the giant thread which was about issues between the moderators and the administrators not directly connected to MLP in the first place continues to creep and seep onward. I swear, I've been on this damn forum in one fashion or another since 2003, and I'm pretty much appalled that this is the most controversial thing on there since the banning of S.M. Stirling, either that or alternately the banning of an author who wrote....fair...tales of sci-fi but on the whole was one of the most infamous bigots on the forum.

I mean at least Sterling and *that guy* were banned over statements advocating genocide (an insta-banhammer on that forum and one rule I've adopted for my own LJ/DW, advocate it and the ban is automatic and never to be rescinded). That's serious stuff right there, something that really did deserve all this fuckery. But this? A cartoon show? FFS, people on that forum have curious obsessions with Warhammer 40K (it's where I first heard of it), Transformers, and other more "boyish" stuff and nobody goes ballistic over that. But a show for *girls* liked by *men* gets this? For God's sake even the *comic book fans* get along better on that forum than this. Even the ISRAEL threads haven't produced but one banning in recent days and that for the same advocating genocide/ethnic cleansing thing.

For non-sighted, the same macro from yesterday, a dog looking questioningly and the words "No SRSLY, WTF is this shit?" 





halialkers: Picard looking left and gesturing with caption "WTF is this shit?" (WTF is this shit)
The mother of all My Little Ponies wankery. All this, over bloody cartoon ponies. People de-modded, threatening to call the police, and another slew of bannings. Over goddamn cartoon ponies.

My reaction, for non-sighted, is a dog here with the macro "No srsly, WTF is this shit."


Excuse me?

Oct. 1st, 2009 07:19 am
halialkers: (Default)
I've noticed this repeated theme from Europeans and Polanski supporters that the USA is imposing its legal system on Europe? WTF? How's Europe gonna complain about that now when they imposed their own law systems on the colonial empires? Are we to believe that Europe should not have done unto it as it did unto others? The poor widdle dears, imposing their laws on the darkies was fine, but if Uncle Sam wants to flex his muscles and do that to the Europeans, well, white men just don't do that shit to other white men.

And people wonder why I'm a bit of a Europhobe. >.<

Profile

halialkers: (Default)
halialkers

August 2017

S M T W T F S
  12345
678910 1112
1314151617 1819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 22nd, 2017 03:34 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios