John McCain Discontinuing Medical Treatment

[DC Tom]

25 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I don't believe he served, but rather is a classic case of stolen valor.

 

The men and women I know who have served have never once wrapped intellectual cowardice in the flag in order to deflect criticisms of their poorly thought out positions.

 

Many of us have argued deeply and dearly held positions here:  you and I for example.  Many of PPPs denizens have served:  you for example.  Those exchanges have been heated at times.

 

But never once have you refused to defend and intellectual position, whether you were right or wrong, by wrapping yourself in the flag and making aspersions about the character of others based on yours, or others decision to serve.

 

That is the mark of a coward, not the mark of a soldier; and The_Dude, henceforth known as Captain Stolen Valor (I grant him the rank of Captain in the fake military), is a coward.

 

I think he served.  He knows some of the lingo, at a Beetle Bailey level at least.

 

I just grew out of the "You're a hero because of your laundry" worship years ago.  I've interviewed too many decorated combat veterans, and known too many undecorated blockheads, to think wearing a uniform makes them all that and a bag of pretzels.

[outsidethebox]

On 8/30/2018 at 8:27 PM, The_Dude said:

 

Yup, my bad. I’ll refrain. Hmm....what to use....ah yes, “douche-canoe.” There, I renounce all claims to “twat Waffle” but I do lay proper claim to “douche-canoe.”

Already taken by true crime garage. Try to be original. Who the hell am I kidding? I'm telling a fake poster to be original. Lol

4 hours ago, Tiberius said:

I was in the Boy Scouts from 85-89, not sure if that's military, lol! 

Fixed it for you.

[TakeYouToTasker]

42 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

My guess is that he served. I can respect that. What I don't respect is his disdain for those that haven't served. It is pretty obvious to me that he misses the service immensely and would like nothing better than to return to his Eugene Tackleberry persona. Killing is a terrible thing to do. In war it can be euphoric in the moment realizing that you've managed to live another day. In subsequent reflection the person having done the killing normally and naturally might feel remorse and/or sadness and a regret that it may have been necessary. The_Dude seems to revel in the killing, years after he was involved. He's got issues that we aren't going to resolve for him, and those issues aren't ones that he seems to want to solve himself.

 

A reasonable opinion, and you're entitled to it.

 

I'm unconvinced, however.

38 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I think he served.  He knows some of the lingo, at a Beetle Bailey level at least.

 

I just grew out of the "You're a hero because of your laundry" worship years ago.  I've interviewed too many decorated combat veterans, and known too many undecorated blockheads, to think wearing a uniform makes them all that and a bag of pretzels.

 

The lingo he's pumped out could be recalled by anyone who's read a fair amount of military history, spent time listening to veterans tell their stories, and has read the diaries of servicemen.

 

I believe he has more in common with this man:

 

 

than this man:

 

Edited September 5, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Nanker]

6 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

This

Does not look like this

 

Yet, McCain met with the enemy of the latter, wearing the former. 

 

While the former were busy killing Americans and civilians around the world. 

 

It wasn't the first time either...

6 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

BREAKING NEWS: Gary still a putz.

 

6 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

...

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

...

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

...

 

Thanks for that.  OH!  But hey!  While I have you here:

 

Explain:

 

-  How Stalin's desire to put down budding nationalist sentiment in the Ukraine to bring it under tighter Soviet control wasn't an economic position.

 

-  How the execution of class warfare against the Kulaks wasn't an economic position.

 

-  How the forced collectivization of farms wasn't an economic position.

 

-  How the putting down of the Ukrainian rebellion when they resisted collectivization wasn't an economic position.

 

-  How the sale of Ukrainian grain to foreign markets in pursuit of Stalin's Five Year Plan wasn't an economic position.

 

Once you're done with that, explain how as these things failed because the people resisted, Stalin taking increasingly brutal action in pursuit of his goals was not the result of the economic policy he pursued.

 

Any updates on this?

5 hours ago, donbb said:

 

It's pretty pathetic how the losers on this forum denigrate US Veterans such as yourself and @Tiberius.

What was your service record, oh golden child?

 

5 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

You did military things? 

Sure...

5 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

Dude, I just cannot entertain your bull **** anymore. 

You really haven't read much on this topic. You're dead wrong.

 

5 hours ago, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

I'll add this. Every educated person I know constantly tells everyone else how educated they are. It's pretty much an informal greeting. If you're not repping your education level on the regular, you're just a Google using poser.

 

[Azalin]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

The men and women I know who have served have never once wrapped intellectual cowardice in the flag in order to deflect criticisms of their poorly thought out positions.

 

 

I know someone who served in the Navy who behaves exactly how you describe, but he was bounced out with a dishonorable discharge for doing cocaine. Not exactly a case of stolen valor, but definitely a case of being a full-of-$#%@, condescending, arrogant, stoner, dickwad.

 

Much like someone else we know.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Azalin

[Koko78]

2 hours ago, The_Dude said:

Ok, argument aside -- I HATE THAT MOVIE. There were no kilts then. William Wallace didn't wear a kilt. Edward I wasn't a bad dude, I think he ruled well, and Robert the Bruce waaaay more important than William Wallace. I loved that movie till I found all that out.

 

If you're interested Netflix has an upcoming series on Robert the Bruce coming out and it looks amazing. Hopefully it's as well done as The Last Kingdom. 

 

Well, the historical accuracy went out the window when Gibson forgot that the Battle of Sterling Bridge involved, you know, a bridge. I won't even get into the horrible edits that drive me nuts (such as Wallace dropping his war hammer and shield in favor of his claymore when charging the limey line, then suddenly he has his war hammer and shield again.)

 

I will have to check out the Netflix thing when it comes out.

[DC Tom]

8 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Well, the historical accuracy went out the window when Gibson forgot that the Battle of Sterling Bridge involved, you know, a bridge. I won't even get into the horrible edits that drive me nuts (such as Wallace dropping his war hammer and shield in favor of his claymore when charging the limey line, then suddenly he has his war hammer and shield again.)

 

I will have to check out the Netflix thing when it comes out.

 

Historical accuracy, in movies? 

 

Outside of Das Boot, there isn't any.  Hell, I found five historical errors in the TRAILER for Dunkirk.

 

The History Channel doesn't even have historical accuracy.  Never mind movies...

[Deranged Rhino]

8 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Historical accuracy, in movies? 

 

Outside of Das Boot, there isn't any.  Hell, I found five historical errors in the TRAILER for Dunkirk.

 

The History Channel doesn't even have historical accuracy.  Never mind movies...

 

At least Zwick tried in Glory. 

[Koko78]

13 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Historical accuracy, in movies? 

 

Outside of Das Boot, there isn't any.  Hell, I found five historical errors in the TRAILER for Dunkirk.

 

The History Channel doesn't even have historical accuracy.  Never mind movies...

 

I get it, portraying historical events even semi-accurately doesn't make for good storytelling. I do take issue with the Sterling Bridge thing, though. Seriously, the bridge is part of the battle's name.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Koko78 said:

 

I get it, portraying historical events even semi-accurately doesn't make for good storytelling. I do take issue with the Sterling Bridge thing, though. Seriously, the bridge is part of the battle's name.

 

When I was in York this spring, the walking tour we went on was outraged that the movie depicted York being sacked. He did a ten minute monologue on it.   

[The_Dude]

32 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Well, the historical accuracy went out the window when Gibson forgot that the Battle of Sterling Bridge involved, you know, a bridge. I won't even get into the horrible edits that drive me nuts (such as Wallace dropping his war hammer and shield in favor of his claymore when charging the limey line, then suddenly he has his war hammer and shield again.)

 

I will have to check out the Netflix thing when it comes out.

 

I REALLLLLLY recommend The Last Kingdom. Amazing work that show. And I have a huge love for Aethelred. And they do the story so well. 

 

And oh my god if I could petition Hollywood for one thing it’d be a 3 season show on the amazing life of Caesar. Why are they always remaking old movies when they have blockbusters and amazing shows just waiting if they just open a history book. And there’s no reason to embellish. Just tell it true, man!

Edited September 5, 2018 by The_Dude

[DC Tom]

50 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

I get it, portraying historical events even semi-accurately doesn't make for good storytelling. I do take issue with the Sterling Bridge thing, though. Seriously, the bridge is part of the battle's name.

 

I might take your outrage more seriously if you spelled "Stirling" correctly.

58 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

At least Zwick tried in Glory. 

 

And Stanley Baker deserves some credit for Zulu.  He cast the one of the Zulu regiment - uThulwana - that fought the original battle of Rorke's Drift, with period-accurate accouterments.  He actually did a better job getting the Zulus historically accurate than he did the 2/24th.

[The_Dude]

1 hour ago, Koko78 said:

 

I get it, portraying historical events even semi-accurately doesn't make for good storytelling. I do take issue with the Sterling Bridge thing, though. Seriously, the bridge is part of the battle's name.

 

If I remember correctly it was an outnumbered type thing but the Scots has the bridge so the English numbers didn’t matter?

 

Im also intrigued to see if the Scots were really as unorganized in battle as made out to be?

 

Ill say this for them — they made the Romans say ‘!@#$ this, it ain’t worth it’ and that is impressive....for barbarians. 

Or — how’s about this for a show — “Punic.” All 3 Punic Wars. 12 episodes per war. ?????

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

 

Ok, argument aside -- I HATE THAT MOVIE. There were no kilts then. William Wallace didn't wear a kilt. Edward I wasn't a bad dude, I think he ruled well, and Robert the Bruce waaaay more important than William Wallace. I loved that movie till I found all that out.

 

 

If you're interested Netflix has an upcoming series on Robert the Bruce coming out and it looks amazing. Hopefully it's as well done as The Last Kingdom. 

Plus, those aren't even the real guys. Actors.  Actors in kilts. And probably not from Scotland. 

 

I love that movie. FREEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMM! 

[The_Dude]

3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Plus, those aren't even the real guys. Actors.  Actors in kilts. And probably not from Scotland. 

 

I love that movie. FREEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMM! 

 

The movie...is good...but when you realize they got EVERYTHING wrong out of stubborn, willful ignorance it’s frustrating. They could have made a movie just as good had they not altered the customs or facts. And I hate that Edward I (Longshanks) looks like a douche. He wasn’t a bad guy. I don’t remember much about studying him, but what I remember is that I was like ‘whoa, Braveheart got this ALL wrong.’ Point is there was never a need to detour. Real history is as strange as fiction. History is as twisty-turny as a George RR Martin novel. Btw, I LOVE GRRM, but he’s a lot less creative when you can be like ‘Greek Fire.’ He took that from this. Nonetheless the man is a genuis and he really shows how bad Tolkien sucked. Boring ass Hobbits. 

[Koko78]

55 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

I might take your outrage more seriously if you spelled "Stirling" correctly.

 

Do you really want me to start pointing out all of your misspellings? ?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

The movie...is good...but when you realize they got EVERYTHING wrong out of stubborn, willful ignorance it’s frustrating. They could have made a movie just as good had they not altered the customs or facts. And I hate that Edward I (Longshanks) looks like a douche. He wasn’t a bad guy. I don’t remember much about studying him, but what I remember is that I was like ‘whoa, Braveheart got this ALL wrong.’ Point is there was never a need to detour. Real history is as strange as fiction. History is as twisty-turny as a George RR Martin novel. Btw, I LOVE GRRM, but he’s a lot less creative when you can be like ‘Greek Fire.’ He took that from this. Nonetheless the man is a genuis and he really shows how bad Tolkien sucked. Boring ass Hobbits. 

I'm not interested in investing all that much into a story told given the context of how it's delivered.  Big studio production, big name star, huge budget with lines written up by professionals.  I just want to watch a movie, and as I've gotten older, there are less and less people I'm willing to shell out money to see.  I realize it's fantasy, heck even watching Chappaquiddick,  hard to say anything was historically accurate other than party..girl dies..teddy flees...and that obxoxious neck donut he put on.  This actually brings me back around to kaepernick, kneeling and the &$&$ing incessant desire to revisit it during a game.  Snap the ball. Run the ball. Throw the ball.  Kick the ball.  It's football, not Face the Nation. 

 

Anyway. I wasn't aware of the kilt part.  Thanks for ruining that for me, the_$&#%ing_dude. 

 

 Btw, I loved the imagery of WW being disemboweled.  All implied, no blood or guts, just a classic movie scene well done.  Jesus...was he even disemboweled??? 

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

13 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Do you really want me to start pointing out all of your misspellings? ?

They're not misspeelings.  They're artistic license.

[Jauronimo]

4 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

If I remember correctly it was an outnumbered type thing but the Scots has the bridge so the English numbers didn’t matter?

 

Im also intrigued to see if the Scots were really as unorganized in battle as made out to be?

 

Ill say this for them — they made the Romans say ‘!@#$ this, it ain’t worth it’ and that is impressive....for barbarians. 

Or — how’s about this for a show — “Punic.” All 3 Punic Wars. 12 episodes per war. ?????

Scots waited until maybe half the English force had crossed the bridge then basically drove them into the river.  The Scots were actually pretty organized and divided into Schiltrons, circular pike formations.  Except for William Wallace who was just running around mooning people and chopping them in half.  It was f@#$ing crazy.

[/dev/null]

10 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

I REALLLLLLY recommend The Last Kingdom. Amazing work that show. And I have a huge love for Aethelred. And they do the story so well. 

 

 

 

+1 on The Last Kingdom

[Koko78]

7 hours ago, Jauronimo said:

Scots waited until maybe half the English force had crossed the bridge then basically drove them into the river.  The Scots were actually pretty organized and divided into Schiltrons, circular pike formations.  Except for William Wallace who was just running around mooning people and chopping them in half.  It was f@#$ing crazy.

 

The dishonorable Scots wouldn't let the numerically superior British cross the bridge, get into proper formation, and kick the Scots around! Just shameful. Shameful.

[DC Tom]

TODAY'S NEWS: John McCain still dead, leading resistance.

[IDBillzFan]

2 hours ago, DC Tom said:

TODAY'S NEWS: John McCain still dead, leading resistance.

 

So Lodestar, at last we meet again for the first time for the last time!

[Nanker]

Got to hand it to him. He's a tough son of a B word. He remains dead but his hatred for Trump is eternal. 

[Koko78]

26 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

So Lodestar, at last we meet again for the first time for the last time!

 

I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate

[IDBillzFan]

1 minute ago, Koko78 said:

 

I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate

 

So thankful my son finds that movie better than all the Star Wars flicks.

[LeviF]

I haven't read any of this thread but I just need to get it out.

 

Am I really supposed to take seriously the mewlings of limp-wristed NPR commentators praising McCain's service to our nation now that he's dead?  The insincerity is just plain creepy.  These people hated McCain until Trump was elected, and even then they only liked Johnny boy so long as he served as a foil to Trump.  This is the stuff of ghouls.

 

And yes, that goes for you leftists in here too.  Go !@#$ yourselves.

[B-Man]

8 hours ago, DC Tom said:

TODAY'S NEWS: John McCain still dead, leading resistance.

 

 

I thought RBG was leading the resistance ?

 

.☠️

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2018 by B-Man

[DC Tom]

BREAKING NEWS: John McCain still dead, why aren't we praising his heroism?

[Koko78]

23 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

BREAKING NEWS: John McCain still dead, why aren't we praising his heroism?

 

Because you're a racist.

[Nanker]

Once McCain is officially pronounced dead, the MSM should start a GoFundMe for getting his likeness carved into Mt. Rushmore. Hell, they should rename it Mt. McCain.

[The_Dude]

On 9/5/2018 at 7:11 PM, DC Tom said:

 

Historical accuracy, in movies? 

 

Outside of Das Boot, there isn't any.  Hell, I found five historical errors in the TRAILER for Dunkirk.

 

The History Channel doesn't even have historical accuracy.  Never mind movies...

 

....Das Boot was amazing. I !@#$ing loved that movie. 

 

Ive heard there’s a really good movie on Stalingrad (not Enemy at the Gates). A Russian flick made in the 90’s. I haven’t seen it. 

 

Dunkirk was awful. Tom Hardy shoots down the Luftwaffe and they didn’t even explain the situation. They didn’t explain what happened at Calais. They didn’t explain how the BEF got cut off. I was so disapointed in that movie. They didn’t even get to the halt order. And then there was the other abomination in which Gary Oldman did a great disservice to Churchill. Awful movies. 

[DC Tom]

7 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

....Das Boot was amazing. I !@#$ing loved that movie. 

 

Ive heard there’s a really good movie on Stalingrad (not Enemy at the Gates). A Russian flick made in the 90’s. I haven’t seen it. 

 

 

Seen it.  It's from the German small-unit perspective; it's not bad, probably better than Enemy at the Gates (though the scene in that movie of crossing the Volga and being thrown directly into a human wave attack blows away anything in the German movie.) . Netflix used to have it, I don't know if it still does...worth watching if you can find it, but I wouldn't go out of your way.

 

10 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

Dunkirk was awful. Tom Hardy shoots down the Luftwaffe and they didn’t even explain the situation. They didn’t explain what happened at Calais. They didn’t explain how the BEF got cut off. I was so disapointed in that movie. They didn’t even get to the halt order. And then there was the other abomination in which Gary Oldman did a great disservice to Churchill. Awful movies. 

 

Dunkirk was an excellent movie, for what it was and what it intended to do, which was to tell three different but related stories (blending three different time scales, which was brilliantly done - Nolan is a master craftsman at moviemaking) to convey the overall "gestalt" of the evacuation.  You're basically saying it was awful because you wanted to see Patton or A Bridge Too Far or We Were Soldiers.

 

That's not a flaw in the movie.  That's a flaw in the chuckleheaded moviegoer.

[The_Dude]

5 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Seen it.  It's from the German small-unit perspective; it's not bad, probably better than Enemy at the Gates (though the scene in that movie of crossing the Volga and being thrown directly into a human wave attack blows away anything in the German movie.) . Netflix used to have it, I don't know if it still does...worth watching if you can find it, but I wouldn't go out of your way.

 

 

Dunkirk was an excellent movie, for what it was and what it intended to do, which was to tell three different but related stories (blending three different time scales, which was brilliantly done - Nolan is a master craftsman at moviemaking) to convey the overall "gestalt" of the evacuation.  You're basically saying it was awful because you wanted to see Patton or A Bridge Too Far or We Were Soldiers.

 

That's not a flaw in the movie.  That's a flaw in the chuckleheaded moviegoer.

 

I wanted Dunkirk to explain the situation. It didn’t. And how many planes did Tom Hardy shoot down? 50? Also, as a francophobe I wanted Dunkirk to put the French High Command on blast for being so stupid. How is one country so consistently stupid and arrogant. I mean they built the Maginot and when war broke out they refused to believe Germany would do anything but launch itself at their defenses on the Maginot. God, I hate the French. And WWI, don’t even get me started on them bastards for their idiocy in WWI. And I’m just glad I don’t know much about the Franco Prussian war because I just can’t take the stupidity of the French. From the 1770’s-present, that country is just amazingly arrogant for being such spectacular failures. 

 

 

 

This has been bugging me all day...Band if Brothers is the gold standard of historical accuracy. It was a show. The Last Kingdom is true to Aethelered. I honestly thought they’d take out the witch saving his baby in the marsh because who’d buy that really happened? That was a show. I’ve seen numerous shows done very well. HBO’s Rome — that was amazing. There’s a scene that I thought was awesome due to the detail — there’s a scene were Mark Antony is having a slave scrape him with a weegee type deal and olive oil. That’s how they cleaned themselves — the baths were for swimming, socializing, excercize, and general leisure — weegee and olive oil was how they’d get dirt off themselves. There’s even a scene in a public shitter and the shitter is on point. Shows get so much right but movies suck balls in terms of accuracy. In fact, as crazy as it sounds, 300 is accurate for a movie. I mean, more so than others. 

Edited September 7, 2018 by The_Dude

[GaryPinC]

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/405549-the-john-mccain-that-i-knew?amp

 

Good story

[B-Man]

 

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

McCain still dead, but his love of Latinos lives on...

[KD in CA]

On 9/5/2018 at 6:04 PM, The_Dude said:

 

The movie...is good...but when you realize they got EVERYTHING wrong out of stubborn, willful ignorance it’s frustrating. They could have made a movie just as good had they not altered the customs or facts. And I hate that Edward I (Longshanks) looks like a douche. He wasn’t a bad guy. I don’t remember much about studying him, but what I remember is that I was like ‘whoa, Braveheart got this ALL wrong.’ Point is there was never a need to detour. Real history is as strange as fiction. History is as twisty-turny as a George RR Martin novel. Btw, I LOVE GRRM, but he’s a lot less creative when you can be like ‘Greek Fire.’ He took that from this. Nonetheless the man is a genuis and he really shows how bad Tolkien sucked. Boring ass Hobbits. 

 

Yeah but no one was better than Patrick McGoohan at playing a bad guy.

[The_Dude]

1 hour ago, KD in CA said:

 

Yeah but no one was better than Patrick McGoohan at playing a bad guy.

 

I loved how he rolled his r in the line "if we cant drive them out, we'll simply bReed them out." classic. 

[Nanker]