I never really thought of it as emasculating, but I can see how that would be the case for some. I always just thought of it as a perfect metaphor for someone who always screws someone else over at the last second by tricking them into thinking they won't this time.
but thats what she does so not a metaphor- it's an action that she repeats over and over..fool me once shame on you..but fool me twice?
I just never looked at it from a view of it being a girl schooling a boy is what I meant. The metaphor is by just saying 'Lucy and the football' to get the point across of why I didn't trust Meadows saying he was going to work with the investigation into the attempted insurrection. Or am I mistaken, metaphor is one of those tricky things that I really never made sure to nail down the exact definition, kind of like 'literally' or whatever it was that the actual definition was changed to encompass how people always mistook it for.
I see that as an illustration of her (sex-unrelated) narcissism and his codependent driving need to finally kick that thing, leaving him with a sort of Stockholm syndrome.
thehill.com
it..does..exist.
Not angry until I see people like you running off their mouths about nothing but bullshit. But even then, I can get a good laugh in the midst of the chaos. Chill the fuck out, Rubber man.
This is a MJ forum where people are supposed to be talking about MJ. I wish they would delete this political section.
Ahhhh, that explains it! Hard to find those pesky facts when you don't read. When's the last time you've read a book?
I actually did read that meandering, nonsensical pile of shit post that you’re so proud of.
well then, why don't you get the fuck out of it? doesn't sound like you hate it, sounds like you like having a place to come and insult people, and be a general pain in the ass. i'll tell you what...i'll ignore you, and make it that much less appealing. then it ought to be easier for you to go back to giving shitty weed advice on the mj forum, and stay out of the adults way. by by now...Not angry until I see people like you running off their mouths about nothing but bullshit. But even then, I can get a good laugh in the midst of the chaos. Chill the fuck out, Rubber man.
Not so fast. The South did have a chance at winning this war.
www.historyonthenet.com
You made the bad call by insulting me with your premature analysis about who I am. You're the one spending all day on this forum because you have nothing better to do. Go experience life and find out what you're missing. What are your accomplishments? What have you really done to change the World? I've haven't darkened the door of RIU for years because people like you have ruined it.
Confederate generals. The guys who lost. They say they would have won if they hadn't lost. You also cite absolutist monarchs who believed that God had picked THEM to rule. It's ironic that a right wingnut from the 2020's would align themselves with plantation owners and divine right despots. I'll give you a pro tip: The South Will Not Rise Again. Also, feudal Europe was only great for the tiny number of people who were at the top. And you cite those people as if their opinion carries weight. lolNot so fast. The South did have a chance at winning this war.
Could the South Have Won the Civil War?
Could the South have won the Civil War? In this article, you'll find answers on how the South could have changed history.
"After the war, various Confederate generals expressed their views that the war had been winnable. In 1874, Joseph E. Johnston insisted that the South had not been “guilty of the high crime of undertaking a war without the means of waging it successfully.” Pierre G. T. Beauregard added, “No people ever warred for independence with more relative advantages than the Confederates.” E. Porter Alexander’s retrospective assessment was more modest than Beauregard’s, but he too thought the South could have won:
When the South entered upon war with power so immensely her superior in men & money, & all the wealth of modern resources in machinery and transportation appliances by land & sea, she could entertain but one single hope of final success. That was, that the desperation of her resistance would finally exact from her adversary such a price in blood & treasure as to exhaust the enthusiasm of its population for the objects of the war. We could not hope to conquer her. Our one chance was to wear her out.
Much of Europe expected (and desired) a Confederate victory. The downfall of “the American colossus,” opined the Times, would be good “riddance of a nightmare. . . . Excepting a few gentlemen of republican tendencies, we all expect, we nearly all wish, success to the Confederate cause.” Joining in was the Earl of Shrewsbury, who cheerfully predicted: “that the dissolution of the Union is inevitable, and that men before [sic] me will live to see an aristocracy established in America.” As late as 1863, Russia’s minister to the United States declared, “The republican form of government, so much talked about by the Europeans and so much praised by the Americans, is breaking down. What can be expected from a country where men of humble origin are elevated to the highest positions?”
A Southern victory was not out of the question. After all, it had been only eighty years since the supposedly inferior American revolutionaries had vanquished the mighty Redcoats of King George III and less than fifty years since the outgunned Russians had repelled and destroyed the powerful invading army of Napoleon."
And about that book you've read?
At least he read one.
That's your opinion. Wars are a fickle anatomy that can go any direction via the unexpected. The Japanese thought Americans were weak and soft. Vietnam became riddled in politics. Afghanistan is marbled in ancient tribalism that even the greatest military powers on Earth can seem to penetrate.
I’ve read quite a few about the American civil war and your idiotic post was the first time I read about the confederacy taking over the White House and killing Lincoln.