-
Posts
7,192 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
42
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Posts posted by Jumbie
-
-
Damn...
Now I remember why I stopped taking NyQuil.
Too late though... :sleepy:
-
Lemme ask you all something? Does George W. represent your exact views on everything?
naturally that means that we can't blame the french for their leaders' attemp to prove that France is still relevant to the world.
We should not antagonize the French either. They might decide dto kick our asses and they have a strong military history:
So the French still aren't on board with us spanking Iraq. Oh
boo hoo. Let's take a look at the mighty French military
prowess, shall we?
Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next
2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all
things, an Italian.
Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female
schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French
Warfare: "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a
Frenchman."
Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country
to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians. Wars of Religion -
France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots
Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but
manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that
eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red
flowerpots as chapeaux.
The Dutch War - Tied
War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian
War Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces
deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the
height of French military power.
War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the
French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved
every since.
American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar
to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English
colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle
Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare:
"France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the
opponent was also French.
The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the
First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being
no match for a British footwear designer.
The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of
drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday
night.
World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by
the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's
like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call
her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American
forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.
World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United
States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel
Song.
War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to
bed with the Dien Bien Flu.
Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a
western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades,
and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare: "We can always
beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of
the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish,
Vietnamese and Esquimaux.
War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history,
surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to
surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in
a McDonald's.
The question for any country silly enough to count on the French
should not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How
long until France surrenders?"
==============================
I don't know where that piece came from, but it's author is definitely a brilliant historan.
-
Streets if Rage 2!
I even have some of the music on my HD.
R-type kicked ass too...
-
Why did the 'most users online' recorder reset itself yesterday?
-
What the theives are into this year:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/automobi...les/07THEF.html
username: drunkennews
password:pinky
It's 10:00 PM, do you know where your car is?
-
I wonder if people realize that over in the Culture Forum, we're HUNTING and KILLING talentless, arrogant, self-indulgent celebrities... Here's your chance to participate in the reality TV craze!
-
IC is cheating on DD. He's found another board.. OH WHY WHY?!
DOes that board do all those dirty things you fantasize about?
Go.
Enjoy your slutty new board.
I'm sure you'll both BEE very happy
-
-
Life sure is harder without Coca Cola.
-
Yeah, the Pakistani will be pissed if the go out early. Seems likely though, so they better get used to it.
They do tend o behave badly, the fans. effigy burnings, death threats etc have been very common. HELL the national cricket commision is headed by an army general, so that tells you a whole lot....
The Windies need to win a hard game against Sri Lanka on Friday and then against Kenya, and they're in.
-
Well, Kenya took down Sri Lanka today. That means that Group B is wide open. South Africa have a great chance to into the Super Six if they beat Sri lanka.
Australia won again today. Pakistan has to win every game form now on to qualify, including one against India.
-
:: mind flush ::
-
"It's puff puff give. Puff puff give!"
-ibid
-
Ahhh.... flatulence.
-
"You're enjoying this?!"
"Well, it sure beats my average day: reading philosophy, avoiding gang rape in the shower - though that's been less of a problem these days. Mayb I'm losing my sex appeal?"
-
UPDATE:
England kicked the shit outta Pakistan today. Unfortunately for Pakistan, that means that they'll probably not make it to the second round since Australia kicked their ass too.
And South Africa are just barely hangin in there. To get in they;ll need some other teams' games to the right way.
My pick, NZ is doing well. they should win their group, Unless WI beat Sri Lanka.
West INdies should qualify. the only way they won't is if they lose to Sri Lanka AND South africe beat Sri Lanka.
SO WI and NZ are doing OK, I'm happy.
-
Concur, conquer, canker, canter, cantonese, chinese, hot oriental monkey sex, china, shiner, shinola...
-
I Bring you hope my brothers!
For I have a dream that one day we shall have 2 anime channels for each category mentioned(horror, scifi, martial arts, comedy, etc). One channel each for sub and dub.
Yes, for all anime deserves to be enjoyed in the way the viewer chooses. (Unless the viewer is at my house, in which case they better put on their reading glasses)
-
Will the weirdness never end?
-
I need really, really long boots.
That way, when I stick my 'elitist' foot up IC's ass, I won't have to worry about the shit that he's full of.
-
You can take this life, and shove it too
-
But he's so sloooooow
Clint got beat up sure. When it was him against a whole gang.
But this fight is mano a mano. Sure, the duke can throw a mean punch, but it'll only connect a coupla times. and Clint is tough enough to take those few.
On the other hand, Clint'll be able to hit that tubby sonovabitch till kingdom come, dancing all around him.
Think Foreman and Ali...
-
The Duke is stronger but I think quicker and meaner will win this fight.
Smarter too. I think I Clints characters always gave the impression that they were working to outsmart the situation or the enemy.
-
There's a guy who's name actually is Murgatroyd...
Philosophy of Boxing
in The Locker Room
Posted
So, I was watching the Ruiz/ Jones Jr. Fight the other night and I thought to myself: That guy is a great strategist and he's got incredible skills. (Jones, Not Ruiz, for the clueless :-)).
I so often hear people (OK, I mean women, though there are many guys) talk about how boxing is not a sport. "It's just two guys beating each other up so that other men can feel masculine."
Every so often someone will die in the ring and there's a great cry all over for a ban on boxing. Doctors will get up and talk about how boxing is the only sport where the object is to cause a head injury (a concussion) to the opponent.
The opponents of boxing generally fall into 2 camps: 1- The "It;s not really a sport and it's too brutal. No one should be allowed to risk their wellbeing that way" crowd and 2 - the "It's another example of males being indoctrinated into seeing violence as the preferable way to deal with their emotions." feminazi/ family values dumbasses.
First off to the ones who think it's not a sport. *I*'ve never even tried on boxing gloves. But I can tell when something takes talent, skill, strategy, preparation and above all, Heart.
But lets talk about fatality. That sometimes happens in sports. NASCAR, F1 and jetboat racers know that all to well. An average of 4 people a year die skydiving (more than boxing).
Can anyone honestly say that accidental death is a reason to disqualify boxing from being a sport. 8 people a year die in their bathtubs!
Boxers are all in it because they like it. They're looking for a test. No one, not even the dumbest fighter, gets into a ring defenceless. Do people get hurt? Yes. Is it brutal? On occasion. But the added dimension of violence cannot take away from the fact that this is basically a contest of ability. It can stand up as a sport under any definition of sport created.
IN fact, the concept of sport that we know today evolved from military and hunting training exercises handed down through the ages. YOu think the Javelin has a pointy end just so that it'll stick in the ground better? What about the arrows used in archery? Those not directly involved in teaching skills, contribute to the fitness needed for the activity, like sprinting, hurdling and weightlifting.
The second group however opposes boxing for exactly these reasons. They're the ones that blame boxing (and football and tractor pulls and GI JOE) for causing men to act violently.
Remember a few years ago when everyone felt guilty about watching the Superbowl because recent statistics had shown that women got battered more on Superbowl Sunday? Guess what. That was a lie! an urban legend that some reporter mentioned and got misinterpreted. Same with boxing. Boxing does not CAUSE violence in it's audience. It does not ENCOURAGE or PROMOTE it as a problem solving method. In fact, I'd reckon that the sport of boxing keeps violence outside of mainstream society.
Many supporters of boxing defend it with the assertation that it teaches self defense, survival instinct and love of achievement. These arguments fail with detractors because they think that mankind has no need for violence. "Sure, back in the stone age, when we had to fight it out with mastodons, it was a good idea to know how to wield a club, but we're CIVILIZED now... We've fought our way to the top of the food chain and we don't need to hit each other."
This argument usually insinuates that violence is somehow alien to nature. That humans' tendency to fight is a human failing that the animals don't have.
Bullshit. YOu think lions are vegetarians? (actually I'd ahve to start a whole other thread if I go off on the anti-meat jerks. Not the pro veggie group mind you...)
Take the most placid animal you can think of: A deer? They fight each other all the time. Over mating rights and leadership roles and territory.
I think that the urge to fight is a key survival tool for all species. Those who think boxing is wrong for being violent are deluded about the nature of life.