Jump to content

RomaVicta

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    12,712
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by RomaVicta

  1. Don't forget Vasek was rated higher than Burke. I'm ready to see him prove it , but so far we can't seem to mudhole any team enough to allow younger guys some snaps. This has been my concern for years, dude. Even when Mack was mudholing opponents, he'd leave in the starting QB way too long. I'm sure he and GDGD were slaves to the idea of getting as many reps as possible. By the time QB2 got in, it was just hand-off time which also irritated me. I'm old school enough to not want to run up the score, but if your second teamer needs reps and you wait too long to put him in, run the fucking offense. Oh, and kick the fucking field goal particularly when you already lead. Lastly, don't go for two until the fourth quarter and playing from behind. Points is good, coach. Points is good. Fucking dumbasses.
  2. That's a shame. Their air force fought quite well and bravely. They introduced us to the exocet missile. I think they flew French Mirage jets. Prince Andrew was one of the helicopter pilots who would hover near the ships trying to draw off the missiles. I guess he dreamed of 15 year old girls in between flights. Argentina sent an old battleship towards the British fleet. The General Belgrano was torpedoed far from any spot where it could have used its guns. WW2 technology versus Space Age technology. What a show.
  3. I don't want to turn this into a movie thread, but... I think most director's cuts are bloated and narcissistic. Apocalypse Redux is a prime example. There is a cult of the director among movie mavens. If only the artist could be unbridled. Bridles are often good. Everybody hates it, but movies must be collaborative efforts. Kind of like a football program where all must come together to recruit, train, practice, and play! It applies. It really does. Really.
  4. Interesting point about staying in a P5 conference. On the one hand, with a 12 team playoff there will be room for winners of non P5 conferences. OTH, could such a team recruit well enough to have a chance of getting very far? If Oregon State made the playoff a few years in a row, would that draw players? I have no idea what the answers are, but it's interesting to ruminate over. It would be ironic if congregating all the strong football schools in five conferences actually make it easier for some of the non P5 schools to build up and compete.
  5. Can we stop this? I assume you mean great for us. This guy looks about right for what they should be looking for. I'm enjoying watching all this unfold, and I have no dread or much care about who they end up with. I would like for them to end up with another disaster, but I have no dread about whoever fills the position. If he makes A&M stronger, good. The games will be better. I'll only be deprived of a measure of Aggie misery. If he sucks, another few years of a great show. We're not a house of cards or a place that should have any special apprehension about playing the Aggies. Perhaps my own lack of concern is due to how often they prove that they can't rise above mediocrity. Now cheating doesn't give them any great advantage. Bring 'em on. ETA: I see Texafornia anticipated me on this one.
  6. RomaVicta

    LBGTQ

    More of a Russian province, but I take your point.
  7. Better people than I'll ever be. Respect and thanks to them.
  8. He's right. Some are acting that way if you count the people who are acting like we're acting that way. Well, we know somebody who did that. This somebody is prouder to lose with an SEC patch on their jerseys. It just means more. If Texas were running away from the Big 12 because we can't win it, why would we bring the 14-time (mouth vomit) conference champion with us? It really makes me mad when they call me sippy. Clearly, Texags should be put in charge of selecting the top teams. They could tell Miami was elite before anyone else even thought of it. Same goes for Tennessee. They know football like Jimbo knows how to win a...
  9. The Aggies would be able to cover themselves in glory at being able to say that they're rich as shit and once again will prove how much sitting national champion coaches crave the job based on how much the Aggies have to pay them to come to College Station.
  10. Wow. Those Duke statistics: Virginia gained 448 yards despite 12 penalties. Go for him, Aggies.
  11. This is the true brand of TexAgs toughness: cheat and assault someone from the rear. The same classy, stadium-guiding fans that brought you Cart McCry while creaming their panties when Eyebrows McGee started his first fake limp after the first play from scrimmage. They love that one of their military school men hurled a shovel full of horse manure on band members in the stands who had no way to retaliate. At least they couldn't before the cops grabbed that degenerate. They have the kind of toughness that is very defensive about not being considered students at a military school where only about 5% are in the ROTC and only about half of those nerds actually take a commission in the armed forces. We're a military school! You hear what that yokel said?
  12. You're just not seeing the whole picture. All of the above is because they are unlucky and plotted against. We are lucky and ever-plotting. And cheating. Oh, and destroying the conferences that we hold together after the pussies run away.
  13. This says something about where we are.
  14. You've got to get the team and fans fired up when Abilene Christian comes to town! I bet the yell leaders told their best stories, and all the girls are giddy. The fun is back! Expect a recruiting bump.
  15. I see you took the criticism hard. I think my closing paragraph likely was more pointed than it needed to be. I stand by the sentiment, though. I don't think I do try to tell you I'm the actual expert. I'm not one. Seems nobody is. I just laid it out as I see it. Your language did soft peddle reality. Glad you enjoy my Aggie posts. Written without rancor.
  16. I didn't say anything about "giving a fuck." I only point out the notion of "special relationship" that is commonly used to describe our chummy diplomacy towards the. Special relationship suggests an emotional link and history that sway diplomatic decisions. I don't think you would deny this representation of the relationship the US has with England and Israel. I'll make clear that I don't give a fuck about any of these countries myself. I increasingly dislike my country, but the interests of the US are foremost in my mind regarding these considerations. Saying we need Israel because of the anti-American sentiment in the area is perhaps misplacing the cart and horse. Anti-American sentiment arose because of our support, rightly or wrongly, for Israel when they were beset by the countries all around them objecting to their injection into the area. I can't argue with the American sentiment of not wanting to see Israel and the Israelis destroyed for being in a place that a bunch of bumblers from other countries opened up for them. I'd say installing the Shah and his bloody and cruel Savak may have been the start of real antipathy towards the US. The Iranians seizure of the US embassy and spilling hatred of what we'd done to their country may have been a watershed moment. From that point on, we have a a military presence in the area that rankles the shit out of everybody. Carrier groups in the Persian Gulf leading to the placing of an army in Saudi to drive back Saddam from Kuwait (I wondered about the country of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson spilling blood to re-instate a despot.) That military presence and our increasing use of it has fueled anti-American feeling in the area. We've fought in Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq, and Syria with ground forces. Oh, and Afghanistan where the initial invastion I supported but not the ongoing mission once the special forces were pulled away for W's fiasco in Iraq. We've bombed a lot of people including having a force in Syria. I'm sure the Kurds love us for our routine betrayals of them. Our policies are generally stupid and brutal with non-European countries. Sometimes the fear of that stupidity and brutality has likely worked in our favor. The application of same has rarely worked in our long term interests. Another long fucking post from me. Thanks for the response to my post. If if nobody reads the long posts, it does me some good to write them out for further examination.
  17. Attacking Hamas as a military enemy is certainly justifiable. Trying to install a government is the kind of shit we do that just about always ends badly for the people. See America,Latin. Also see Iran, the Shah. I'll say again that I respect your intellect and knowledge. I think you're way off on this subject.
  18. Yep. They're sofenting the fuck out of the "enemy." Chill your own fucking self, Mr. Armchair War Expert. You seem to imagine that blasting civilian targets and killing women and children and babies and men who are not combatants in the thousands is something sterile like "softening" a target. You further seem to see the door to door campaign as something like a Jehovah Witness invasion. I think an hour in Gaza would rock your complacency. Maybe you're taking the posture of toughness or getting vicarious thrills watching a conventional army smash "the bad guys," but you need to get away from the TV more.
  19. In the first paragraph, you accurately describe the warlike actions as perpetrated by Hamas. I don't know how you can say their ongoing missile attacks are not ever mentioned. One, I'm only following this story with half-interest, and I'm fully aware of the attacks. Two, the attacks are generally recognized by anyone calling for a cease-fire because, as you say, cease-fire suggests two sides. Palestinian sympathizers clearly know attacks are mutual when they call for ceasefire. In the second paragraph, you slyly drift from referring to Hamas as the warring party to the "Palestinian side." You're very smart and well-informed, so I don't see this as sloppy referencing. This disposition towards including all Palestinians in the actions of Hamas is repeated by the reference to "the other side keeps shooting." You've transferred the identity of Hamas to all Palestinians. This almost deft transfer of responsibility allows a person to morally support civilian slaughter in Gaza. The "Palestinian side" is Hamas. Hamas committed crimes against humanity. Therefore, revenge for crimes against humanity may justifiably be directed against the "Palestinian side" evidently in the form of war crimes. QED I'm not following this story closely anymore because it's a shitfire of bloody-minded slaughter. I did see a headline in the NYT stating that the Israelis are having trouble finding evidence that Hamas was hiding under hospitals. They justified their campaign against civilian targets based on the claim that Hamas must be hiding there. I'm surprised Hamas wouldn't be using the hospitals as they clearly have no regard for innocent lives that can be spent to serve their bloody cause. I wonder at the credibility of other claims made by Israel to justify the criminal part of their use of high explosives in civilian-dominated areas. I don't see much difference between blowing up a family in their home or walking through the house shooting everyone. We Americans like to tell ourselves it's different because that's how we justify the rather sterile sounding "collateral damage." The dead make no such distinctions. Their surviving kin and friends make no such distinctions. I'm glad Biden is arguing for restraint, but it's not enough for me. I'd put the whole relationship between our countries on the line because we won't support unbridled attacks on Gaza. I've written and still believe that we should provide only humanitarian aid. I don't trust "special relationships." They often make one side a chump.
×
×
  • Create New...