Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

He's got it backwards.

France (well, a guy living in France with a bloodline to the English throne) invaded England in 1066. The new government *called* itself English, but its richest territories were still in France. It took centuries before France finally kicked them out of lands that the English monarchy had originally owned in the first place.

Posted by Big D at April 19, 2007 06:33 PM

Wow, you just have all kinds of contempt for the free world, don't you?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 19, 2007 06:37 PM

The above is addressed to Rand, BTW.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 19, 2007 06:41 PM

Rand, or me?

We're both being sarcastic. You might have missed that part. It has something to do with Europe proclaiming itself our betters while free-riding on our military's safekeeping of their vital interests.

But then, the original author didn't mean "conquer" in any kind of serious way, either. The things he was proposing would require French approval and help... particularly for things like expediting visa/travel paperwork for crossing the channel, which is much more doable than the bridge thing.

Posted by Big D at April 19, 2007 06:45 PM

Complaints about "contempt for the free world," coming from Brian Swiderski, peg my irony meter.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 19, 2007 06:47 PM

And an ironic meter it is.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 19, 2007 08:42 PM

Freeworld is BS newspeak. It means lots of social programs and absolutely no freedom of speech for any capitalist pigs (unless they are into private space flight).

Posted by Leland at April 19, 2007 09:12 PM

Leland: "Freeworld is BS newspeak."

Denying that France and Britain are part of the free world because you don't like their tax policies is Newspeak.

Leland: "It means lots of social programs and absolutely no freedom of speech for any capitalist pigs"

There are no restrictions on advocating less social spending in Britain or France--the Tories do it all the time, as do the French fascists, which is why neither of them are in power. But keep demonstrating your ignorance if you haven't gotten the point yet.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 19, 2007 10:12 PM

Big D's right, more or less. Some bastard in Normandy corralled a bunch of other bastards and beat King Harold (who was weakened, having beaten off a bunch of Danes up north and then marched over the whole of England to get to Hastings). The Norman dynasty ruled for a while and then was replaced by a more authentically French dynasty from Anjou and Maine.

That "hundred years' war" in the 1300s was, in part, a French civil war; the northwest of France versus Paris, with the Burgundians supporting the northwest. I'm not sure when it was that the English and French decided that they were two separate nations.

There are some who say that even the Merovingians were ruling southeast England at the turn of the seventh century. And before that, there was "Macsen" Maximian and before him, Constantius III.

Posted by David Ross at April 19, 2007 10:30 PM

Denying that France and Britain are part of the free world because you don't like their tax policies is Newspeak.

The above coming from the person who thinks the troops in Iraq are violating the US Constitution, and therefore don't deserve his support.

Posted by Leland at April 20, 2007 06:58 AM

Anyone who would propose to tax a constitutional right into oblivion would not know freedom if it bit him on his ass.

How are things in Oceana Brian?

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 20, 2007 07:00 AM

In the forty or so years following Agincourt the British rolled up the French pretty well until around 1450 (I'm not digging out the specific date) when King Henry V died leaving a somewhat insane child on the throne, the Burgundians switched sides and helped the French Monarchy, and Joan of Arc showed up and sent the British packing (except for a single city).

I think that would be the best claim to having conquered France.

With the somewhat miraculous changes in momentum from Agincourt and Joan of Arc I'm amazed nobody has written a story about time travelers influencing those events.

Posted by rjschwarz at April 20, 2007 10:26 AM

Leland: "The above coming from the person who thinks the troops in Iraq are violating the US Constitution, and therefore don't deserve his support."

1. What does that have to do with you defining freedom as low taxes for rich people?

2. Are you saying you would support a military that betrays the Constitution?

Mike: "Anyone who would propose to tax a constitutional right into oblivion would not know freedom if it bit him on his ass."

I've never proposed anything of the sort. But anyone who would suggest that profit at the expense of human lives is a right wouldn't know freedom from an aardvark's asshole. They're the sort of solipsists who condemned abolition as an attack on "liberty"--i.e., Orwellian imbeciles who think freedom is their impunity at any expense to others.

Mike: "How are things in Oceana Brian?"

To all appearances, they suck. That's why I'd rather not let dumb shits turn this country into a schizo nightmare like the South already is.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 20, 2007 10:51 AM

To all appearances, they suck. That's why I'd rather not let dumb shits turn this country into a schizo nightmare like the South already is.

Rand, to answer your question: "Where did that come from?" I suggest you create a thread in which we can question Brian. I think he is sane, but he does seem to care the same hatred. Actually, a bit more hatred. Not only does hate the Rich, but he also hates:
Republicans
The US military
Defense contractors
The South

Further, Brian's solution to things he hates have a ring of facism to it.

Posted by Leland at April 20, 2007 11:57 AM

Leland: "Not only does hate the Rich"

Wrong again, Leland. Like most hate-based minds, you automatically interpret the rejection of your prejudices as an expression of opposite bigotry. To someone who judges the freedom of a society by money, the humanist and democrat are vile tyrants, and fascism a source of liberation.

"but he also hates: Republicans"

Once again, you're applying a delusional fallacy. Just because Republicans hate everyone, does not mean everyone else hates them. And because they hate the Constitution, and I defend it, does not make me guilty of hate. Everywhere you turn, the hate-based mind is full of rationalizations to drag everyone else down to their level, to erase their unworthiness by slandering the rest of the human species, and ascribing hateful motives to anyone and everyone who gets in their way. The violently paranoid, narcissistic mind incapable of morality or truth is the emblem of the Republican Party of today.

"The US military"

The US military defends the Constitution. Insofar as it doesn't, it's not the US military, so your claim is gibberish.

"Defense contractors"

I don't have any problem with honest defense contractors.

"The South"

You already mentioned Republicans.

"Further, Brian's solution to things he hates have a ring of facism to it."

Parrot the accusation back at the accuser. Standard operating procedure for the dishonest.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 20, 2007 02:24 PM

Squidward says: Parrot the accusation back at the accuser. Standard operating procedure for the dishonest.

Earlier in his post, he quoted and replied:

Leland: "Not only does he hate the Rich"

Wrong again, Leland. Like most hate-based minds, you automatically interpret the rejection of your prejudices as an expression of opposite bigotry.

So, you throw the hatred accusation back at Leland, yet you said that was SOP for the dishonest....hiya pot, this is kettle...

Posted by Mac at April 20, 2007 02:49 PM

Just because Republicans hate everyone...

Brian, we're trying to help you here. Do you have any idea what an irrational and bigoted statement that is, or how it comes across to anyone sane? Do have any idea how much of a loon you come across when you write such things?

Seriously.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 20, 2007 03:09 PM

Rand: "Do you have any idea what an irrational and bigoted statement that is, or how it comes across to anyone sane?"

Any sane adult with a triple-digit IQ recognizes that the standard caveats are implicit.

Rand: "Do have any idea how much of a loon you come across when you write such things?"

Intelligent citizens can recall a few election cycles into the past, and they know how the GOP does things. As for the Sling Blade folks who actually voted Republican, you could sit them down in front of a library viewfinder, force them to study 2004 in depth, and they still wouldn't know what the hell they voted for other than a tax cut for a new stereo and to keep "homasekshulls" from getting a piece of paper.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 20, 2007 07:57 PM

"But anyone who would suggest that profit at the expense of human lives is a right wouldn't know freedom from an aardvark's asshole."

So if a constitutional right can be taxed into oblivion because you stupidly interpret it as costing human lives, we can then tax irresponsible reporting like from MSNBC for publishing Cho's manifesto and we can put stupid fuzzy though tax on each of your stupid, assinine suggestions.

If we can tax thing's in the second you find offensive, we can tax the first when you use it to impose your idiocy on the universe.

"Just because Republicans hate everyone."

No, just arrogant asses who earn it. Even then we don't hate them, we just pity them like someone in a permanent vegetative state. I save my hate for true evil, I don't go around trying to find evil where it really isn't or insulting past victims of true evil by arrogantly dumbing down the term using it as a cheap and hollow debate tactic. I don't think you are evil Brian, just an arrogant self-important fool. Well, a southern man don't need you around anyhow.

"To all appearances, they suck. That's why I'd rather not let dumb shits turn this country into a schizo nightmare like the South already is."

I just spent today walking on a section of the Appalachian Trail that winds thru that schizo nightmare. It was absolutely gorgeous and totally free of arrogant Yankee assholes hell bent to on making themselves pitied.

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 20, 2007 08:04 PM

There's Brian's insanity and deranged rage in a nutshell. To him, half the country are "sling blade folks."

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 21, 2007 05:54 AM

Mike: "So if a constitutional right can be taxed into oblivion"

Do they not teach the concept of a nonprofit corporation in Libertarian school?

Mike: "we can then tax irresponsible reporting like from MSNBC for publishing Cho's manifesto and we can put stupid fuzzy though tax on each of your stupid, assinine suggestions."

There's no valid analogy whatsoever. If you suggested taxing PROFIT from "irresponsible reporting," that would still leave the problem of subjectivity and arbitrariness.

Mike: "If we can tax thing's in the second you find offensive"

I don't recall anything about profit in the 2nd Amendment, so if you're saying that it prohibits any law that in any way, shape, or form could possibly inconvenience the manufacture, sale, purchase, storage, carriage, or use of firearms, then you have a problem. All taxes, SEC regulations, bookkeeping standards, and export or import restrictions or tariffs on guns, gun manufacturers, gun retailers, investors in manufacturers or retaliers, and potential gun buyers would be unconstitutional, as would any and all of the above in relation to industries whose fortunes affect the gun industry in any way.

Any law, regulation, or policy with the remotest possibility of preventing a gun buyer from obtaining a gun would be illegal, including building codes at weapons plants, health codes for weapons plant employees, permit requirements, age limits, probation and parole mandates, gun-free zones literally anywhere (e.g. courtrooms or the White House), or even disarmament of arrested suspects since they may not be guilty and would then have been deprived of their right to bear arms.

Mike: "No, just arrogant asses who earn it."

I.e. Anyone in their way, or whose defamation advances their interests.

Mike: "Even then we don't hate them, we just pity them like someone in a permanent vegetative state."

Ah, so you mobilize Congress to pass a bill making them wards of the Party?

Mike: "I save my hate for true evil"

And your vote too.

Mike: "I don't go around trying to find evil where it really isn't"

Just wars and WMDs, eh?

"or insulting past victims of true evil"

True evil never recognizes itself, nor admits the people it kills and tortures are victims. They always "deserved" it for one reason or another, or were "sacrificed" for the "greater good" of the nation, the faith, the race, or whatever. It's always a "regrettable, but necessary unpleasantness," and critics, if not traitors, are "foolish" and "naive." Oh, and "history will vindicate these actions." You folks, the Republicans, have been reading from a very old script, and I ain't talking about the Bible.

Mike: "by arrogantly dumbing down the term using it as a cheap and hollow debate tactic."

To water down the truth for your sensitivities would be a tactic; refusing to do so is a lesson.

Mike: "just an arrogant self-important fool."

Are you trying to shatter the server with that irony? Hello, you voted twice for a dimwitted megalomaniac with messianic delusions who ordered a war after receiving direct approval from God.

Mike: "Well, a southern man don't need you around anyhow."

Agreed. I humbly concede all states where the visibility report depends on mosquito density.

Mike: "I just spent today walking on a section of the Appalachian Trail that winds thru that schizo nightmare."

Great scenery doesn't prevent or cure madness. Ask the Irish, or the Bavarians.

Mike: "It was absolutely gorgeous and totally free of arrogant Yankee assholes"

And if you happened upon a Southern Appalachian town, no doubt totally free of jobs and education.

Rand: "To him, half the country are "sling blade folks.""

I'm obviously oversimplifying. Many of Bush's voters are just greedy scumbags with no moral values; others have a sexual attraction to the idea of war and killing; and still others like that he says "God" a lot, because that means he's a moral person.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 21, 2007 11:03 PM

Post a comment