Really, people, how in the world can you believe that your high-ranking cardinals, archbishops, etc. actually believe that what they are doing is the will of God when they are selling offices to the highest bidder?Throughout most of the Middle Ages, no doubt up until the modern day but my modern history scholarship is lacking, the office of the Pope was bought. Surely the Pope himself cannot have believed that God wanted the richest man in the race to win, rather than the most faithful/Christlike.
Who were the greatest tacticians and strategists of history?
I've seen plenty of these going around so I'd like to be very clear, I'm asking for your top five tacticians and top five strategists (in no particular order) of all time (that we know of, obviously). I've phrased it this way as oppose to, say, top general or commander to give clear parameters.Military strategy is the large-scale planning and control of a campaign. This includes:- Logistics/supply- Manpower- Diplomacy- Resource management- Generally out of combat and off battlefield considerationsMilitary tactics are the planning and control of battles and bringing troops to battles. For example:- Flanking, false retreats, ambushing- Fortification/entrenching- Timing- Choosing and preparing the battlefieldI'd like to ask you not to consider morale or popularity with the troops which I'd put under a third category of leadership. As an example of strategy I'd point out the use of guerilla warfare and attrition to defeat the enemy in a long term campaign. Essentially we're talking about planning a whole war in terms of deploying and using up resources (men, food, weapons). Tactics is moving your soldiers around on the battlefield, reacting to the enemy and formations etc.I'd like to split them because this often seems to be a point of disagreement in this sort of debate (Washington was definitely a poor tactician, but his name often pops up regardless for example). There are a few more things I'd like you to keep in mind:When considering strategy:- Consider resource imbalances (the strategic victory of a nation very wealthy in resources, manpower etc. isn't as much a of a feat as a poor nation, or a nation with bad infrastructure or organisation). For example, Ghengis Khan, Attila, the Vietcong and Arminius beat enemies despite starting with less manpower/wealth/arms/organisation.- Consider things like attrition and logistics that were significant in many wars (Napoleon in Russia (bad strategy - unprepared for poor Russian infrastructure), Hannibal in ItalyWhen considering tactics:- Don't consider, for example, the stupidity of invading Russia, just the Battle of Borodino, say.- Do consider the disparity of forces. Roman generals had a far more tactically manoeuvrable force than say Vercingetorix or Arminius. To the extent that you can, try and consider the difference between how impressive it is for Caesar to make a manoeuvre based in the testudo to William Wallace using the schiltron.Defeat doesn't disqualify, it is perfectly plausible for a superior tactician to lose to a superior strategist, or vice versa, or to simply be overwhelmed by an idiot with many men and lots of money.Anyway in no particular order.Tacticians:Khalid ibn al-WalidTsubotaiYi Sun-sinNapoleon BonaparteArminiusStrategists:Julius CaesarGhengis KhanMao ZedongVo Nguyen GiapSun Tzu/ Clausewitz** I give these guys a double cause we can't analyse campaigns they were in command of but both did a lot if important thinking on war as a whole, it's goals and it's nature.
Sanders killed Clinton in N. Hampshire but will tie in delegates, More Democrat corruption
In the Democrat Party, they can use many super delegates to control who gets elected regardless what the people want. In New Hampshire, even though Sanders beat Clinton by a large margin, Sanders came away with the same number of delegates as Clinton! Clinton already controls 360 super delegates nationally verses 8 for Sanders. There are 747 super delegates in the Democratic national committee.The GOP has what is called unpledged delegates but only have 168 in the Repubican national committee.There always seems to be much more corruption and Government control in the Democrat party! They truly are the arrogant Progressives who believe they are smarter than you, and know better how your money should be spent. Basically your money should be spent buying democrat votes with free handouts, free College, free free free. Who pays for free? THE MIDDLE CLASS AS ALWAYS!In the Democrat debate last night, when Sander's and Clinton were asked what Government programs they would cut, as always they gave no details and did the typical rhetoric of saying how they wiill cut waste in Government. Translation? Our naton is going bankrupt. It's amazing that after 8 years of their party control of America, they say they are NOW going to fix all our problems. LOL, who on earth would vote for these phonies. We need Conservatives elected but the electorate wants free stuff no matter our children's futures will be destroyed.http://www.snopes.com/2016/02/11/sanders-campaign-doomed-superdelegates/http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/superdelegates.html-FromWithin
Machines Couldn't Replace Us Even with the rapidly advancing technology, machines couldn't replace all of us. They lack in creativity needed in several jobs. Architects, dancers, song writers, actors, authors, photographers-- all of which are jobs that need creativity. Other jobs likes nurses and psychiatrists need empathy and compassion. Machines do not have the capability to "feel" emotions.Humans make decisions based on past experiences and values. We have the ability to correct and learn from our mistakes, whereas machines, whom seldom make mistakes, cannot learn from errors. Other factors, like judgement, intuition, and innovation, also aren't found in machines.So lets say machines do replace humans; what happens then?If the machines take away our jobs, the lower class citizens wouldn't earn any money. Without money, they can't buy anything, meaning that there would be no need to make anything if the people can't buy things.Not only that, but once the economy fails, the rich would only get richer. The people who own the machines would eventually lose their money, but not before the lower classes would riot.That could led to the eradication of the human race, leaving the machines to run the planet. There is no denying the fact that the machines would eventually break down, but who would be there to fix them? Even if there was a machine who could repair other machines, what happens when that one breaks down? And when you run out of the repairing machines?There would be no point in letting machines replace us, even with the impressive advances in our technology.
Sanders killed Clinton in N. Hampshire but will tie in delegates, More Democrat corruption
In the Democrat Party, they can use many super delegates to control who gets elected regardless what the people want. In New Hampshire, even though Sanders beat Clinton by a large margin, Sanders came away with the same number of delegates as Clinton! Clinton already controls 360 super delegates nationally verses 8 for Sanders. There are 747 super delegates in the Democratic national committee.The GOP has what is called unpledged delegates but only have 168 in the Repubican national committee.There always seems to be much more corruption and Government control in the Democrat party! They truly are the arrogant Progressives who believe they are smarter than you, and know better how your money should be spent. Basically your money should be spent buying democrat votes with free handouts, free College, free free free. Who pays for free? THE MIDDLE CLASS AS ALWAYS!In the Democrat debate last night, when Sander's and Clinton were asked what Government programs they would cut, as always they gave no details and did the typical rhetoric of saying how they wiill cut waste in Government. Translation? Our naton is going bankrupt. It's amazing that after 8 years of their party control of America, they say they are NOW going to fix all our problems. LOL, who on earth would vote for these phonies. We need Conservatives elected but the electorate wants free stuff no matter our children's futures will be destroyed.http://www.snopes.com/2016/02/11/sanders-campaign-doomed-superdelegates/http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/superdelegates.html
find it rather funny when I see, for instance, a picture on a
school-board website of a group of non-white students with the
caption that such-and-such supports “multiculturalism”.
It isn't multiculturalism in the picture, but racial heterogeneity.
funny thing isn't this confusion of terms, but the confusion around
the one term: multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism isn't simply having a group of people from different
lands, nations, continents, whathaveyou in the same room:
multiculturalism is to have a variety of cultures existing in
relative harmony without
any being in fear of how they'll be perceived by the others.
for instance. I'm constantly hearing various entities blasting the
whole concept, calling it unethical or immoral or degrading to women.
These are the same entities that insist they support
multiculturalism. If you really supported multiculturalism, you
wouldn't be judging other cultures – each of them thousands of
years in the making – based on the standards of your own culture.
Instead, you would acknowledge the existence of cultural
and admit that, while your own culture frowns upon such actions, it
is evident that this is an important practice to other cultures.
isn't going around and imposing your own cultural standards on
others; that is imperialism, something generally frowned upon by such
entities as antiquated and damning. To say that one culture needs
to abolish female genital cutting
is to support cultural imperialism.
look at another issue: child marriages. Such practices exist in
various societies around the world. Yet we in the “multicultural
West” frown upon such devious behavior as a perversion. If you were
you would admit that the practice of child marriage is alien to your
own cultural standards, but that by the standards of another society
it is a valid and relatively common occurrence.
if you as a nation truly want to be multicultural,
not just diverse,
you'll have to make concessions: if a group of tribesmen from the
other side of the world want to marry one of their members off to a 4
year old girl, while your own culture considers such to be
pedophilia, you wouldn't think of imperialistically
imposing your own standards upon another culture: that would just be
I urge you to take just five minutes our of your valuable time so watch this video--which offers some stunning reason why Hockey is the best sport in the world, and also has the best athletes. Faster than football, more action, more hitting and violence than basketball, not as boring as baseball. And not nearly as wussy as soccer.Hockey rocks! Go Red Wings! Go Wolverines! Go Blue! LOL.What sport can touch hockey? None. Io the average NFL game there is 15 minutes of action. This is pathetic. An NHL game offers four times as much.Enjoy the video. I welcome all comments. And will be happy, as a former college player, to answer any questions on this fantastic sport. Thanks!!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdNYal09Pfw
This article details how offended and humiliated a Professor felt during an arrest. The implication is of racism on the part of the white officers toward the black professor. The video is pretty short.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/us/police-release-video-of-traffic-stop-of-princeton-professor.html
The Hill and Bill ShowIf, God forbid, Hillary gets elected, what do you think her first priority will be once in office:1- Pardon herself and all involved in the email scandal?2 - Enrich herself via her foundation with donations and speaking fees?
When you run up your personal debt by buying things you can not afford, what do you do?
What do people do when they spend more than they can afford and get themselves into huge debt? Do they do what our Government does? Do they keep spending money they do not have as our Government does to buy votes?Do they ask their family and friends to give them more money to pay down their debt while STILL living life as if there was no debt? How long do you think it will take for family and friends to say NO MORE and stop giving money to someone who refuses to be responsible and keeps buying the new cars, nice cell phones, nice vactions, nice diners out, etc.So I ask you..... WHY ON EARTH would you vote for politicians who want to tax people MORE after squandering every dollar we have ever given them. Why would you reward total irresponsibility by our politicians?Bernie Sander's and Hillary Clinton's answer to bringing down our debt is to TAX MORE! Not spending less! The same can be said for the majority of Democrat politicians who Democrats keep electing. They are the tax and spend party.The estblishment republicans do not want to tax us more but they refuse to take the tough stand on cutting spending because they realize the welfare minded Americans will not elect them if they cut spending.So here we are with a 19 TRILLION debt, and the only politicians who have the guts to make the tough choices(Conservatives) are ridiculed by left wing media while the majority of the electorate refuses to vote them in.Can you spell bankrupcy? I feel so sorry for our children's future.-FromWithinOriginal Debate: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/When_you_run_up_your_personal_debt_by_buying_things_you_can_not_afford_what_do_you_do