RoyalAir
| Favorite team: | US Space Force  |
| Location: | Detroit |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 7820 |
| Registered on: | 12/4/2012 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: In the pantheon of the WORST wives and girlfriends in TV/movies…
Posted by RoyalAir on 9/4/26 at 7:16 am to Sus-Scrofa
quote:
Jill Taylor is higher on this list than you would think.
Even watching this show live as a kid I thought Jill was a shrill, difficult woman. Didn't even have the decency to be hot.
0
quote:
can you provide a link to that information?
GWU archives
That's a decent start. I posted it earlier in the thread.
You heard it was BS because Warren Christopher accused Yeltsin of being drunk when Christopher told Yeltsin this. But the declassified cables support Yeltsin's claim.
I vividly remember the mid 90s, when Yeltsin and Clinton were essentially depicted as being drinking buddies, and getting on quite well.
quote:
But you're bringing up Yeltsin and "what he heard" at a NATO meeting as if it has any relevance to Putin and NATO/US relationships post Putin's ascension. So you aren't debating in good faith either.
No, here's my my train of thought. Putin doesn't exist in a vacuum. He has 10 years of Post-Soviet history to look upon by the time he comes to power. The Yeltsin/Christopher backstory is pertinent to the conversation.
Yeltsin was told the US wasn't going to expand NATO eastward. Not just what he heard, but what US cables explicitly state. He acquiesced, and took that in good faith. The Clinton administration lied to him, as has been admitted in declassified documents.
Putin comes in in June of 2020, and a month post ascension he brings the topic back up. Clinton waffles, NATO members don't like it. Bush admin comes in. Putin tries different tactics. This is now seen as being in bad faith. But we don't hold the US accountable for its part of negotiations, it typically devolves into Putin is a bad faith actor.
At this point, it doesn't really matter. Both sides have pissed each other off to such a degree that the relationship is probably forever severed. And honestly, the Russians think they're better off without the NATO involvement.
Regardless, I appreciate the conversation. It's an interesting topic.
quote:
But, he was. He wasn't getting Russia in without the full vetting process. He knew that, so he was "negotiating" in bad faith.
So the "Putin wanted to join NATO" point is moot and ridiculous on its face.
I don't agree with you here. Warren Christopher lied to Yeltsin back in the Clinton administration about not expanding NATO in the aftermath of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. GWU archivesThen, NATO was put to Russia's doorstep, and done in a way that was, from a Russian perspective, utterly humiliating.
Enter Putin, who was a much stronger leader than Yeltsin. He asks Clinton, and Clinton doesn't outright say no. Putin has cards, and plays them, because he saw what happened with Yeltsin, and how he tried the good faith effort.
He tried a different negotiating tactic, sure. It wasn't in worse faith than what the Clinton admin did, though.
quote:
He kept asking when Russia would get their invitation, instead of applying, and stated Russia shouldn't have to stand in line with countries that didn't matter.
As a nuclear power, he had a pocket full if aces, while countries that didn't matter had 7-2 offsuit. He wasn't wrong.
quote:
they’ve always been hellbent on controlling and invading other countries and territories.
We have normalized relations with the UK, France, Israel, and Germany, and all have done the very same. Hell, three of them are in NATO. Let's not act like this is some kind of disqualifier from NATO.
Your initial assertion was that the Russians didn't want to have normalized relations with the West. That's demonstrably untrue, and it appears you've essentially conceded that point.
You don't like them, and don't want them in the West. Fair enough - I can absolutely understand that, and appreciate it. I think the same thing about many nations already in the NATO sphere. For example, I don't want to have normal relations with the godforsaken Turks, but the US is cool with Turkey in NATO. Those bastards are on stolen land from 1000 years ago, if we want to make it a blood feud.
Ultimately, Russia was left out in the cold, as a result of several administrations. There was a time when they wanted to "rejoin" Europe. That time has passed, and at this point, they may think they're better off.
I am not a Russian apologist. I do find them fascinating, much like someone may appreciate a rattlesnake. Doesn't mean I love them.
Anyhow, appreciate the conversation.
quote:
Bush tried to form relations with Putin, but Putin never ever had any interest in becoming allies with the US and Western Europe
This is literally untrue. But I guess you forgot or don't know about it, to borrow your phrase.
Putin met Clinton in June of 2000, and literally asked to be in NATO. Clinton hemmed and hawed, and put Putin on an island. This was literally a month after he had been appointed president.
Once left in the cold, Putin began to stabilize the fractured nation (as you mentioned), and did it largely by attacking the Oligarchs that Yeltsin had enriched during his messy tenure.
It's not hard to look at the distance that the West created with the Russians through an objective lens. They were European in every major sense prior to their fall to the Bolsheviks (who weren't fricking Russians, and hated Ruasians), and wanted back in after that system collapsed. The West, with the US in the driver's seat, said no. This was largely driven by NeoConservatives, who have an ethnic hatred of Russians.
The infamous Russian reset was a shitshow from the beginning. That's on HillDawg, and the Russians didn't trust her or Obama.
The Crimean invasion and South Ossetia crisis terrified the US, and for good reasons.
Relations get worse. Flash forward, and you have the Ukrainian pet project that puts both sides in a hot war.
The story is complicated. And it's been made worse *by both parties*, both US parties, and by the Russians themselves.
Ain't no good guys in this thing. But blaming *all of it* on the Russians is patently stupid.
quote:
By Mr. Vladimir Putin himself. The problem was the new Russian leader had always been anti-Western.
There was a nearly 10 year period post-USSR collapse until the rise of Putin. The failure to thaw relations was during the Clinton Administration, and involved Clinton, Warren Christopher, and Boris Yeltsin.
I'm no Putin defender, but you're blaming shite on him when he wasn't in power. Wanna rag on Yeltsin for fumbling the bag? Have at it.
quote:
Second, the vast majority of Russians I’ve met in my travels are downright uncivilized. On a personal level I disdain them. If Russian is a race then call me a racist.
You're certainly entitled to an opinion. Not gonna waste my time arguing around it.
All I'll say is that my experiences have been the inverse. I find Russian culture to be fascinating, rich, and worthy of study.
They should have been a natural ally after the Soviet Union fell, but that ball was fumbled impossibly hard.
quote:
It’s weird as frick to me that Americans support Russia against Ukraine.
Russian history is fascinating and complex. Most Americans don't know shite about it, past what they learned during the Cold War (which was the wrong lesson all the way around).
This broad needs the Leo Frank treatment.
Some great ones mentioned.
Holy Grail
Airplane
Naked Gun
Blazing Saddles
Not Another Teen Movie
The Other Guys
Have all been listed. For a new entry that I still find hilarious, I submit Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story. It's just about perfect.
Holy Grail
Airplane
Naked Gun
Blazing Saddles
Not Another Teen Movie
The Other Guys
Have all been listed. For a new entry that I still find hilarious, I submit Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story. It's just about perfect.
quote:
Your team had an impressive multi year losing streak and you claim modern CFB is a bad product?
That proves his point, rather than refuting it. Even when SC was unwatchable and wasn't worthy of support, it was still supported because of what it was. That "what it was" has now changed to such a degree as to make the pageantry and interest in the game be lessened. The product isn't what it was, and not for the better. It's hard to get excited about it anymore.
re: The oddest vehicle you think is cool
Posted by RoyalAir on 8/31/26 at 12:08 pm to MRTigerFan
quote:
Isuzu Vehicross
I always liked these
If memory serves, they were standard with a backup camera, which was completely unheard of at the time.
Regarding the 96 SS Impala someone posted, I know someone who has one. She gets stopped at redlights and at gas stations with people asking to buy it constantly. One guy offered her a cashier's check, as his bank was across the street. Some folks don't know what they have; Ms Impala 100% knows.
quote:
Not a horror movie. More like a dark love story.
In the real world, once Moore's character is with Redford, there's zero chance she goes back to Harrelson "out of love."
She would have absolutely upgraded to Redford full-time, even if she didn't love him.
Just rewatched this the other night. Holds up well on all fronts.
quote:
The concept of this movie is so stupid. Redford never had to pay for it in his life, and was turning it away
The concept *is* stupid. But it still works, and that's a testament to everyone involved, particularly Adrian Lyne's direction.
Redford's character didn't get off on the sex. He got off on the power and the emasculation of Woody Harrelson. The sex was a tool to destroy the couple- specifically the man.
quote:
Because women in the western world have been programmed to believe nothing they do is ever their fault.
Eh, I think it's a default setting, honestly.
quote:
The women I know personally I mentioned in my previous post? All very conservative, and all very religious.
Women maintain an in-group preference in ways that men cannot understand, and have been largely trained out of.
quote:
Yes because they truly believe that Patrick either did it or it was his fault anyway
This is something I have observed over the last several years. Even when a woman makes a decision that causes harm, there is a chorus that erupts to explain that it's a man's fault regardless. Feminist society wants full female agency, but they want a man to blame when a woman's actions lead to ruin. Even though men can't tell women what to do, the fact that no man told her not to do The Thing is still his fault.
In short, many women are roundabout arguing for the benefits of patriarchal society without allowing the mechanisms that enable it to exist.
re: Is "Indecent Proposal" a horror movie? Woody Harrelson, Demi Moore, Robert Redford
Posted by RoyalAir on 8/26/26 at 8:11 am to finchmeister08
I hate this movie. It's handled well, it's smart, and it's utterly destructive.
Popular
30
