GIVE TIL IT HURTS

The continued existence of this site depends entirely on contributions from its readers. If you're able to, please consider donating or subscribing to CF. Thanks!


  

THANKS!

The Daily Donnybrook

Posted on      by     

Welcome to Ye Olde Colde Furye Blogge’s shiny new open-comments thread, where y’all can have at it as you wish, on any topic you like. Do note that the official CF comments policy remains in effect here, as enumerated in the left sidebar. All new posts will appear below this one. There will be blood…

52 thoughts on “The Daily Donnybrook”

    1. “Estavillo alleges in the transcript he even once ejaculated on his PC monitor, which caused his gaming system to short-circuit and resulted in a fire that temporarily caused his apartment to black out.”

      That there is a orgasm extraordinaire 🙂

    2. The PRC has been complaining of over-masturbation amongst their troops.
      Perhaps this is what they meant.

      1

    1. Gawd I hate that idea.
      Imagine the “Emergency” backdoors the Government will get into the controls of autonomous cars.
      Rush had it right with Red Barchetta.

      2

      1. I’m going to enjoy the day when I get in the car and say “take us to the beach house / back home” and then nap for 6 hours 🙂

        1. Once the software is improved to an appropriate safety level (still quite a long ways off), autonomous vehicles will certainly have their uses. Older people no longer capable of (or wanting to risk) driving, people with medical issues (I was unable to drive for over a year some years back, could have really used one), anyone who just does not want the hassle — there will be plenty of customers.

          But the inevitable push from government and big brother tech oligarchs will be for no manual controls. Meaning total control for them. Then they will push to ban personal vehicles entirely (“Just call one when you need to go somewhere!”) and the urban planner types can finally force everyone into the centrally planned “dense” communities they have always wanted, but where hardly anyone with an actual choice is willing to live.

          2

          1. I think y’all worry too much.

            Eventually you will no longer have a need to own, it will just appear as you need it. And the type you need. And maybe you don’t even need to ride along… “Truck, go to Lowes and pick up the load of plywood I just ordered”.

            “(still quite a long ways off)”

            Measured in years, not decades.

        2. I’m just curious. Does anything you own never break down? Especially computers. Glitch? Freeze? Go blue screen of death?
          Guaranteed as soon as the lumber is loaded, someone hacks into it and sends it to their warehouse.
          For every convenience you find there are any number of scenarios that I can find for it to go wrong.

          For example. What if you used a different Lowes because the closest was out of what you needed?

          What if you just wanted to drive with No Particular Place To Go? What do you tell the machine?

          1. Well, I’ll tell it to go to the Lowes I want it to go to.

            Your car, unless you own a pretty old one, already has a computer running everything and they rarely break down. You desktop/laptop is cheap and allows access to the operating system.

            You measure the value by how many wrecks/deaths there are, not by some scenario. I can guarantee you there will be less when you take the driving out of human hands.

            You tell it to drive random.

  3. Well, I finally know someone who knows someone with COVID. A friend’s uncle has tested positive. The virus will kill us all! ELEVENTY!!!!

    Or maybe not. The man in question is almost 80 and his symptoms are about those of a mild cold. He only got tested because he was at a gathering where someone else tested positive. Still, I now know someone who knows someone. CASES ARE SURGING!!! You red state hicks are all going to die now because you started to reopen your economies rather than cowering in fear like Saint Fauci instructed you to do. Die, heretics!

    Oh, sorry, started to channel the leftie media for a second there.

    2

    1. My 83 year old mom was telling me the other day about another 80-something lady she knows who lives in a nursing home, got sick, felt like refried shit for about four days, and then…got over it. Even my meek, timid, mild-mannered old mother thinks it’s all a pantload, a hoax.

      2

      1. Your old mother is wise. I think wisdom is why many of us knew from the start that the virus was real but the hysteria was driven purposely, a hoax perpetrated by the “deep state” to try and dump Trump.

        1

      2. One thing to note. I read that about 1% of Americans live in Nursing Homes.
        Even if every single WuFlu Death was from a NH then 119,000/3,300,000 = 3.6% died from it. That’s the Worst Case Scenario.
        A Nationwide breakout by Age is hard to find. I had read that in NH those who got it had a 11% death rate. I also heard 40% of deaths are NH. (sounds low but let’s go with it for now) Let’s say 48,000 deaths and about 436,000 cases then. That’s an infection rate in Nursing Homes of 13%.

        We’ve had 2.5 million cases so in the general population 2.5/330 = 0.75% tested positive for having it.

        30.4 Million were tested and 27.9 million came out negative. So 8.22% of those tested had it.

        When you actually turn raw numbers into data like that, you realize that this has been basically a bad seasonal flu. Except when it came to Nursing Homes, which should have been isolated much better than was done.

        That’s the lesson to learn here.

        1. 25%+ of Americans now die in nursing homes. 50% of residents die within 6 months of admittance and 65% within a year. Letting a virus loose within a nursing home is criminal. The residents are there because they are very sick and the hospital can do nothing further for them.

    1. Feckless? The 99-year lease ended and the PRC refused to renew. The Brits could have said they’d hold on to the colony, but that would have resulted in military action by the PLA as well as been a violation of “international law”.

      Am I mistaken about any of the above?

      1. Are you suggesting the Brits are not “feckless”?
        There is an agreement that lasts through 2047 which makes HK a special region with the economy and legislature to remain untouched and universal suffrage.

        It also a little known/understood fact that the Brits gave up Hong Kong Island and Kowloon Peninsula as part of this agreement when they were not part of the 99 year lease. HK Island and Kowloon Peninsula were ceded to Britain in separate treaties in the 1800’s. Only what was referred to as the “New Territories” were part of the 99 year lease.

        So, yes, the Brits are feckless chickenshit bastards that doomed 8 million people to chinese enslavement.

        What international law do you reference and how would the British be in violation of it?

        Trolling, trolling along…

        1. The British signed a Lease for the New Territorities, they didn’t own it outright. Staying in the New Territories after 1947 would have been a violation of that Lease, a Treaty breaking. I’m glad Steve wrote “international law” in quotes because I don’t think there is any. No representation, no law. However, it would have been a Treaty renege.

          Plus, frankly, going to war over Hong Kong would never fly since it was a Loser from the start. Turn off the utilities and Hong Kong is helpless. The PRC would probably have won without firing a shot.

          So at least the British got something for the people of Hong Kong.

          1. The new territories were by lease, not HK island or Kowloon. The British owned those by treaty. Giving them up with the word of the chinese was feckless. They didn’t even try, they were just in a hurry to bend over for the commies.

          2. HK was indefensible.
            Britain would have had to invade The PRC to create a defensible position.
            In 1984 when the agreement was reached the Cold War was still in and dangerous for two nuke powers to go directly to war with each other.

          3. In the 80’s and 90’s when the feckless Brits were negotiating with the chinese, the chinese were much weaker than now, 30-40 years later. The Brits gave it away. Defense? Defend it from who? The chinese in 1990? No, the Brits got rid of it because they are chicken shit. Electricity – HK generated electricity in several stations on HK island or Kowloon as I recall. Natural Gas generation is pretty quick to set up. Water has always (as I’m sure you know) been a problem. The first time I went to HK I was stunned to find out they had two water systems, one seawater for flushing… Water is not an insurmountable problem, just call in the Israeli’s.

            The British knew all this and made no investment because they knew they were going to sell out the population of Hong Kong.

          4. OK Barry, find me one reputable Military man who thought Hong Kong was defensible from the PRC forces and/or a siege which cut off the water and power.
            I tried for 20 odd years now to find anyone who thought not handing over HK was a real option once they had studied the problem.

          5. Kenny, all war between nuclear powers is the same. It doesn’t happen.

            The Brits held Hong Kong and Kowloon Island by treaty with the Chinese. It’s British land. Chinese invade and the result is a nuclear exchange, one the Chinese were not willing to engage in.

            Taiwan.

          6. The Falklands, when Thatcher still had spine.

            So, here is a question for you, you lived there and have family there. I only know what my friends thought at the time (the 90’s) and now. Do you think the average Hong Kong citizen would prefer to make a stand, do without for a time, or let the Chinese have their way?

            I don’t know the answer to this. I know what the business friends thought and think – they don’t like the communists and would do without were it possible – but I have no clue if they represent the wider population.

          7. The HK people had no say in the matter.

            The PRC didn’t need to invade. No water and no power to HK Island and they suffer the same fate as LA or NYC is someone turned off their utilities.

            The PRC could just wait them out.

            No one I read on this subject that is knowledgeable of military and strategy has ever felt the British could have held HK. If you know of someone I’d be glad to hear another opinion.

            The HK people were offered citizenship in The Commonwealth and many there did take Canadian, Australian, NZ passports upon the handover. Jardines moved their listing to Singapore as well. HSBC has a double headquarters in London.

      2. No, you are correct.

        Plus Hong Kong is completely indefensible. It was even so back in 1945.
        Plus, like the vulnerability of any large city here in the US, if the PRC turn off the food, water and electricity the siege is over in days.

        That the British didn’t just hand it back and leave and DID negotiate a good Basic Agreement, which is solid if followed, was a tribute to them. Most other colonies they just handed the keys to someone and got on their ships and sailed. HK was special to the British too.

        2. I am an American watching from afar on this one, so my opinion is not worth much. But I do not recall any signs the British public was any more willing to fight China over Hong Kong than they were to support the re-establishment of the Raj. They negotiated a deal everyone knew wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on and then got the hell out of Dodge.

          These days the Brits couldn’t fight another Falklands War even if they wanted to, which they don’t. The UK is being colonized these days, not defending former possessions.

          As for Taiwan, I hope they have nukes of their own. If a Democrat gets back into the White House by hook or by crook, China will have the green light to “mostly peacefully” re-unify with their former province. And much of the world’s leading fab tech and facilities will end up in ChiCom hands.

          1. Replying here to you and Kenny above.

            It’s probably true the British people did not want to fight a war against the Chinese. They didn’t have to. All they had to do is release HK to be their own country, with British nuclear to guarantee their safety. Water and electricity, in the early 90’s could have been dealt with as well as food if the commies decided to cut them off. That required will that the British didn’t have. They were feckless.

            As are we. I rather doubt we will stand by Taiwan. I’m certain no one since Reagan other than Trump would do it. As far as I know the Taiwanese do not have nuclear weapons. Just like the Japs. But I believe the japs have all the material and can put them together in a very short period of time (days not months).

            My last comment. It is widely known that Thatcher didn’t want to let it go. But her advisors* all told her there was no choice. No choice because they would be locked out of future trade with the Chinese.

            I’ve seen all that before, and after. Advisors.

            *bet they all made a killing in the China markets

          2. Recall that as they were fighting that Falklands War the Chinese were taking the measure of the nasty sentiment in Britain against it. They therefore hardened their position as a response.

          3. Hong Kong as Independent was laughable. Without the British armed forces they were even weaker to resist.
            The PRC could not accept the Loss of Face of not getting the New Territories back and therefore when the British suggested extending the Lease Deng refused.
            Thatcher had fought 10 weeks in the Falklands against intense opposition but their victory was very good for British Pride.
            To throw that away defending a much stronger PRC Army was just not going to happen.
            Your idea that the British Public would stand for Airlifting or fighting a conventional War in HK for years, while the Chinese sat there pressuring them with water and food and electricity shortages and prepared to wait it out for years is clearly misreading things.
            The Thatcher Government would have fallen and since she now had a clear win in the Falklands to bolster her Government, no one in Britain was prepared to take that chance.
            America under Reagan was more concerned about the Soviet Union as well. Reagan was not going to get involved in a draining war in HK and without US help the British couldn’t pull it off.

            The British would have lost in Hong Kong.

  5. Barry, do you actually know where the New Territories begin in Hong Kong.
    Look on Maps and find Boundary Street. It literally divides Kowloon Peninsula in half and sits right outside Kai Tak Airport. The only real airport in Hong Kong at the time.
    Gun emplacements on the mountain ridges near Lion Rock could be trained on Kai Tak and not a single plane could get in or out.

    The island where the new airport is now? Also part of the New Territories.

    In 1997, turn over the NT and there was no effective way to land a plane in or takeoff from Hong Kong. The PRC just needed to build up fortifications in the New Territories and HK was not defendable with conventional forces and Britain was definitely not willing to go nuclear over HK when Soviet ICBMs were aimed at the British Isles.

    It was NOT a political or military option.
    The PRC knew it. For decades the Soviet Union and China had been supporting insurgencies everywhere AND supporting Anti-War Peace Movements in the UK and America etc.

    It was just never a real option to think Thatcher or Reagan were going to do what needed to be done in HK in 1984 to keep HK. SO they negotiated the best deal they could.

    1. Kenny, I’ve been there, almost certainly long before you moved there, so yes I know what the map looks like.

      And you’ve missed my point entirely. No, the Brits could not win a conventional war with china even in 1995. Yes, they could use their nuclear force to fend off the chinese. No the british people, being feckless as I said, would do little to nothing for the people of Hong Kong. Hell, they wouldn’t even provide them British passports or allow them to immigrate, preferring the muslim hordes instead.

      1. They allowed them Commonwealth passports and half a million HK people left before 1997.

        1. Not after. The feckless brits used HK to make a buck for a hundred + years and didn’t give a damn about them at the end.

      2. Have to disagree with you on this one, Barry. There was zero chance of the Brits using nukes against China, and everyone knew it including the Chinese. With the decades-long (communist funded) anti-nuke movement in the US and Western Europe, it is highly questionable whether we would use nukes even in self-defense much less over Hong Kong (or today Taiwan). A bluff needs credibility to be effective.

        1. Y’all miss my point. Of course they were unwilling to use the nukes, because they are feckless SOB’s. They sold HK out for a few pounds. The Brits took no stand at all. Nada, zilch, nothing.

  6. No one, not even conservatives in UK and US, were willing to go to nuclear war over Hong Kong.
    Are they ready to do that today? No.
    It was even worse then.

    1. Trump is fighting the war against China in every way, and winning. He’s practically doing it by himself.

      Yesterday was taking away HK’s special status. Today it is the FCC designating Hauwei and ZTE Technology as national security risks. Trump never backs down. Thatcher backed down to the $$$ advisors. It was a mistake. A damn big mistake.

      1. Finally, you found the key.
        The way to free Hong Kong is not a futile battle to keep HK away from the PRC.
        It is to defeat the Commies wherever they are.
        Here first. In Beijing certainly.
        <p.That is why Hong Long was lost. Because after Reagan sent the Soviet Union to the Grave, Bush and BJ and the rest allowed the PRC to find a new Life, instead of burying the CCP in Beijing as dead as it was in Moscow.
        Same mistake Bush/BJ made about the Middle East Jihadism. After the Soviet Union was eliminated from supporting terrorists in the Me, it was time to end the Iranian and Arabian supporters as well.
        Just like in Europe the Soviets supported the Red Brigades in Italy and that ended when the Soviets ended.
        That was the way to save all those places. Once their sponsor was dead, kill the spawn too.
        No PRC, no problems in Hong Kong today.
        We let the PRC off the hook.
        That is how HK was lost.
        Not by defending it in 1984, as equally true as not defending Lebanon in 1984. It would just get our barracks blown up and American lives lost needlessly.

        1. Back to my original post where I said the following “I think the great days of Hong Kong are officially over. Been going downhill since the feckless Brits left.”

          Nothing wrong with that. The end is upon us and the Brits left and are feckless.

          It was an interesting experiment for a while. Open China up and surely democracy will follow. A lot of us knew it would not likely work. Liberty DNA is required and it’s not clear enough exists in mainland China. In HK it’s present in large quantities, but they are way too small to oppose the PRC on their own.

          Same in Russia. Always serfs, still serfs, they will always be serfs.

          2. Sure, freedom DNA left the mainland, same as here. IMO, there is something to that. Look at certain society’s – even when they gain their freedom through some means they quickly revert back. Russia for example. Middle east.

            As you know, lots of DNA in HK that fled the commies at considerable risk.

          3. Chiang Kai Shek and his followers were Fascists and he was a Dictator.

            ABout the same time Deng opened the PRC Taiwan began a transition to Democracy and Free Elections.

            Bush/BJ/Bush missed a chance to call for Free aand Fair Elections especially at the time of Tiananmen Square.
            Solidarity had just freed Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe followed and the Soviet Union collapsed finally under Bush.
            He did nothing to call for the rest of the Commie Bloc to begin removing that claptrap religion from the States.

            Chiang’s son wasn’t a Fascist though and deserves credit.

          4. South Korea had a “strongman” just like Taiwan. Following the strongest when they allow for freedom is still a DNA thing. Both Taiwan and South Korea had freedom far greater than what was allowed by the communist Chinese. This is a pattern repeated throughout history.

            Where has the greatest bastion of freedom and liberty been? Here, where we fled the rule of kings. Those that fled were different than those that stayed. You risked a lot coming to the new world.

            Washington could have been a dictator for life. He wisely chose to create the greatest republic in history.

          5. Neither S Korea nor Taiwan had any history of freedom or Democracy.
            Yet they had a transition from Dictator to Democracy all the same.

            China actually had a Republic under Sun Yat Sen, so there was actually more historical precedence for a Chinese Republic than a Korean or Taiwanese Republic.

          6. Chiang Kai Shek was the successor to Sun Yat Sen. Nothing about that invalidates my theory that DNA has something to do with people that fight for freedom.

            Are you arguing that there is not a strain of DNA involved in the desire for freedom?

          7. Chiang Kai Shek was the Fascist that won after Sun died.
            Sun Yat Sen’s legacy rest in Chiang’s son, who moved towards Democracy in Taiwan.
            It is much more plausible that had CKS defeated Mao then a Republic would be born in the PRC.

            Buddhism is much more amenable to Republic.
            Which is why, while not a Republic as far as we know it, Japan and S Korea and Taiwan headed that way.
            Islam prevents Republics in the ME. Russia didn’t even advance beyond Feudalism by 1917. African Tribalism didn’t even know feaudalism, they are tribalists at best.
            India has the caste system.
            China could find a way to be a Republic.
            That is why so many Asians can thrive in America. What is needed is to appeal to their capitalistic instincts, their conservative family structures and their belief in Law and Order.

          8. China has had thousands of years and hasn’t managed what South Korea and Taiwan did in <100. Japan was forced into it. It worked.

Comments are closed.

Latest Posts

Latest Comments

CF Archives

Categories

Comments policy

NOTE: In order to comment, you must be registered and approved as a CF user. Since so many user-registrations are attempted by spam-bots for their own nefarious purposes, YOUR REGISTRATION MAY BE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED.

If you are in fact a legit hooman bean desirous of registering yourself a CF user name so as to be able to comment only to find yourself caught up as collateral damage in one of my irregularly (un)scheduled sweeps for hinky registration attempts, please shoot me a kite at the email addy over in the right sidebar and let me know so’s I can get ya fixed up manually.

ALSO NOTE: You MUST use a valid, legit email address in order to successfully register, the new anti-spam software I installed last night requires it. My thanks to Barry for all his help sorting this mess out last night.

Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site and may be deleted, ridiculed, maliciously edited for purposes of mockery, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. The CF comments section is pretty free-form and rough and tumble; tolerance level for rowdiness and misbehavior is fairly high here, but is NOT without limit.

Management is under no obligation whatever to allow the comments section to be taken over and ruined by trolls, Leftists, and/or other oxygen thieves, and will take any measures deemed necessary to prevent such. Conduct yourself with the merest modicum of decorum, courtesy, and respect and you'll be fine. Pick pointless squabbles with other commenters, fling provocative personal insults, issue threats, or annoy the host (me) and...you won't.

Should you find yourself sanctioned after running afoul of the CF comments policy as stated and feel you have been wronged, please download and complete the Butthurt Report form below in quadruplicate; retain one copy for your personal records and send the others to the email address posted in the right sidebar.

Please refrain from whining, sniveling, and/or bursting into tears and waving your chubby fists around in frustrated rage, lest you suffer an aneurysm or stroke unnecessarily. Your completed form will be reviewed and your complaint addressed whenever management feels like getting around to it. Thank you.

Ye Aulde CF Blogrolle–now with RSS feeds! (where available)

"Mike Hendrix is, without a doubt, the greatest one-legged blogger in the world." ‐Henry Chinaski

Subscribe to CF!

Support options

Shameless begging

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:

Become a CF member!

Correspondence

Email addy: mike-at-this-url dot etc
All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless specified as private by the sender

Allied territory

Alternatives to shitlib social media: A few people worth following on Gab:

Fuck you

Kill one for mommy today! Click to embiggen

Notable Quotes

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
—Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

Claire's Cabal—The Freedom Forums

FREEDOM!!!

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
—Daniel Webster

“When I was young I was depressed all the time. But suicide no longer seemed a possibility in my life. At my age there was very little left to kill.”
—Charles Bukowski

“A slave is one who waits for someone to come and free him.”
—Ezra Pound

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”
—Frank Zappa

“The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.”
—John Adams

"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves."
—Bertrand de Jouvenel

"It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged."
—GK Chesterton

"I predict that the Bush administration will be seen by freedom-wishing Americans a generation or two hence as the hinge on the cell door locking up our freedom. When my children are my age, they will not be free in any recognizably traditional American meaning of the word. I’d tell them to emigrate, but there’s nowhere left to go. I am left with nauseating near-conviction that I am a member of the last generation in the history of the world that is minimally truly free."
—Donald Surber

"The only way to live free is to live unobserved."
—Etienne de la Boiete

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid."
—Dwight D. Eisenhower

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil."
—Skeptic

"There is no better way to stamp your power on people than through the dead hand of bureaucracy. You cannot reason with paperwork."
—David Black, from Turn Left For Gibraltar

"If the laws of God and men, are therefore of no effect, when the magistracy is left at liberty to break them; and if the lusts of those who are too strong for the tribunals of justice, cannot be otherwise restrained than by sedition, tumults and war, those seditions, tumults and wars, are justified by the laws of God and man."
—John Adams

"The limits of tyranny are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
—Frederick Douglass

"Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine."
—Joseph Goebbels

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”
—Ronald Reagan

"Ain't no misunderstanding this war. They want to rule us and aim to do it. We aim not to allow it. All there is to it."
—NC Reed, from Parno's Peril

"I just want a government that fits in the box it originally came in."
—Bill Whittle

Best of the best

Finest hosting service

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS feed

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

Copyright © 2024