• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!

The Old Hack

Moderators
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    5,594

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    356

Posts posted by The Old Hack

  3. Posted

    1 minute ago, mlooney said:

    Isn't the Fantastic Four who normally fights Galactus?  It's been years since I read any comic books and I just barely watch superhero movies. 

    It varies. It is usually the Fantastic Four but occasionally other heroes have fought him, too. Squirrel Girl took him down once. Another time Hercules so hilariously failed to stop Galactus that he actually made the Planet Eater laugh and decide to spare the planet Hercules was trying to protect because he couldn't even remember the last time he laughed. And Galactus has a LONG memory.

  4. Posted

    Well I am kinda bored so I decided to do something silly. People love to argue about which superhero could beat which so I am creating a list of what would happen if Homelander got into a fight with various heroes. With no further ado here goes.

     

    -- Homelander vs. The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl

    Homelander stands no chance here. Squirrel Girl wins hands down. She's unbeatable. It says so right there in her name.

    -- Homelander vs. Deadpool

    Deadpool wins. It will most likely take him a whole movie and will certainly involve fourth wall breaking, ludicrous amounts of weaponry and gratuitous violence, completely undeserved luck and a lot of really terrible jokes, but at the end of the day Homelander has no chance here.

    -- Homelander vs. the Spider-Verse

    Obviously Homelander has no chance here, I am just really amused by the mental image of infinite Spider-Heroes dogpiling that POS.

    -- Homelander vs. Kermit the Frog

    Kermit wins. You'd think that even Homelander could beat up an innocent nonviolent plushie frog, and yes he can, but as soon as Miss Piggy notices what he is doing he is done for.

    -- Homelander vs. Cyclops

    Homelander wins. He will make that whiny-ass Scott Summers his b-word. Congratulations, list, you finally found a 'hero' I hate even more than Homelander.

    -- Homelander vs. Thanos

    Who wins? Who cares? Nobody likes either of them. Let them fight.

    -- Homelander vs. Galactus

    Galactus eats the Earth and wins. It was a mistake to let Homelander handle that one. You need real heroes to handle the Planet Eater.

    -- Homelander vs. Mr. Incredible

    While Mr. Incredible's victory is a foregone conclusion, Homelander will nonetheless somehow be defeated by the fact that his costume has a cape. He should have listened to Edna Mode.

    And finally...

    -- Homelander vs. Elon Musk

    Obviously Homelander will pound Musk into a thin paste but once again the mental image is so very satisfying so I am including the matchup anyway.

     

    That's all I can think of this time. More silliness may or may not follow later or you can add your own. Have a good time.

    ~tOH.

    Darth Fluffy reacted to this

  8. Posted

    3 hours ago, mlooney said:

    The Soviet/Russian army was, during the cold war, aimed at short massive wars.  "The Rhine in 7 days" being a classic "plan" of theirs.  The attack on Kyiv showed that they still thought they could do that, but failed in a major sorta way.

    It didn't work that well for them in the war of 1904-05 either.

  9. Posted

    1 hour ago, ijuin said:

    I believe that the assertion is that Trump called for peaceful action, and the crowd got violent in defiance of his intent. This is rather akin to Henry II’s declaration of “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” in reference to Archbishop Thomas Beckett, soon after which Beckett was assassinated.

    Well sure, if Henry had had an arms depot hand out free bishop assassination weapons to all visitors as well as giving them full information about the Archbishop's home, its security and his patterns of movement.

  10. Posted

    1 hour ago, mlooney said:

    People that actually paid attention to the state of the Russian military weren't too surprised when the war went badly for Russia. The systematic corruption at all levels of the Russian military was and is, a major factor in the failing of the Russian military in Ukraine. 

    The youtuber Perun has made some truly outstanding videos on the lamentable state of the Russian military. They are each quite long -- usually an hour or so each -- but very enlightening. Allow me to in particular recommend How Corruption Destroys Armies, How Lies Destroy Armies and How Politics Destroy Armies. In these he goes into detail of how a culture of corruption, political patronage and feuding as well as misrepresentation and outright lies has formed to, well, completely bootscrew the Russian military from top to bottom. Mind you, these three problems are of course not isolated to Russia. All nations have to deal with them. It's just that in Russia all three have grown systemic and endemic. Worse yet, they act as force multipliers for one another.

    I myself had not kept up and I was astonished by merely scraping the surface of the troubles of the Russian invasion. One of the first things I heard was that they had not been able to keep the advance properly supplied and that alone almost made me fall out of my chair from shock. Keeping your army supplied is one of the most fundamental necessities if you want to win a war. Just the fact that they could not even do that was enough to tell me that something was a lot more rotten in Russia than in Denmark.

  11. Posted

    1 hour ago, Don Edwards said:

    The power of the Russian Army is much more clearly and accurately established than was formerly the case.

    (Also at a rather lower level.)

    I stand corrected. Putin's demonstration of the Russian Army's exact power was a resounding success! It merely did not provide the impression he had hoped for. Ah well. :danshiftyeyes:

  12. Posted

    39 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

    The stuff about his election shenanigans (including where he incited a riot by explicitly calling for peaceful protests) is separate, and not what he was impeached over.

    Actually he was impeached over it. Not even a month after. And no, there was nothing peaceful in his call for rioting. Unless you would argue that four police officers was murdered peacefully during the protests. The counterargument was that this riot happened spontaneously, which I am having some trouble imagining given the large number of weaponry and paramilitary equipment the 'peaceful' protesters brought along. Presumably the gallows that was erected was intended to send a peaceful sign of protest as well? And they merely had the materials at hand through happenstance?

    40 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

    (Aside: if you hear "dog whistles" you might want to reconsider the question of who is the dog.)

    Ah. This is a 'polite aside' as opposed to a not very subtle ad hominem where you accuse us of being trained dogs. How nice. No-one even brought up that term, and yet you are throwing it out simply to justify insulting us. Thank you.

    In any event the employment of dog whistles is moot. There was plenty of evidence during the January 6th hearings that the riot was planned and prepared for. I spent a great deal of time listening to them in toto so I would not have to rely on selected sound bites from biased sources. (Yes, I include MSNBC and CNN in that. There is no substitute for direct observation.)

    42 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

    Biden boasted of threatening, as Vice President, to withhold US aid from another country if they didn't fire a prosecutor who was investigating possible corruption relating to the employment of his son Hunter Biden at a very high salary in a position he had no qualifications for.

    Could you give us a source for this remarkable claim? Also, even if true, did he demand that they provide falsified evidence that his principal opponent in the upcoming election be engaged in corruption? Remember, the former president was not impeached for corrupt exercise of power. He was impeached for an attempt to corruptly influence the outcome of the upcoming election.

    As you have correctly pointed out, corruption is terrifyingly common among politicians. It is employing their power to affect elections that steps beyond that. That has only happened once before as far as I am aware. A fellow named Nixon, I do believe. He was not impeached as he resigned before it could happen -- and it most likely would have.

    43 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

    oh, and if you're wondering about my political positions, I figure that anyone who actually wants to be President is either too corrupt, too power-hungry, or too insane to be permitted anywhere near the White House. Which applies to any particular such person is open for discussion but not really important. I'm not notably happier with people who want to be in Congress.

    And yet all of Trump's 44 predecessors managed to get through their elected terms of office without attempting to violate the peaceful transfer of office. I do not really see how you can place an equivalence between that and all other politicians when none of them has ever tried to violate anything as fundamental as the people's right to choose which politician to put in office.

  14. Posted

    2 hours ago, mlooney said:

    Instead he got 2 historically neutral nations to join NATO and the alliance it stronger than ever.  Double fail. 

    Quintuple fail if you count the three other failed objectives -- establishing the power of the Russian Army, increase Russia's international influence and solidify its position as a greater power.

  18. Posted

    5 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

    All that said, my understanding is that "Preserving the Union" was a higher priority for Lincoln than freeing slaves, and that it was his primary motivation for waging war against the Confederacy. So even with Lincoln there's room to question his motives and decisions (but then, there's no rule that heroes have to be perfect).

    Absolutely. Agreed with your post in all particulars.

  19. Posted

    36 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

    And I had hoped that Indiana's attempt to ban Robin Hood in the 50s for promoting Communism was only a hiccup. 

    A historian I read argued that authoritarianism seems to experience a resurgence in America every fifty years or so. Wilson's presidency, McCarthyism and now Trumpism rather lend strength to that hypothesis. When viewed from a certain angle one might even call Lincoln authoritarian. The South certainly would, given his tyrannical and absolutist insistence on limiting the enslavement of Black people. Woe unto America when a ruthless tyrant dare impinge on the right of free men to take slaves.

  20. Posted

    On 7/24/2023 at 8:56 AM, Darth Fluffy said:

    I doubt his group of oligarchs are happy right now.

    It's okay. They are not in any danger of running out of sixth story windows. Or maybe they are. I suppose that depends on how fast they are moving as they pass through them.

    In completely unrelated news to any matters dictatorial or genocidal, Shakespeare is no longer permitted in Florida's institutions of education. His plays contain materials harmful to children. Limited excerpts in pamphlet format may be made available until such time as Adolf Santis again has an inspiration for how to keep Florida's young and children safe from the non-threat of Woke. It is amazing how many solutions that man can come up with for problems that only exist in his befuddled, bigoted and power-hungry excuse for a mind.

  21. Posted

    So, I decided just for fun to create a thread specifically meant for gaming stories of all kinds. Tabletop, video games, board games, LARP, war games -- anything goes as long as it is funny and/or memorable.

    I'll start with this one:

    context: one of our party members is the dwarven paladin Grim Dark, who is a Doom Dwarf (a homebrew dwarven subrace, needless to say created by Grim Dark's player.) Our party is in a dungeon and the rogue has spotted a particularly diabolic trap of dwarven make.

    rogue: I don't like this. If I deactivate one part of this trap, it looks like I simultaneously activate a previously inactive part of it.
    cleric: Oh wow. Can you tell what it does?
    rogue: well, the currently active mechanism sprays burning oil everywhere if we set it off. The alternate mechanism will electrocute us.
    wizard: sheesh. What sort of paranoid psycho made this thing?
    rogue: hey, Grim. You're a dwarf. Do you maybe know something about this kind of thing?
    Grim Dark: Look. I'm a Doom Dwarf, not a Brain Dwarf.

    It was generally agreed that Grim had a point. :danshiftyeyes:

  22. Posted

    2 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

    Well, if Putin really believes that Ukraine is part of Russia (even though his logic better supports the notion that Russia is part of Ukraine), then in his mind it's improper for Ukraine to defend itself from Russia.

    Not that many people care that much about what's in his mind, given that he himself apparently isn't.

    As far as I recall he started the war with four objectives in mind:

    1. Preventing NATO expansion and causing it to further disunite
    2. Impress the world with the power and capability of the Russian military
    3. Increase Russian influence and presence on the world stage
    4. Gaining more allies and demoralizing his enemies through decisive action

    So far he is 0 for 4. I do not see that this is likely to change much for the better.

    Darth Fluffy reacted to this

  23. Posted

    So, to brighten our day a little through some humour at Putin's expense:

    " The war has not ended because Ukraine insists on defending itself. "
    -- Darth Putin

    from the comments:
    "How dare they not just let his shitty old tanks run over them"
    "To be fair, the T-14 is a shitty new tank. Also he cannot honestly blame the Ukrainians for not letting it overrun them. It usually breaks down quite handily on its own before it even reaches them."
    "The Russian armoured divisions are mobile junkyards."
    "You take that back! The T-14 isn't mobile!"
    "Our attack plans did not take into account encountering actual resistance. I remain a master strategist."

    Darth Fluffy reacted to this

  25. Posted

    4 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

    Why do I suspect a lot of younger performers would let the old guy fall?

    Because you hate young people?

    I have friends among millennials and even a couple Zoomers. They are better than the media would make them. They have been taught the hard way that supporting one another is important. Mostly in the form of getting none from older politicians who are supposed to care about their future. If they did, the planet would be in better shape and schools in America being shooting galleries wouldn't be responded to with 'thoughts and prayers.'