It's kinda nice

[Smit]

Having a few more moderate voices in here to break up the echoes in this chamber.

[gcode]

Having a few more moderate voices in here to break up the echoes in this chamber.

Always happy to help. Glad you approve 

[YoDoug]

Having a few more moderate voices in here to break up the echoes in this chamber.

You're welcome!

[Del.]

Always happy to help. Glad you approve 

I appreciate your moderate posts G.

[beej]

I like it too

[mowens]

You guys are funny.

[riverhunter]

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

[gcode]

You guys are funny.

Well, it's all relative.
Atilla the Hun would think we're all a bunch of liberal pussies 

[mowens]

Just for fun.

To describe Attila the Hun as a "right-wing extremist" is a historically inaccurate anachronism that misunderstands both his historical context and the nature of modern political ideologies. The terms "right-wing" and "left-wing" originate from the French Revolution in the 18th century, and they do not apply to a nomadic 5th-century warrior-king. Attila's actions were driven by conquest, extortion, and the expansion of his empire, not by a modern political ideology.

Here's a breakdown of why this classification is inaccurate:
Anachronistic label: Political terms like "right-wing" and "left-wing" describe a modern political spectrum based on attitudes toward tradition, hierarchy, and social change. Applying these labels to a figure who lived more than a millennium before their invention is misleading and fails to capture the true motivations of the time.

Motivation for expansion: Attila's primary motivations were pragmatic—extending his power, acquiring wealth through tribute, and securing resources for his nomadic people. He was a charismatic military leader who united various tribes and leveraged military force to extract tribute from the Roman Empire. This behavior is characteristic of a conquering empire, not a modern political extremist.

Political structure: The Hunnic Empire under Attila was not a state with a political party or structured ideology. It was a fluid confederation of nomadic and subjugated peoples held together by Attila's charisma and military might. Its structure had nothing in common with the centralized, authoritarian, or nationalistic states associated with modern right-wing extremism.

Misuse in rhetoric: The phrase "right of Attila the Hun" has sometimes been used in modern political rhetoric as an insult to imply that a person's views are so extreme as to be beyond the pale. This is a figurative comparison, not a serious historical analysis, and it highlights the vast difference between ancient conquest and modern political debate.

[gcode]

To describe Attila the Hun as a "right-wing extremist" is a historically inaccurate anachronism

Cliff Notes... he just killed everybody except women of child bearing age... and used them to breed more warriors

[YoDoug]

I know Smit thinks I am an extremist, but seriously, what I actually type here on this forum is very moderate versus what the voice in my head actually wants me to type. Luckily being a right minded, logical thinking person I can filter those thoughts before I type.

[Del.]

I know Smit thinks I am an extremist, but seriously, what I actually type here on this forum is very moderate versus what the voice in my head actually wants me to type. Luckily being a right minded, logical thinking person I can filter those thoughts before I type.

He's an idiot!!!

[mowens]

Aren't we all.

[Newbeeee™]

historical context

Nobody alive was there....Nobody now knows.... His Story now all very subjective and controlled....

[Smit]

I know Smit thinks I am an extremist, but seriously, what I actually type here on this forum is very moderate versus what the voice in my head actually wants me to type.

I expect that surprises no one.