Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3287
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. 1 minute ago, Asithappens said:

    I'm guessing that she already knows that many politicians get a lot of money from Big Pharma.

    I'm also guessing that she knows how big money donors work in the world of Washington.

    So..., I don't think this is going to be the big surprise to her that you think it will be.

    Yeah, it won’t. She knows.

  2. 2 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

    This is the NYT piece by the new President of Venezuela Juan Guaidó. I can’t comprehend how bad teammate, Fozz, hpslugga and Hugo can complain about our actions in recognizing Pres. Guaidó as the interim president which is authorized by the Venezuelan Constitution.

    You think this is just about recognizing Guaido. It's not. Again, the Americans are already revealing their intention to re-establish dominance of Venezuelan oil reserves, which is in stark contradiction to the wishes of their people who supported Chavez' move to nationalization by a factor of around 95% (and are still strongly in favor of it on principle). Venezuelans are also overwhelmingly against American intervention on this issue, and there isn't a goddamned thing that you can do or say that's going to change that reality. You think that we want to get in on this in some sort of benign, humanitarian capacity and that's a fucking joke, just like it was a fucking joke when we tried it and failed in 2002. That has fuck all to do with "recognizing Pres. Guaido," that has to do with not trusting a single syllable from anyone in the Executive Branch on these issues even if their fucking tongues were notarized, and that's even been true of Democratic administrations, so fuck off with that pissy-assed bullshit about this being about contradicting Trump.

    Quote

    Virtually every country in the Western Hemisphere is acting in concert with what we have done.

    And of those countries, how many are calling for the US to intervene? You're once again conflating two different issues, and you do it so readily because you're dishonest.

    Quote

    To be opposed to relieving the suffering of the Venezuelan people is deranged and heartless.

    No one is opposed to that. That's just you lying again.

    Quote

    You all hate Trump so badly that his actions here which the progressive Trudeau of Canada also supports makes y’all seem truly deranged.

    This isn't about "hating Trump." That's just you lying again.

    This is why I say that I think your recent schtick here has been nothing more than a trollish ruse and that there's no possible way you could believe a single syllable of what you type: because I can't even say that what you say is wrong. It's actually less than wrong. At this point, you're either trolling or you've suffered a massive brain injury recently.

    Quote

    Anything to change the status quo of starving Venezuelans should be supported. I am excited for the Venezuelan people as they have a realistic shot in liberating their country.

    They'll have no such shot if Bolton, Trump, the CIA, et al get involved, and that's the course of action you support. You are lying again.

    Quote

    I hope I’m alive to see the day that Iran is liberated with US support.

    Iran was liberated once in the 20th century and the US was adamantly opposed to it. And it wasn't about "hindsight," either. Their opposition to Mossadegh was fundamentally wrong and immoral from the very outset, and they knew it. Why else do you think a priority of the CIA was to, among other things, disseminate "black propaganda" about him and his mythological "alliance" with the Tudeh Party? You're lying again.

    Quote

    Elliot Abrams knows what he is doing.

    He does. It's just that he's not doing what you think he's doing. He's a war criminal, not a humanitarian. The idea that Elliott fucking Abrams, the guy who once said that "the purpose of U.S. aid is to permit people who are fighting on our side to use more violence" in a case where the US was convicted of what the ICJ called "unlawful use of force," is some sort of bleeding-hearted humanitarian is a flat out fraud. He's Exhibit A of what it is to be a hoodlum, hooligan and a racketeer. You think he's a hero. That speaks either to your prowess at trolling or to your ignorance, and I couldn't care less which one is the case.

    Quote

    With him and Bolton we have guys who can help effectuate regime change and fulfill our role as the defender of the Americas by promoting free markets and democracy 

    We've never promoted democracy in the Americas. Ever. That's just you lying again.

    That entire screed you just posted is nothing more than an embarrassingly shallow and pedantic Gish Gallop and an astonishing display of what I accused you of earlier: this is pure, 100% Dunning-Kruger effect. You claim to have a "coherent world view," yet every single syllable you post is laughably wrong.

    • Like 3
  3. 44 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

    Bloomberg

    and we should absolutely not get the CIA involved. If true and maduro is going to steal the gold and run then that could be the lesson that the citizens need to understand that dictators like him should be ousted immediately and violently. You can’t give someone democracy, they have to realize that they need to demand it as people. 

    Well democracy promotion has never been an interest of the CIA. They act at the behest of the Executive Branch, who again if you'll just look a bit up the thread, are openly admitting that their end game is to re-assert American corporate interests in control of Venezuela's oil reserves. Whatever our concern for Venezuela is, it is not for common Venezuelans and it's not for promoting democracy. Those are just pretexts that are offered to mobilize popular opinion in the United States. The timing of this whole thing has a very "wouldn't you know who won the pony?" stench to it because this is just in the wake of Trump caving to the Democrats on the wall issue.

    That's what Republican presidents, in particular, typically do when their domestic policies blow to shit: they let the tail wag the dog and wage some phony "war" and try to frame it as a national security issue.

     

    • Like 2
  4. 12 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

    CIA needs to make a move and engineer an assassination of Maduro through the use of proxies before that son of a bitch steals more of that country’s wealth 

    Yes because CIA interventions have worked so well for Latin Americans in the past.

    • Like 2
  5. 5 hours ago, Rimbo said:

    but going against Maduro and recognizing his opponent

    Guaido wasn't his opponent. He was not a candidate in that election. This would be like in the US if the Democrats arbitrarily declared that due to the Trump-Russia connection, Chuck Schumer is now the President. 

  6. “The first UN rapporteur to visit Venezuela for 21 years has told The Independent the US sanctions on the country are illegal and could amount to “crimes against humanity” under international law.”

    Then for once in their fucking existence, prosecute all offenders with wanton disregard for any and all backlash from any affected permanent member state.

  7. 13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Alternative version: leftists like Bad Teammate are STRONGLY against authoritarian, anti-democratic regimes (thus their many complaints about Trump and Trumpism -- a matter on which they have much company from many spots on the spectrum)....unless they're leftist regimes, in which case they are sanctified champions of the people, and should be supported without question.

    I wouldn’t paint with such a large brush. I can’t speak for bad teammate, but I can comfortably consider myself “leftist” by just about any norm-references definition of the term and will tell you straight up that Maduro is an absolute disgrace.

    The only additional position I take (and I’m not at all alone on this) on Venezuela is that regardless of what ends up happening, the United States needs to stay the fuck away from it as it’s none of our goddamn business and we’ve done enough damage to that country (the region in general) as it is.

  8. 15 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

    sure.  go ahead and try and explain away how policy rooted in "redistribution" of wealth,

    That's not what it's rooted in, which is exactly my point: you haven't the foggiest idea what it is. You only know the Western Strawman that was created centuries after the very first socialist literatures were written. I would be willing to bet my entire year's salary that you couldn't for the life of you name the first published socialist author, the name of the work, and what it actually said.

    Quote

    call it "socialism", "collectivism", "communism", "totalitarianism", whichever term you want to use matters little as they all result in the same outcome, is an example of how a society should be run. 

    The only term you quoted that was apt to those societies was totalitarianism. Those regimes paid lip service to the notion of socialism, but each time they came to power, they murdered any opportunity to implement even the most basic concepts of socialism and did so consciously and on the very first day. These weren't cases of some over-ambitious government that became slowly overcome with greed and corruption; these were people who were greedy and corrupt in the beginning and used a very real moral force in order to gain power. It's kinda like when Donald Trump rants and raves about illegal immigration when his businesses have been employing illegal immigrants for years: because he doesn't really care about it. He just uses that issue as red meat for people who unite behind that "cause."

    Quote

    Give us one example where the people ruled by such policies are thriving as a major power

    Socialism was never meant to erect a major power, which is why I bolded those two words you used: "socialist empire" is a flat contradiction in terms. Had you actually read socialist literature instead of regurgitated Western strawmen, you'd have already known that even if you still disagreed with it.

    From the first letter to the last punctuation mark, everything that you posted was not only wrong but was also a shocking display of the Dunning Kruger effect.

    • Like 4
  9. Quote

    Will never get to see how the greats today would have handle the defenses back in the day crushing qb's or defensive backs getting to crush wr's like they use to

    And I tacitly acknowledged that. Why do you think my Rushmore only has Brady as the exclusive Salary Cap-era player? 

    Quote

    You cant say its hands down due to the differences and complications of each era

    I don't say "its hands down due to the differences and complications of each era," I say that it's a lot of factors that make it hands down in the specific comparison of these two players. But you said that "you can't compare playoff appearances" and that is false. The reason Montana doesn't have the playoff appearances to the tune of that disparity is because he didn't win as often and he didn't have near the longevity. That does count for something, and it's translatable. Suppose those were Peyton Manning's numbers. I'd be saying the exact same thing.

    Like Vic Mackey said earlier, one has to use "weird, arbitrary criteria" to offer evidence of Montana even being on Brady's level.

  10. 6 hours ago, SwanderedTalent said:

    you're half right

    Beat me to it.

    Beating OU is like having a fine steak dinner with all the trimmings and the best wine.

    Beating aggy is like having a Girl Scout cookie. Yeah, you like it, but it’s nothing to write home about. 

    Losing to OU is like being told the aforementioned steak dinner is canceled and you’re getting a Little Caesar’s pizza instead.

    Losing to aggy is like being told “no Girl Scout cookies, you’re getting the bubonic plague instead.”

    That clear enough?

    • Like 3
  11. 1 hour ago, Saint Tacky said:

    You're entitled to your amateurish scientific [lengthy] opinion.  I see Tatum hitting Fuqua and the ball ricocheting backwards off Fuqua's hands. Fuck the Steelers.

    That’s not a matter of opinion. 

    “Steak is better than seafood” is an opinion.

    ”Blue is the best color” is an opinion.

    ”Rock and roll is better than country” is an opinion.

    ”There is no chance in hell Jack Tatum didn’t touch that ball” is not an opinion. It’s a statement of verifiable fact and it’s corroborated by indisputable video evidence. The fact that you refuse to admit that speaks only to your bias and your willingness to play Make Believe and Pretend. You say that you “see Tatum hitting Fuqua and the ball ricocheting backwards off Fuqua's hands“ and that’s complete horseshit. You didn’t see that. You want to see that, but you don’t actually see it.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...