-
Posts
3453 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by hpslugga
-
-
The very concept of the EC is extremely alone in its stupidity.
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:In other respects, it is a raw accretion of power that is very much anti-democratic and what the founders hoped to avoid.
The founders were against democracy in general. James Madison in particular had utter contempt for it and said as much even in the debates of the Constitutional Convention.
-
10 minutes ago, Loco said:
So I'm confused, has anyone here read a single word of the report? It sure seems like the Trumkins are flying the Mission Complete banner. I just wonder why they went from Witch Hunt to GG so fast.
Such is yet another symptom of the Dunning Kruger effect, of which Trump’s base suffers tremendously.
-
8 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:
That guy gets destroyed on a regular basis, usually by Robert Reich, and yet he continues his dumbassery. Grifter indeed.
I was just about to say, Moore getting absolutely flattened isn't anything new. The guy is just a partisan shill that vaguely memorized economic vocabulary words so as to pass himself off as an "economist," when all he really can be described as is a vulgar propagandist.
-
19 hours ago, hayden_horn said:
his only tweet today, so far:
one would think that was not written for him, except for the random capital letters.
As per usual, he's absolutely wrong about absolutely every word in that ridiculous Twitter nonsense into which he perpetually indulges himself to feel important.
-
1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:
Sue the EU in what court exactly? ECJ? ICJ? I'm sure that would work out well for the UK.
Again, Trump thought it a good move to sue a comedian for money that he “owed” him for what basically amounted to a parody. He does not know, as the comedian put it, what a joke is and/or what a contract is. Any legal “advice” offered from him or his administration should be reacted to by nothing more than a scoff...well maybe a chortle as well.
-
26 minutes ago, David Dennison said:
Or all three. Other countries manage to do it.
AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM!!!!
-
17 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:
That may have been one of the SC's best moments given the political climate in which it lived at the time. That was the height of the Reagan years and Falwell was that "movement's" staunchest advocate. IIRC, even Flynt thought he'd probably lose. He certainly never expected it to be unanimous.
8 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:I certainly hope that's the case, and I'll stand correct if so. However at the same time, there certainly are people who really do believe shit like that.
-
11 hours ago, JimmyJames said:
Probably a clear cut first Amendment violation by Twitter there.
Twitter isn't bound by the First Amendment.
It's funny how guys like you like to invoke the Constitution so much when you either haven't the foggiest clue what it says or what it means.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Bama Chick said:
Donna Brazile works at CNN and is accused of helping Hillary Clinton by giving her debate questions.
Fox News relentlessly hammers Brazile and CNN for bias, lack of integrity and transparency, and misleading viewers.
CNN fires Brazile.
~Fast forward two years~
Fox News hires Donna Brazile because, WHATTA YA KNOW, Fox News doesn’t give a fancy fuck about her bias, lack of integrity and transparency, and misleading viewers after all!They don't give a fancy fuck about politics in general. What they care about is market share, ratings, advertisers, etc and they do it by promoting the idea that politics is a team sport. What gives them those ratings is by picking the red team since, especially going back to their inception in 1996, there wasn't a cable network on TV that anyone accused of "picking the red team."
-
2
-
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
Just another mow of the lawn.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, sidis said:
asking a troll to improve their craft is not reacting to a troll. it is simply reminding them that no one takes them remotely seriously and thus, they need to deliver some occasional quality with their garbage or they will lose their troll status and simply become ignored. like phlegm.
The thing is, he already knows that what he says isn’t worth the plastic from the keys that it’s typed. There’s no way he’s that unaware, so when you tell him that no one with an IQ above 80 takes him seriously, you’re not telling him anything he doesn’t already know. If I’m wrong, he has a chronic case of the Dunning Kruger effect, at which point there’s no way he could learn anything from what you say.
-
19 hours ago, bad_teammate said:
Bernie fuckin' rules
What's especially creepy is that he could have started ANY letter to Margaret Thatcher with the exact same first 7 words regarding ANY topic, and it would have been just as appropriate.
-
21 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:
I liked this post before I got to the positive line on Russert. He was essentially the exact same. Had he been better, someone else would've hosted the show.
I'm with this, too. Russert was Exhibit A of commentators pretending that the United States government represented the very center of the political spectrum, and that the Democrats and Republicans were equally apart from that center in opposite directions.
-
8 hours ago, Hornius Emeritus said:
Perhaps, but Chuck is correct in saying that Obama didn't bring the nation together. We could talk about the reasons for that or whether it's even possible for one man to do it, but Chuck's right in saying that Obama did NOT do it.
What value does the statement have? I'm being serious, because other than "unrealistic expectations," I see no reason to even make such a ridiculous statement.
-
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:
Starting this this thread because I want a repository of Chuck Todd’s bullshit which will no doubt be cranked up to 11 as we get closer to the election.
Chuck Todd blames Obama for America’s division: Why couldn’t he ‘bring this country together’?
NBC host Chuck Todd suggested on Sunday that the U.S. is divided politically because former President Barack Obama failed to “bring this country together.”
While speaking with Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke on Meet the Press, Todd asked the 2020 contender about healing the country’s political divide.
“You aren’t the first candidate to say, ‘I’m going to bring this country together,'” Todd told O’Rourke. “The most recent Democratic president, a lot of people put their hope in him and thought he was the answer that was going to do that.”
“Why do you think that didn’t happen in Obama’s eight years?” the NBC host queried.
“I know that President Obama worked incredibly hard to find common ground with Republicans,” O’Rourke replied. “He was able to achieve a heck of a lot in those eight years.”
Dear Chuck, fuck you, you lazy POS. You know precisely why Obama was unable to “bring the country together” and it has everything to do with the racism in the Tea Party/GOP Fox News Trump birtherism bullshit plus Mitch McConnell refusing to work together.
I would go further to suggest that it's either delusion or arrogance on his part to assume that one guy, let alone a politician, could "bring this country together." That's just super-hero worship and it has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
-
4
-
-
Some time ago after EA went through their O'Bannon suit, I started fucking around with NCAA 2014 and converted all the elite schools into their respective all-time teams. JLJ is one of my 4 starting WR's along with Roy Williams, Mike Adams, and Eric Metcalf.
Really hated hearing that it resurfaced and only hope he was as comforted as possible. Fuck you cancer; you are a diseased whore.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
Just now, David Dennison said:Which Arab nations adopt this as official policy?
Well obviously the answer is "none," which is why the two-state settlement has unanimous support in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Arab League. This is just an example of somebody asserting as fact that which is evidently not true.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
2 hours ago, NowThis said:this isn't 1973, there is no more belligerency except from Syria and Iran(not Arab). I'm sure you did not know that. Problem is you don't know any details, haven't seen you post any details. Anyway, your'e obviously very uneducated on this topic, so I'm not going to waste time on you.
Far apart from that, just look at the actions, statements, and documents from the Zionist government. They are absolutely dedicated to the destruction of Palestinian nationalism, and they implement those in actions. If, for example, you read Avner Yaniv's Dilemmas of Security, you learn that the leading reasons for their absolute criminal invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was Arafat's "peace offensive," meaning they were becoming quite irritated that Arafat kept signaling that he wanted a peaceful settlement along the guidelines prescribed by 242 as well as the two security council resolutions in 1976 and 1980 (both of which were vetoed by the US), so they kept provoking the PLO until they were compelled to respond, and at that point the invasion began. It's also the same reason that Israeli leaders periodically "mow the lawn," to use Ariel Sharon's words. These are just small samples.
Diplomatically, they're every bit the shit show that they are in their actions. In that response to the Declaration of Independence in 1988, the lengthier response was:
Quote- Israel yearns for peace and the continuation of the political process by means of direct negotiations based on the principles of the Camp David Accords
Ok, so far so good.
Quote- Israel opposes the establishment of an additional Palestinian state in the Gaza district and in the area between Israel and Jordan.
"Additional" referring to Jordan, which, as has been stated many times over, is like saying that the Jews don't need Israel because they already have New York
Quote-
Israel will not conduct negotiations with the PLO
Ah I see, so they're willing to negotiate, just not with the body that represents the Palestinian people. And that's plainly obvious because by having to dodge the PLO (as they would with Hamas beginning in 2005), they only will "negotiate" with puppets like Abbas/Erekat/etc. That makes sense when you view it from the perspective of "how can I most efficaciously get what I want without having to give up anything?" That makes 0 sense when it comes to "how can I get what I'm legally entitled to under international law?"
Quote- There will be no change in the status of Judea, Samaria and Gaza other than in accordance with the basic guidelines of the Government.
Again, nothing at all to do with international law. This is an absolutely perverse concept, unless of course you understand that they're only interested in what they want and not merely what they're entitled to. They're literally saying that they, not the UN (you know, the body that permitted for the fucking creation of the state of Israel to begin with) have the authority to decide what the border of a different country should be and solely based on what they want it to be. This is absolutely astonishing, but it's what we expect when a state has the level of ideological, diplomatic, political and military aid from the US as Israel now does (and has for quite some time).
Of course, Israel's overt rejectionism doesn't end there. That's just a sample.
But you get the idea all the same. Whether it's formal rejections of independence, repeated No votes at the UN (and US vetoes in the SC), presenting ridiculous deals to the Palestinians that even their own negotiators found ridiculous (Camp David 2000), scuttling deals that actually would have worked (Taba 2001), "mowing the lawn" every 4-5 years in Gaza, flattening Lebanon on multiple occasions, continuing to increase settlement construction in the West Bank to the point where there's no organic connection between Palestinians, constructing immoral and illegal walls to protect those settlements (that one in particular isn't even arguable anymore), imposing a barbaric (not to mention extremely illegal) blockade on Gaza to the point where they cannot receive the most basic of goods from the outside, forcing them to live in what the former UK Prime Minister called the "world's largest open air prison" in conditions where mothers have to live with the fact that every day when they give their children a cup of water, they're effectively poisoning them, there isn't a sane or rational person who could logically conclude for any actual reason that this is the behavior of a country that wants to make and live in peace with its neighbors. And when you consider the massive scale of these "mow the lawn" operations in particular, when we see the typical knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing idiots posting this fictitious falderal about how we ( @bad_teammate, @NowThis, @FondrenRoad, myself, etc) are the ones who support terrorism and oppose peace, I would sincerely hope that the only reason I don't see and hear everyone else bursting out laughing at this insipid inversion of reality in all of their fractal wrongness is because this is just an internet board and I can't see/hear any of you.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
1 hour ago, NowThis said:there's that redneck "got their asses kicked" line again. Straight MAGA material lol.
As I mentioned in the Trump 2019 thread, it really is amazing that the types who are most prone to using that type of infantile rhetoric are the types who are incapable of whipping cream even with a boat's motor. What's even more amazing is that they do this while arguing in a state of fractal wrongness at every conceivable turn.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:How do you think
He doesn't.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:
Did he just try to veto by tweet?
This is the same guy that honestly thinks that he had grounds to sue a comedian for an unpaid wager that he "offered" in the form of parody on a comedy show.
-
1
-
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
21 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:And don't act like women's rights are an American ideal. They had to fight tooth and nail for them and continue to have to fight. The idealized American 1950s sucked shit through a straw for women.
Seriously, that's just some straight up Dennis Prager-level bullshit historic revisionism you were responding to. Like I said to some other person that was trying to morph the present day into distant history, the US has been around since 1789. Women got the right to vote in 1920. That's 131 years of straight up second class citizenry for women of all color, and we're to believe that their rights are "an American ideal?" No, @FondrenRoad is absolutely right about this. That "ideal" was something for which generations of women had to fight. It wasn't some gift handed down to them by benevolent leaders.
-
1 hour ago, Yuk said:
You've really got to hand it to these people that really like to let you know how bad ass they think they are when in reality, they couldn't whip cream with a boat's motor.
-
2
-
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
2 minutes ago, NowThis said:yes, I know the world opinion has little material value on the ground, but what was meant is that right now the world is for a 2 state solution but they will not resist the flip to a 1 state if that is what the Pals want. The material implementation is a different matter , all because the world has no leverage on Israel - due to the US.
And what I just said is the exact reason that the world will probably not back 1-state: because the US will still ally itself with Israel. We don't do that out of some profound adoration for Jews. We back Israel because it's "the only strong pro-West power left in the Near East." All you're suggesting here is dismantling the border between the West Bank and Israel, and I'm telling you straight up that the border is not what encourages the Israeli government to continue to undertake settlement projects. They want that land whether it's nominally Palestinian or not.
Look, I don't fundamentally reject the idea of one state in the long run. But that's what it'd have to be: a long run project. You're never going to sell the Israelis on the concept of becoming a near-numeric minority in the year 2019. Also, the Palestinians will never accept a one-state settlement that only includes the West Bank in the absorption. To them, Gaza and the West Bank are a packaged deal and it doesn't matter what poll you care to trot out, the fact is that's what their understanding of one-state is: absorption of Gaza and the WB into Israel. And with that being said, without factoring in ANY refugees who currently live in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, et al, the populations would read around 6.6 million Jews and 6.0 million Arabs. The Jews will never accept that, and they'll also never accept a forfeiture of their right to self-determination, which is what happens when it comes a bi-national state. Self-determination means they have the right to call themselves a Jewish state. While I loathe and detest the idea of states in general, let alone ethnocentric states, that's Israel's legal right under current law. So given that Israelis will never forfeit their right to call their land a Jewish state, and since Palestinians will never accept being second class citizens, you're sitting their with your dick in your hand on this. It's very well to propose one-state, but you can't answer the question "how would it be arranged?" without turning off one side or the other to the point where they walk away.
Yes, in an ideal world, it'd be a true bi-national state, which means:
Bicameral legislature (one chamber controlled by the Jews and the other by the Arabs)
Two de facto "heads of state": President and Prime Minister (basically similar to the US electoral college concept when the VP was the runner up of the EC vote)
The Supreme Court would consist of 7 Arabs, 7 Jews, and a Chief Justice which would be chosen by the Prime Minister (i.e. whoever won the popular vote when there's a vacancy).But as of right now, that's a huge pie-in-the-sky concept that would take decades of coaxing both sides into, if ever. Like I said, two states is a rotten solution, but it's the least rotten among them. One of the leading reasons that one-state is marginally picking up steam is because people are frustrated with two-states. Well that's a logical error. Two-states isn't failing because it's two-states. Two-states is failing because Israel, with the US backing it, wants it to fail. But again, they want any arrangement that includes Palestinians living in that land to fail. It doesn't matter if it's one state or six. The question isn't "what will Israel agree to?" The question is "what will the Israelis agree to with the Americans removed from the equation?" When the latter question is put to them, their answer has to change because they have no protection in the UN to do whatever they damn well please like they do today.
Now is the time for good people to join the Republican Party?
in Cloak Room
Posted
This question presupposes a need for a Republican Party.