Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3287
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. 30 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

    That is some weird arbitrary criteria to put someone in over another. Super Bowls are close these days. In fact this century, most of them have been close. You aren't going to just go in there and blow people out. Not really how the Super Bowl is these days.

    I seriously don't think people understand the effect of the salary cap and free agency had on the NFL. This was one of them, folks.

    Pre-Salary Cap Super Bowl scores: 844-377 (average score 30-13, which oddly enough was the score of the last SB of the pre-SC era)

    Salary Cap Super Bowl scores: 738-475 (average score 31-20)

    The only time those Super Blowouts occur in the modern age is when the losing team is facing a once-in-a-generation defense (2000 Baltimore, 2002 Tampa, 2013 Seattle). In fact, if you take just those 3 games out of the equation, it's 613-439 (29-21). Point being, those are some competitive-as-shit games where as such games in the pre-SC era were as frequent as blowouts are today. To hold that against Tom Brady and to pretend as if that "negative" makes Joe Montana better than him, or even an equal, is fucking ridiculous. Yeah, Brady doesn't have an SB blowout to his name, but Montana doesn't have that 5th ring, did not win the SB MVP award 4 times, won 13 fewer playoff games than Brady, doesn't have the playoff winning percentage as Brady, etc. Shit, Brady has only 1 fewer appearance in AFC Title games than Joe Montana has playoff wins. Montana was absolutely fucking stellar in his day, but only an "in-my-day" fool would take him over New England's current starter.

    As to the topic of Rushmore?

    Brady
    LT
    Rice
    Either Jim Brown or Walter Payton (possibly Barry Sanders), but it really makes no difference.

     

    • Like 1
  2. On 1/21/2019 at 10:15 AM, Saint Tacky said:

    Franco Harris' "Immaculate Reception" should have been waived off for breaking the "double touch" rule.

    That's the view of the Make Believe and Pretend Raiders, one of whom admittedly concocted his own "conspiracy theory," his words, to "explain" how the NFL had a "vendetta," again his words, against the Raiders.

    The reality is that there's no way in hell Jack Tatum didn't touch that ball. No ball bounces like that after a WR drops it while running in the opposite direction of where the ball goes flying like that. You don't need to be a Pittsburgh Steelers fan to believe that, you just need to understand basic laws of physics to understand it. When a ~10-pound leather football is thrown ~50-80 mph to the North to a WR running North-to-Northeast and when the ball hits him and only him, then bounces off his hands and travels fully 21 fucking feet to the fucking South, there's something else at play...like a DB who threw his forearm at the WR and in the process hits the ball as well.

    Need more tangible evidence than my admittedly amateurish scientific take on it? Watch the video.

    Go to 21:39 and you clearly see that Jack Tatum makes indisputably direct contact with the football. Now, it's quite true that it does look like after Tatum hits it that it then glances off of Fuqua's shoulder, but that's irrelevant because the double touch rule was deemed null and void the exact moment a defensive player touches the ball regardless of sequence (i.e. it doesn't matter who the last one to touch it was, just that the defensive player touched it at all). This is also why the correct call was made when, for example, John Mackey scored that long TD in Super Bowl 5: because while it was true that Eddie Hinton made contact with the ball, Mel Renfro very clearly made contact with it as well, which nullified the double touch rule (which never should have been a rule to begin with).

    No, George Atkinson, Phil Villipiano and all those other whiny-assed Raiders are dead wrong to belittle that play as the "Immaculate Deception." Those are simply homerisms that have absolutely no truth in them whatsoever. And again, you don't need to be a Steelers fan to understand that. You just need to watch those 70's Raiders players in ANY of those Top 10 videos that the NFL Network shitted out like diarrhea in the past few years. They seriously believe that a Raider player should have topped EVERY one of those lists and they whine like crazy when they don't.

    • Like 1
  3. 12 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

    I don't even remember the play, but during the 1994 Super Bowl between DAL-PIT, there was a horrifically awful call against the Steelers. 

    Was there? I mean I get the overall thrust of your point, but IIRC the only controversial call of that game was when a PIT player pushed a Dallas player into a punted ball and the refs correctly ruled that cannot constitute a muff.

  4. 1 hour ago, CurlyDumps said:

    Wasn’t it the rule that was terrible though? More than the call?

    I mean I have no opinion on that rule either way but I knew what it was right when that play happened and I was the only one in the room that correctly predicted the outcome of the review on that exact basis. It was the right call given the letter of the law at the time. 

  5. On 1/18/2019 at 3:49 PM, WhatTheBuck said:

    You can't reason a person out of a position they weren't reasoned into. 

    Sadly, people can develop immunities to reason in general.

  6. 4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

    Let's be clear.  I'm fucking pissed off because I actually give a fuck about people, and am pissed off at seeing them hurt.

    Icono is pissed off because we aren't hurting people badly enough, and because he can't get in on the fun of shooting them himself.

    My family thinks I'm perfectly fine.  But I'm sure if I start sucking dick for meth they'll step in.

    Honestly part of me thinks this Icono stuff is a gigantic ruse. There’s no way he could seriously believe a word of what he’s saying.

  7. The Mueller investigation isn’t about impeachment.

    Impeachment is a nonjusticiable political question, which means it cannot be challenged in the courts. There literally is no mechanism to prevent the Democrats from pursuing impeachment. What stops them is that they do not have the votes in the senate to remove him and they do not want to risk allowing prospective reelection opponents to use that as an election issue against them. “Senator X voted to remove President Orange Skin...HE’S WRONG FOR AMERICA AND APPLE PIE!!!”

    The Mueller investigation is about whether or not to put this motherfucker (or these motherfuckers) in prison, which is why Trump’s minions like Dershowitz and Giuliani continue to lie through their teeth when they go on Fox to say “he has to be impeached first in order to be indicted.” And speaking of Dershowitz, this is the reason Trump wants him fronting this horseshit: he’s a pathological liar in a most textbook sense. He can train himself to believe everything he’s saying while simultaneously knowing that every word he says is absolutely false.

  8. 7 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

     Haha. It would be worth it for a Democrat to get elected espousing such bullshit because it would lead to a backlash so severe that the GOP would rule for a generation and we would then finally put a stop to illegal immigration once and for all.

    That's just you and your Make Believe again.

  9. 1 hour ago, Celery Man said:

    I mean Ayn Rand sucked on the government teat of socialized healthcare when she was dying of lung cancer after a lifetime of smoking, so there is a precedent.

    She was also woefully ignorant of international affairs. Listening to her rattle about the Israel-Palestine conflict leaves one shocked that someone considered to be such an “intellectual heavyweight” would know that little while simultaneously posturing about it. She was the Kent Hovind of her day: a walking, breathing template of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    • Like 1
  10. 21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

    Racism isn't going anywhere, ever. It's a way of looking at the world. It's an idea. It's a feeling. You can't eradicate these things or wait them out.

    In the Civil Rights era, there was an idea among progressives that racism would be frozen out of the mainstream media culture (largely successful) and that individual racists would feel isolated and unable to talk about it in public so the negative influence of their racism would be contained. The Internet makes that impossible, because now, not only do set-in-stone racists have 24/7 community, they can recruit young men, who are dumb and easy to impress.

    So you have to...

    1) Actively fight racism. (Counter-protest, deplatform, punch Nazis in the face)

    2) Build an economically fair nation in order to increase happiness, which will decrease racism.

    Switch #1 and 2 because 2 basically does the job for #1. 

    No one is ever born racist. The default position is the null set, so it thus follows that racism is 100% engendered within the individual's upbringing through their formative years. Racism has no justification, but it survives when demagogues wax poetic about fictitious periods in the country's history (MAGA) purely for their own personal gain. But those demagogues can only exist when droves of people are angry and frustrated about their lot in life. There's a demographic of people who take the position that goes like this: "if you're poor, it's 100% your fault." The people who say that are hands down the most dishonest and full of shit people on the planet. Yes, your #2 is something society desperately needs at this point in history, and for a lot of reasons, but diversion/racism/etc are definitely among them. You get a few successive generations who live in a prosperous society like the ones certain others have created, that racism bullshit shrinks to a bare-assed minimum. When was the last time you heard about the wave of people in Copenhagen screaming "Gør Danmark stor igen?"

    • Like 1
  11. 5 minutes ago, troph said:

     


    Why are you talking about fucking a hot woman in a political conversation? You kinda just made my point.

     

    What point is that you have that runs in contravention to what I said?

    heres how it works in practice 

    -AOC runs for office and states all these positions she takes, then the morons talk about how she’s young, naive, stupid, ignorant, etc.

    -Some right wing doppelgänger of AOC runs for office and takes the exact opposite positions as her, the same morons can’t stop drooling. In other words, suddenly the youth and inexperience and stupidity and all that stuff don’t seem to matter as much. 

    Thats all I was saying. The criticisms they’re throwing at her are very poorly disguised rah-rah’s akin to fans at a sporting event. 

  12. Just now, Asithappens said:

    No way, imo, is she the female equivalent of Zinn or Chomsky.

    She's young and exuberant. 

    She’s not an exact equivalent, but that’s not the point. The point is she espouses the same positions as they do/did and is similarly criticized for same.

  13. 28 minutes ago, troph said:


    I vehemently disagree. The thing is she’s so unbelievably young for a politician. There is no corollary on the right. Now if she was old like those guys I think her positions could be dismissed as fringe. If she was a young man the conversation would be about how awesome her raw political talent is and how she just needs experience.

    Well I didn’t say there was a “corollary on the right,” I was speaking on the hypothetical of her being a man in the party she is with the positions she takes. Those 3 guys I mentioned, plus others that I didn’t (Kucinich being one of them), are what the R’s would be facing were AOC a male. To the extent that they’re ever credited with having raw talent, there always follows a sneeze and that sneeze sounds like “yeahbut,” and that never improves with age. No matter how old Nader or Bernie Sanders got, they’ve always been viewed by corporate media as “fringe,” like you say. AOC is going to be portrayed that way no matter her age, no matter her gender. 

    Here’s how you know this shit isn’t about her age or gender: if some hot 20-something who sang the praises of Trickle Down Economics and Peace By Strength was elected as a GOP representative in Texas, they would be lining up in the streets to fuck her and when they weren’t, they’d be talking about how brilliant she was at her young age. Remember, this is the party that allowed a fucking 14-year old to speak at its CPAC convention just a decade ago. That kid was a male, he’s 23 now, and he’s just as stupid as he was then.

  14. 10 minutes ago, troph said:

    If she were a man everyone would be talking about her future and how she should have presidential aspirations and with some seasoning she will be one of the great politicians of her generation.

    Her political positions are way too outside of convention for commentators to say such things. If she were a man, she'd be a Howard Zinn/Ralph Nader/Noam Chomsky and we all know how well treated those types are both in the government and in the mass media that cover them. That's not to say that chauvinism hasn't been a factor in some of the more idiotic renderings made against her, but let's not pretend that it'd all disappear if she was a he.

    • Like 4
  15. 6 hours ago, ADHD said:

    They think she's stupid because of the way her voice sounds, in terms of tone and vigor. She sounds younger than she is and because she is very passionate (and ethnic!) she accelerates her sentences. Ergo shithead older usually white men respond to her in a very patronizing way.

    As in lol at my emotional wife or gf she doesnt know how inanimate mechanical things work. 

    They have to say she's "stupid" because they have to make sure that as few people listen to her as possible. This is a classic case of poisoning the well, and it's what those morons live for. They have no merits to their own platform, so the next best thing to do, in their tiny minds, is to shit on everyone else's before they can even get a word in edgewise. She's been a US Representative for a little less than a week and we've already heard more complaints about her from that idiotic cult than we've heard just general commentary on damn near every representative (except those in leadership positions) from the last term. This is manufactured hysteria, it's what they do best, and they just never stop running with it. If the Gish Gallop was an Olympic event, those motherfuckers would win every fucking medal every four years.

    • Like 4
  16. 5 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

    you have a motherfucking choice. Stay in Mexico or go back to the shithole you came from

    Only a dumbass who knows jack shit about those places would say something that ridiculously stupid.

  17. On 1/2/2019 at 11:53 AM, Biff Tannen said:

    He doesn't know.  It's not a serious idea, it's a concept to rile up his base of dumb motherfuckers that don't understand anything but fear.

    Which is why the situation escalated when it did and why the gov't is shut down right now: because his chickenshit "party" lost the House and he knows full well that the new House has no reason to cooperate on this ridiculous project. He fears going into enter the 2020 re-election campaign with no wall, no accomplishments, and no reasons to re-elect (not that we ever had a reason to elect, thank you DNC), and that certainly looks imminent. 

    23 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

    You're better off spending money to stabilize Guatemala and Nicaragua's government's and social services. 

    Exactly. If you don't want people to migrate here illegally, don't give them a reason to. When you depose their legitimately elected leaders, support military dictatorships and economic policies that are both reviled by the population and (because they) absolutely devastate the countries, intensify said efforts when international judicial verdicts are made against you, pass international "trade" agreements that also make life difficult, make the visa/immigration/citizenship process as slow and cost-intensive as possible, make psychotic efforts to "control the flow of drugs" at the border, and allow employers to employ any and all illegals that they want in order to skirt the law, you are giving them reasons to immigrate here illegally. 

    Of course, Trump and his ilk never comprehend this because they have an intellectual capacity of a 5-year old. Donald Trump's professional career is replete with colossal failures, and the biggest reason for their repetitions is his complete refusal to acknowledge his own part in such failures and his psychotic compulsion to blame everyone else. This wall hoax is just the latest edition of said defective thinking.

    The unfortunate reality, however, is that you can never get Americans to sign off on what you (or I) just stated because the so-called "conservative movement" in this country has raised a couple generations worth of people who've no conception of such things, and in fact, have no conception of economics in general. As of right now, the average American thinks that "foreign aid" constitutes about a quarter of the total federal budget, which is like saying the distance from NYC to LA is approximately 70,000 miles. We have a rather pathetically large amount of people, whom I've deemed "foreign aid nuts," that think it only needs to decrease and across the board. They're ok with spending over $100 billion on the Drug War and the Wall, but not with nearly half of one percent of that going to actually help the people living in those countries.

    • Like 5
  18. 23 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

    There aren't very many of those in the country, much less Texas, and there haven't been many in my entire life that met that criteria.  I struggle to think of a single one that was ever in a leadership position anywhere in the US, much less Texas.

    It's really just a platitude, not a description.

  19. Just now, happyfunball said:

    AOC is another Republican case study that they will manufacture a controversy to fit their narrative. Dems need to stop taking strategy advice from Republicans

    WILLIE HORTON!!!

    BURNING THE FLAG!!!

    PROTESTING ON FOREIGN SHORES!!!

    RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!

×
×
  • Create New...