Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3453
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. 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
  2. 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. 

  3. “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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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
  6. 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.

  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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.

  12. 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. 

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

×
×
  • Create New...