-
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
-
-
3 hours ago, workswithseed said:
It would be merciful if Bolsonaro came in and took over Venazuela.
Aww that’s adorable
-
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.
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:
Ayn Rand would puke her guts out knowing Rand and Ron Paul would happily let Russia march across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.
Because?
-
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?"
-
1
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
4
-
-
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.
-
4
-
-
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.
-
On 1/3/2019 at 3:08 PM, hayden_horn said:
jesus fucking christ. and i thought she was one of the good ones.
oh, also:
such a stand up guy, nikki. you dumbass.
I'm not at all surprised that she endorses that useless sack of snake shit.
-
1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:
These guys are absolutely pathetic.
I’d think she’s doing something wrong if she wasn’t getting booed by those buffoons.
-
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.
-
5
-
-
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.
-
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!!!
-
1 minute ago, PencilPusher said:
Not surprising the ratings are like this - Sugar/Rose on New Years Day - good ratings. Other Bowls not on New Years Day - not as good. That will likely not change so either the CFP has to strong arm the Rose/Sugar games into moving (fat chance) or just deal with it.
Yup. And this is just another reason to expand the playoff: rather than fiddle-fuck around for nearly a month and having the semis just shy of New Year's and the NC game well after, use the December Void to have the pre-title rounds and play the NC game exactly on the time slot that Texas' Sugar Bowl just took on 1/1. The bowls suck and they've been the single largest impediment to CFB's evolution, but the New Year's tradition does provide a good tool for them to use and they're just wholly trying to re-invent the wheel.
1 minute ago, PencilPusher said:LA and PHX should be the only West host cities and given where college football is stronger, these should likely be the majority host cities for this game: Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, Miami, New Orleans, Tampa. Travel needs to be a big consideration for this if they want ticket sales.
Yeah I never understood the North Cal. Area in general either. There's a reason that there was a 31-year gap between Super Bowls hosted there, and it would have been longer were it not for the fact that the first one had a fucking local team in it.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:
Ah, good point. Forgot about that, but of course as you note it only makes the onside kick more obviously the right call.
Yeah, those announcers were complete jackasses in their ridiculous rendering of judgment on that call. You'll notice that Todd in specific said that Texas should have just booted it through the end zone. Even if you accept the premise that the onside kick was a bad call, booting it for the TB isn't the best option anyways. Wanna know what is, sans the onside? It's screaming it on the ground, aka the squib kick. The squib has a similar effect of a pooch kick in that it usually forces a player other than the returners to field the ball, but the receiving team can't fair catch it since it had previously hit the turf, so you still have a chance of pinning them behind (maybe even significantly so) the 25. Booming it through the end zone is a net 25 yard kick in that scenario. That's not a huge reward, and adding 15 yards to the receiving team's favor isn't a huge punishment either.
-
1
-
-
On 9/1/2018 at 11:23 AM, Neonmoon said:
All talk. Team looks the same. Horrible
This thread/post is legendarily horrible, and you have an obligation to admit that as does everyone else who supported this deluded and effeminate sentiment.
-
2
-
-
On 12/30/2018 at 3:48 PM, Brisketexan said:
Watching Boomers underestimate millennials is going to be my favorite bloodsport of the next decade or so.FIFY
-
3 minutes ago, Pancho Negro said:
Smh
War on Education
-
46 minutes ago, yaqdum said:
the majority of hardcore republicans are probably americans first.
There’s no reason to assume that
-
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:
Trump's base isn't as monolithic as you think.
1. the Cult 45 members that will never be swayed, I'd put them at 15-20%.
2. the 401k Trumpers that don't care what Trump does as long as the portfolio is earning (5-10%).
3. the team Republican Trumpers that are supportive because of the R by his name. They don't like the tweets, the lying, or even the agenda but they will tolerate it up to a certain point because they're Republicans. (10-20%)
Just need to start chipping away at two and three.
You can’t chip away at 3 for the same reason I just illustrated: no possible, available evidence could ever move them to change their position. Yeah it could be that they dislike Trump, but the R next to his name compels them either to defend it or stay silent, and that’s just as bad.
You say “up to a certain point,” but i guarantee you that republicans who are against him were already so. Bill Kristol, for example, isn’t a reformed Trumpanzee: he was against him from the start. Now, Kristol and his ilk come with their own baggage, and they’d even go as far as supporting impeachment for that reason, but again, they’ve taken that position from the start and you don’t need to waste time trying to convince them of anything.
The difference between them and you is that while you both support impeachment, they’re salivating over the prospect of President Pence.
-
42 minutes ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:
She's white knighted Trump. Any evidence of his wrongdoing is proof that the Deep State wants him eliminated as a message to all citizens: obey or be destroyed.
See and that’s how you know it’s religious in nature: its unfalsifiability.
“There’s evidence against Trump? DEEP STATE!!!”
“Spicer said something about the inauguration that wasn’t true? ALTERNATIVE FACTS!!!“
”The media presented definitive evidence that the Wall is a total fraud at every level? FAKE NEWS”
It’s all about these stupid two-word phrases that they think are loaded with intelligence, but all they really do is reflect how massively idiotic they really are. Of course they can’t accept that, yet they’re the ones calling other people “snowflakes!”
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:
I think the democrats should focus on the goal of swaying public opinion (Republicans) towards the idea of removing Trump.
They should outline a slow methodical path in exposing Trump’s corruption that resonates with the American public.
Start calling witnesses that have already been interviewed by the Mueller team for obstruction or Russia ties. That way they can’t get away with lying so easily.
I know the Briskets will say none of this matters but it’s worth a shot.
Dude, you don’t understand.
Trump’s following isn’t rooted in politics. A political following has an element of combustibility, meaning it could all break down and explode given the right circumstances and no politician is above that.
Trump? His following is based in faith, which is the most dishonest root of a position that is possible to take. His defenders will defensively defend him by 1) asserting claims that are completely without evidence and 2) argue entirely in spite of evidence. They have a name for that in religious circles. It’s called “apologetics.” How does one get involved in apologetics? Simple: become hopelessly indoctrinated towards such a ridiculous cause. No amount of evidence Robert Mueller can show will convince trump’s base that this is anything other than a “witch hunt.”
-
9
-
1
-
Things not going well in Latin America
in Cloak Room
Posted
This will be entertaining