Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3426
  • Joined

Everything posted by hpslugga

  1. Someone needs to take Pebbles to McDonald’s so he can get a whaburger and French cries. Maybe a Whineicken too.
  2. It’s the surest way to lose money/not realize full economic potential.
  3. I would but I’ll be washing my hair
  4. If it wasn’t Mitch McConnell, it’d be someone else. Politicians/elected officials don’t act on their own free will. They’re beholden to the moneyed interests that help get them elected and they act accordingly. If you impose term limits, it’s just gonna speed up the garbage in/garbage out cycle.
  5. See the thing is, most people in that catholic demographic are viewed as non-people by shitheads like Flynn. So they don’t really count
  6. Seriously this is like watching the dad from Everybody Loves Raymond preside over a fucking murder case
  7. This would be an appropriate question if it was pointed towards an audience interested in single standards and two way communication. But when you’re pointing that kind of question towards an audience interested only in double standards and one way communication, doesn’t really help add to healthy discourse, especially not in light of the recent revelations of Big Bird turning commie.
  8. It wouldn’t matter even if he did know about his transgressions. You don’t get to play the role of executioner in your capacity as a private citizen. That’s a right that even adults don’t have, much less some punk kid. ”Dude, you shot that guy!” ”Don’t care. Child rapist” ”oh ok” That’s seriously how people like sack of shit think the real world works…that you get to just snuff people out in broad daylight if they committed crimes in the past. That’s that bullshit, tiny-dicked Wild Wild West mentality at work. No different than people who defended Amber Guyger because when she broke into Botham Jean’s apartment, “I SMELLED MARIJUANA!!!”
  9. Because he’s beholden to a belief system. Seriously, there’s no deeper explanation to that.
  10. I’ve actually seen people contest the definition of “well regulated militia” in order for it to still make sense to own assault weapons.
  11. Thought: well…you already saw the Bo Davis video
      • 1
      • Hook 'Em
  12. I mean given his propensity for just crazily lying, I have serious doubts that his financial situation is as he says it is. But even if it is, that wouldn't change the fact that since he's been posting on political issues, he's yet to say a single thing worth a shit, which renders that other crap moot.
  13. Hell, dial it back and ask yourself who starts for OU or OSU. There are players who would, but I’ll tell you who it’s not. It’s literally none of the interior players on either side of the ball. If anyone was watching this OL and thought “oh this is just Greg Davis squandering talent all over again,” one would be living in Bizarro World. We’re watching a fairly mobile QB getting constantly harassed almost every time he drops back (which is what’s led him to do his best impressions of Patrick Mahomes when he runs around and forces some ball into coverage) and literally the best RB in the country not being able to spring into the second level because there’s nowhere for him to go. I said it a while ago on one of my Grading threads, but I’ve never seen such a contrast in talent than what we see here between the offensive skill players and the offensive linemen.
  14. Theoretically at least, the legal issues at stake are the following: “Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows: (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant. (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant. (c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.” I would say that the final provision is of paramount importance, but then again we’re talking about a case where the judge forbids the use of the word “victim” to describe the people this loser fucking killed.
  15. 1. Climate change 2. Nuclear proliferation 3. Economic security (yeah I know that’s vague especially since it contains a litany of factors, but I’m not about to single out one factor at the expense of all others)
  16. I sure did forget that one. It’s never a good sign when one side legitimately turns a silly con job into an actual verb.
  17. The pitiful thing is that all they really need to do in order to become a functioning party is to cast aside just one of those entities I listed… and I think we all know which one it is.
  18. No doubt. The problem with the democrats is the very dynamic of their voter base. They’re a cross section of corporate whores that are smart enough to avoid the insanity of the GOP, feminists, LBGT rights activists, environmentalists, people who loathe the military industrial complex, so on and so forth. That’s too big of a tent for a major party to function.
  19. Only reasons? No. But they are reasons that are used, and that’s the point: they get needlessly thrown into the campaign for no reason other than to distract people from actual issues. That’s been known for decades. You’d do well to read up on what’s called the Southern Strategy, just for starters.
  20. Not in the slightest. All they have to do is reframe the issue into some bullshit over which they can work up their base. Happens every time: 1988? Willie Horton!!! 1992? Clinton protested the Vietnam War…ON FOREIGN SOIL!!! 1996? Partial birth abortion! 2000? Al Gore “was there” when Bill Clinton was getting blown by Monica! 2004? Gay marriage! 2008? Obama read Saul Alinsky one time! 2012? SAUL ALINSKY! 2016? Crooked Hillary! 2020? Evil democrats are trying to steal your vote! When you do that, you can easily con people into voting for you. Tell me, how’s that Trickle Down Economics thing working? I’m sure it’s great for people that earn more than 99% of the country, but what about those millions of people who live well below that income line that haven’t seen any benefit whatsoever to Voodoo policies?
  21. All too aware of that phenomenon as it’s not the first word/term they’ve done that with. It’s just the newest. Would just be nice if at least one of their fan boys would just admit it, but I guess institutional dishonesty is too powerful of a thing. Right, as long as it makes the DNC look bad. Hey, that’s identity politics for ya. Trading away everything you actually know for a belief that’s required in order to “belong.”
  22. I never said that, and it would take an extreme failure at basic logic and reading comprehension to have come up with that line. What I said is that I object to you using the word to describing the kind of people you were describing. Being shy of admitting you voted for Republican candidates doesn’t make you a “moderate.” Dubious assertion at best, and not even the point. The point is that you’re using terms without knowing what they even mean. didn’t say that you did. People who vote for GQP candidates do that on the regular. It requires one to shut one’s eyes not to see that and to plug one’s ears not to hear it. Just in my own district last year, a former classmate of my sister ran on a campaign of “don’t turn Texas into socialist California.” That bullshit is omnipresent in this country in general. I take a much more qualified issue with how you deliver your “message” and what that “message” actually is. As someone who walked away from them 14 years ago, I’m aware of that. The difference is I dislike them for actual reasons and not from fictitious horseshit.
  23. Why do these two things have to be mutually exclusive? If you read into what I said as a post mortem endorsement of Terry McAuliffe or anything to that effect, that’s a profound misreading. Of course he was a hideous candidate, as was the handful of others he ran against in the primary. That said, voting for Youngkin (unless you’re very wealthy) is voting against one’s interests regardless of who the Democrats trotted out. If it’s your position that “owning the libs” isn’t an absolute cum-pumping goal of theirs, you’ve not been paying much attention to them. And it’s not even about weird conspiracy theories they have either, it’s just tribalistic “our team vs their team” sports mentality run amok.
×
×
  • Create New...