Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3,311
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. He’s probably going to get nailed. This announcement came just days after the US formally announced it was reversing its position on the illegal settlements. Sounds like Bibi knew he was on the way out (for good this time) and wanted to guarantee his legacy as land thief number 1 among Israeli PM’s in addition to being arguably the most vile terrorist among same.

  2. 37 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

    So what's the alternative to a "populist savior"? What other kinds of leaders are there?

    The hallmark of democracy is the free choice of the citizenry, not how restricted they are in their choices. Him seeking re-election is not anti-democratic.

    See it’d be one thing to overwrite a constitutional provision that imposes term limits in favor of unlimited attempts to run for election, but the accusation is that he was becoming authoritarian and “leader for life” like he was Xi and actually implementing indefinite rule, and that just doesn’t hold water. It’s not authoritarian or “leader for life” to make oneself eligible for election whereas they previously wouldn’t be under previous constructs.
     

    I’ve very often invoked the Hernandez example in Honduras, but it’s not even the mere fact that he bypassed the constitution by boldly inserting himself in the 2017 election; it was the utterly embarrassing 2-faced reaction in the US. When Zelaya called for a non-binding referendum asking the population if they would favor a constitutional rewrite, the right wing in the west couldn’t wait to accuse him of the same kind of “leader for life” nonsense thats been replayed here.

    It was ok when Hernandez boldly defied the constitution by just inserting himself in an election his government forbade him to run in, but it wasn’t ok when Zelaya tried to accomplish that in a clean and legit process. He was willing to risk being turned down by the population straight up on the proposed referendum, he was willing to be turned down via the population not supporting that particular provision and he was willing to be turned down via the population voting against him even if he was put on the ballot legally, and yet so many American retards and idiots interpreted that as “authoritarian.” Hernandez completely bypassed that entire process, and those same sexually repressed and emotionally arrested screamers couldn’t be bothered to offer comment 1 about it. That’s...handy.

    It’s the same here. Look, I can understand if people have reservations about pulling back term limits, but putting yourself in a position to potentially be voted out isn’t authoritarian. It certainly isn’t nearly as authoritarian as Hosni Mubārak or Xi or Augusto Pinochet or Suharto or a host of other actual Presidents-For-Life.

    Quote

    What evidence is there of Morales's government being autocratic or authoritarian?

    Figureheads in the West proudly proclaim it without using “lol.”

     

    • Like 3
  3. 5 hours ago, ryskey said:

    With so much history and precedent, it's hard to understand how and why politicians keep making the same mistakes.  Most of the Chilean population has memories of life under Pinochet, and those who don't have parents who carry scars.

    Piñera is acting completely tone-deaf to his own country's history and culture.  That's inexcusable.  

    South American Executive Logic:

    1. Should I do this thing?

    2. Depends, has it been done before?

    3. Yes?  Ok, how did it end?  

    4. Voted out of office / sanctions / civil unrest / coup / arrested on human rights violations

    5. Ok let's do it.

     

    Seriously, Pinochet is a poster child for exactly what not to do as a so-called “leader,” so I haven’t the foggiest clue why even a double digit IQ moron like Piñera would want to get into that.

  4. On 11/12/2019 at 3:27 PM, Mdhorn said:

    You can't whip them in a debate with logic. 

    Well for one, I use the term “whip” more objectively. Whether they were to acknowledge such a hypothetical asswhipping isn’t relevant: the asswhipping occurred regardless of what their little feelings tell them to believe. 

    But that’s not even the point. The point is that they do not possess the skill, nor I (merely an average person) the vulnerability, to ever be even remotely driven to the point where I question my own sanity after engaging those idiots.

  5. 11 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

    Hell...let’s pretend it isn’t.

     

    29.5% of Americans have an arrest record (that percentage includes both convictions and felony arrests with no conviction).

     

    Presuming his number of around 54,000 is correct...there are 700,000 DACA recipients.

     

    So....7.7% have an arrest record. Thats about 1/4 the rate of Americans as a whole. DACA recipients are much more likely to be good citizens than a randomly selected American, including the Trump base.

     

    Thanks for making the argument for us, DOTUS. I’d much rather have a DACA recipient living next to me than a Trump supporter. They’re MUCH less likely to be a criminal. And they’re almost certainly much MORE likely to be gainfully employed and contributing to society.

     

    Statistics are a bitch, you fucking simpleton shitsmear.

    Trump reacts to numbers the same way Kent Hovind does: absolutely zero awareness, no functional relationship with or appreciation for reality, zero comprehension for any comparison. Seriously, just flash the number 54,000 to him and say it's related to anything and he'll be absolutely amazed.

    "Hey Donald, the Earth is 54,000 years old"

    "Omg, that's amazing, most people probably don't know it's THAT MANY!"

    • Like 1
  6. 16 hours ago, XYZ said:

    This is funny. The constitution of Bolivia says that a president can be re-elected ONCE. This was his third re-election. Defend that.

    It's been my experience that Americans who support these actions don't really care about the so-called "sanctity" of constitutions, let alone when it comes to term limits, unless it suits their own ideological purposes. I mean maybe you're some sort of special exception, but that would have to be a hell of an exception.

    • Like 2
  7. 5 hours ago, Don Johnson said:

    Even with the loss to The Citadel, 0-1 (0-0) career coaching an SEC team cant compete with 4-22 (0-14). 
     

    What are your thoughts on Chandler?  I really liked him and was looking forward to seeing him play, but that was going to be a complete shitshow. He doesn’t need to follow dad to his next stop. 

    He didn’t just lose to the Citadel, he lost 10-3 to them and with a new offensive coordinator named Greg Davis. That whole situation spoke poorly not only of Crowe, but of the athletic department in general because they not only tolerated the hire, not only did Davis survive after Crowe’s dismissal for a full season, they not only opted to keep him on for another one, they did whatever they could to prevent Joe Kines from beating him to death with his bare hands. Now perhaps Frank Broyles was a soothsayer who kept Davis breathing because he knew he’d end up at Texas one day and he wanted to stick it to UT as a final revenge, but the point is Crowe is the one who started the whole bloody mess!!!

    As to Chandler, I’ve always liked the kid. If anything I’d say as a negative is that he can be a bit careless with the ball, but I like the combination of his template, his accuracy and his wheels. If I had to rank the HP QB’s during Randy Allen’s tenure, I’d place him in seconds ahead of JSJ but behind Stanford. I’m pretty sure his dad’s firing will steer him away from Arkansas, but I don’t know if Chad will have a gig by signing day. I’m pretty sure he won’t have an HC job. Perhaps he’ll go back to being an OC, but I just don’t see that for 2020, thus Chandler will need to consider only his own future when deciding.

    • Like 1
  8. 12 minutes ago, RPM said:

    Gaslighting is the preferred nomenclature.

    Gaslighting takes either a tremendous amount of skill or a vulnerable victim of such tactics. Gaslighting is when the person with which you’re arguing has gotten to the point where you basically question your own sanity.

    I’m not the smartest person in the world by any real measure, but there’s not a single GOP hack whose ass I couldn’t whip in a debate, much less could any of those effeminate losers push me anywhere close to questioning my sanity.

    • Like 3
  9. 1 hour ago, Tom said:

     

    Yep.  Reading the comments on news articles online, Facebook, etc, a big part of all this is they have been conditioned to believe stupid conspiracies like "Hillary sold 20% of our country's uranium to Russia and got away with it!" or "Hillary killed Seth Rich and supported a pizza parlor's pedophile ring and got away with it!!" and "Benghazi!" and "emails!"  I think some of them know what Trump does is wrong but it's okay because the swamp, aka Democrats, have been getting away with it for so long.  2+ decades of Rush, Fox News, and actual fake news has them convinced this is payback for a bunch of stuff that didn't really happen.

    Propaganda is effective.

    At this point I can't even call it propaganda. Propaganda is rooted in some sort of kernel of truth. What these people do today is just straight out lying and making shit up.

     

  10. 7 minutes ago, horn4life said:

    Well the GOP has been working as hard as humanly possible for this outcome for a very, very long time.  Both legislatively and esecially judicially.  Like the decision that corporations had the same rights as human beings when it came to spending money politically.  So unlimited Dollars by people so wealthy it makes sense to spend $100 million, because the math is simply, you make it back very quickly with the poroper legislation.

    Don't ever again pretend that GOP economic, fiscal, or legislative policy has anything to do other than making the wealthy wealthier and nothing else. 

    The wealthy have gotten their money's worth from the GOP!  The country?  Not so much.

     

     

     

     

    That's the problem: to them, there's no difference. To them, the corporations are the country and the country is the corporations. Why else do they so easily, in their own minds at least, get away with saying shit like "Reagan cut EVERYONE's taxes!!!"

  11. 5 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

    Well, on the contrary, Spike Dykes is kicking ass with Morris' recruits so it can happen. Stoops did it with Blakes recruits. But for every Dykes and Stoops, there are a gazillion Morris'. But programs have to take a chance. Either accept the status quo and keep shittiness and mediocrity forever, or roll the dice and hope you get a Stoops.

    We all thought Herman was a good to great hire. Jury is definitely still out on that one.

    You're assuming Bielema left behind a cast of players anywhere near the level that Blake left Stoops, Morris left, Dykes, etc. He didn't. Bielema left behind a tub of shit. What's that old saying? You are what you leave behind?

  12. On 11/11/2019 at 10:15 AM, SwanderedTalent said:

    You lose fourteen conference games in a row, and lose to San Jose State and then Western Kentucky by four touchdowns in the same season-- your fate is sealed. No program that expects to compete for conference championships is going to tolerate that kind of losing. 

    What right do they have to expect those things that soon into an HC's tenure? Matter of fact, what right do they have to expect those things at all? Arkansas has never even come close to winning an SEC title. They've only been to the CCG 3 times since their arrival 27 years ago, and they were beaten by double digits every time with an average MOL of 23 points per game.

  13. On 11/10/2019 at 10:47 AM, crash_davis said:

    i remember questioning the hire when morris' record at SMU was mediocre at best. posters on here corrected me that morris was a great coach and that it was a great hire. he was going to make aggy his bitch.

    well here we are...

    Yes, here we are as he's fired after two years of failing to produce better results with the previous guy's players.

    This is just another case of a program believing its own horseshit and that it's possible to microwave a solid product.

  14. 1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

    They should.  What Evo has accomplished is remarkable.  Why do you think the right has always been obsessed with crushing every leftist government in Latin America?  It's not all about the oil or lithium or whatever resources may be in play.  They view those governments as a virus that must be killed off before it's allowed to spread.  

    They've carried around that mentality for decades, but yes, "our own little region over here" is the most vulnerable to that ridiculous Rotten Apple Theory.

  15. 1 hour ago, F250 said:

    It's been years since I read up on the subject but as I recall, Catalonia's fall was a result of interference by communist forces loyal to Stalin as well as Stalin sabotaging the Leninist communist and anarchist factions on the Republican side throughout the civil war. Without the support of the Anglo capitalist nations or the Soviet Union the Republican alliance was never going to hold off the fascists and due to their proclivities towards socialism they had to turn to Moscow but Stalin had already rejected internationalism at that point in time. Basically that experiment was doomed due to the bigger geopolitical movements occurring in Europe and the Republican forces lacking the military strength to provide an adequate defense for themselves. 

     

    I don’t necessarily agree with the former, but the latter is correct. That was never meant to be a large scale thing and it just happened at the wrong point in history 

  16. 5 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

    I mean, sure that's why the USSR and Communist China, and North Korea put in policies to take away property rights, and everyone was equal, except some people were more equal. You can claim those are "true" communism, but the other communist weren't is weak. It's been said a million times. Why can't you admit that big government will never give power back to the people? 

    You post a video about straw men and then come at me with this indefensible nonsense? 
     

    I don’t support big government, and I never have. That’s just you jacking off again.

    As to the idea that “everyone was equal” in those societies, that’s just a bad joke and there’s not a shred of evidence to support your claim. You are a liar. 

  17. 7 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

    And you haven't showed me where it worked.

    Except I did. I gave examples of where it was tried. You interpret their current status as being “failed,” but “failed” in that context means that it was destroyed internally. If external factors contribute to its demise, that’s not a failure. For example, it’s hardly a “failure” of libertarian socialism when a ruthless thug bludgeons the entire area with a foreign army of mercenaries as Franco did with his merry band of Northern Africans in the late 1930’s. 

    Beyond that, you’re showing your ass with these piss ant exhibitions of mental gymnastics. You first argued that, as B_T put it, “What we really need is a worldwide dictatorship of the proletariat and a dissolution of nations” had been tried. You were wrong because such a dictatorship has never existed. Lenin was by no means a proletarian. He was the kind of union buster and statist that Ronald Reagan couldn’t have been even in his wettest fucking dreams, as were Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc.And after I explain that to you, you shift the discussion from “Marxism tried to take over the world” very seamlessly to “socialism has never succeeded” as if the two were even remotely the same topic.

    Either way, to be a communist/socialist, it takes more than merely proclaiming yourself to be one. The same is true of capitalism, Christianity, Islam, having a big dick, being smart, etc.

    • Like 2
  18. 5 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

    Yeah I do. One gave me anal, they seem alright to me.

    No, but Karl did put it in the foreground, so why can't we use recent travesties that is the USSR, or China now?

     

    1) Because the whole concept of it came up 200 years before the best part of Karl Marx rolled down the crack of his mother’s ass and wound up a brown stain on the mattress.

    2) It’s radically different than what his infantile mind had to say about it.

    3) Even Marx himself would have been completely revolted by the idea of Leninism and Maoism. 
     

    Thus far, everything you’ve said has been laughably and indefensibly wrong, and you seem to think that this is just some circle jerk meant to derive physical gratification. I gave you the opportunity to explain what you meant by that asinine comment made previously, and you failed spectacularly in every way you could fail.

    • Like 1
  19. 10 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

    Tell me where true Communism tried? The proletariat is counting on you comrade. 

    It’s only been attempted on small scales, a la the Israeli kibbutzim and Catalan in Spain during the 1930’s, neither of which were in any remote fashion whored by some dictator who only used those same buzzwords for his own selfish political ambitions.
     

    Catalan fell because it was invaded by a fascist with an army of foreign mercenaries, and the kibbutzim is arguably still alive, though crippled due to economic destabilizations that could be blamed both on them and the State of Israel back in the mid 1990’s. 

    Your use of the buzzwords is curious because it seems to indicate that you’re just another American that thinks socialism/communism is an economic practice that was concocted by Karl Marx in the 19th century and was carried through as a political reality via Vladimir Lenin, which couldn’t be more wrong even if it was phrased as “Karl Marx, the black lesbian nun, had a secret affair with Lenin while Trotsky filmed and Engels fluffed.”

    That you use such confident-sounding verbiage just exposes you as yet another sufferer of the Dunning Kruger effect.

×
×
  • Create New...