-
Posts
3456 -
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
-
-
1 hour ago, horn4life said:
I know we provide ex-Presidents with lifetime secret service protection. Does this extend into incarceration in Prison and beyond?
Asking for a friend?
Yes, it does extended to incarcerated persons should that ever happen. It's never happened before and no one quite knows definitively how exactly it would work, but they nonetheless are entitled to it under the FPA. I imagine what would happen is that they'd keep rotating the former president's cell, and he'd just happen to be put in one with a "cellmate" that "just arrived." Either that or they'd put him in solitary that wasn't exactly solitary...
Or most likely, such a former president would suffer the same fate as Charles Logan in the show 24: house arrest at the grandest property that the guy owns. Ankle bracelet with no permissions to ever leave, but a comfortable life of isolation nonetheless.
-
Wrong
in Cloak Room
25 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:Yup. The scary thing was that I considered myself pretty cynical, but it turned out that my general view of the American public was unreasonably optimistic.
The even scarier thing is that Trump isn't even the first TV host we've had as President. He's the 2nd, and he's every bit the disaster as the 1st, as we all should have known he would be.
-
Wrong
in Cloak Room
I think the better question is “what did it for you?”
In other words, what made you realize that you were wrong about these things we’re listing?
I used to be in that camp, too. Trickle down economics, peace through strength, zero tolerance, etc etc. The specific example where I realized egg was on my face was Iraqi WMD’s. I bought that shit hook, line and sinker for a few months...
and then I graduated high school. It wasn’t but 5 weeks into my first semester at Midwestern State that I personally witnessed my roommate being lectured with the Young Republican schtick by some eggheaded dumbass accompanied by some old, white janitor who was poofing off Barry Goldwater talking points regarding some proposal the school had about a new athletics center to be built across the street from the edge of campus. They were going on and on about how one of the professors in the Physical Education department was “getting kickbacks” from such a project and that “my heart bleeds for the kids who are going to have to pay for it.” That was all I needed to hear: conspiracy theories rooted in baseless speculation and deference to a pretend “understanding” of economics. What really buttoned it up for me though was the egghead, who was only 8 months older than me, saying to my roommate “oh you’re just too young. Someday you’ll understand.”
-
1
-
-
53 minutes ago, Fuck Tim Beck said:
Fuck the refs. And fuck Duke
You poor thing
-
On 2/7/2020 at 1:06 PM, pacman said:
Why are the Democrats doing this when the stakes couldn't be higher?
This party seems to only know boobery.
Fuck me, I guess I’ll be the one to say it:
because they would rather one of their corporate candidates lose to Trump in the general election than to get primaried out by a Bernie Sanders. That’s why.
-
5
-
-
1 minute ago, 'stache said:
This stadium seems nice and the perfect size for minor league football. Dallas should play at FC Dallas stadium or maybe even The Star if the Cowboys would oblige (though it may not be possible to change the markings on the field).
That other stadium in Frisco would be a better fit anyways
-
14 hours ago, EMAWesome said:
Actually this is pretty hilarious. I could make a list of at least two dozen posters in this thread alone whose behavior towards anyone who doesn't agree with them is exactly the same as their perceived behavior from Limbaugh that they claim to detest.
If you could do that, you would have done it already.
-
1 hour ago, Bullneck said:
I actually forgot the main point I wanted to make: anecdotal information is now just as good as the Law of Large Numbers.
Oh you already made that point with that fucking Inhoffe pic. “Global climate change isn’t happening!!! I have a snowball!!!
-
4 hours ago, Bullneck said:
Yes. Another explanation is that you take statistically tested, vast reserves of carefully compiled and examined data and counter that with, "It was 46 degrees yesterday in Tulsa, so how can there be such thing as global warming? What happened to the next Ice Age they were predicting? Scientists don't really know anything."
It's funny that you mentioned that because just yesterday I was watching John Oliver's segments on Brexit. One of them contained a clip from a televised interview with Michael Gove, the UK Justice Secretary. The interviewer pointed out that literally every single UK-based and global economic policy groups who studied the inescapable effects of Brexit pointed out that it was going to have a very adverse consequence for the UK and the world, to which Gove said "I think the people in this country have had enough of experts with organizations from acronyms."
Yes, why bother paying attention to findings from people/organizations whose job it is to research and discover those findings when one can simply rectally derive fairy tales and dreams of make believe "prosperity" via posting bullshit on the sides of buses? And just as a side note, what the fuck does "organizations from acronyms" even mean?
-
3
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
11 hours ago, Okie Lite in Zapata said:Negged for being a ignorant piece of shit and not open to anyone else's opinion or idea's.
You'r what's wrong with this country and why we're divided, you're no better than the right wing pieces of shit I hear all day.
I realize this person's been banned, but he's completely wrong about everything he says:
What's wrong with this country is that in intellectual discourse, we've become too permissive and sympathetic towards other people's opinions for the mere sake of it. This is straight out of the Fox News playbook. To borrow a quote from David Brock when he was interviewed for Glenn Greenwald's Outfoxed when he was actually speaking of Roger Ailes but the same holds true for the right wing in general: [they] want all [discussion] to be a matter of opinion because opinion can't be proven false. I think that is very dangerous because if people don't have a set of facts that they can agree upon, I think it's difficult to reach a consensus on what's correct public policy."
Again, Limbaugh is Exhibit A of this vulgar behavior. And again, it's not just him. It's his entire genre. They want all discourse to be a matter of straight out fucking make believe and pretend, and Science forbid if you challenge them on that because if you do, you're slandered and projected with lazy, rubber-stamped accusations of being close-minded, intolerant, and ignorant. For example, saying "trickle down economics works and is a societal good" isn't an opinion; it's a straight up lie that has been exposed over and over again without exception or interruption. But challenge that? Oh boy, here comes the S-word, not that they who use it as a pejorative ever even knew what the fuck it means.
This is postmodernism gone absolutely berserk. According to spineless pieces of shit like this one, there are not supposed to be any facts, there is not supposed to be any truth; all discourse is supposed to come down to your "narrative" vs. my "narrative." It's disgusting, and the person who posted the quoted passage is disgusting for promoting it.
Also, we are not divided because people insist on establishing basic facts/truths upon which to base public policy, either. We're divided because there's a very small segment of the population that wants to divide us and keep us divided so as to distract us from the fact that we're constantly being fucked over by them. The Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Tom Steyer, the Uihleins, etc? Divide and conquer isn't a hypothesis; it's a historic truism that's as old as nation states themselves. They who promote it don't care about ideology, and they sure as fuck don't give a shit about any of us posting here or anywhere else. They care about fattening their own pocketbooks even if it means pouring tens of millions of dollars to political campaigns. As long as it benefits them to stoke the flames of divisiveness via screaming about "socialism/communism" or "fascism," that's what they're going do regardless of its accuracy.
-
14
-
2 hours ago, B00M said:
I heard him several times when Obama was president. He was critical and always questioned motives... so that was my baseline.
The few times I've heard him under Trump, I shouldn't have been, but I was blown away by the complete lack of criticism of Trump. He bent over backwards unlike anyone else to defend Trump and bash the never-Trump conservatives. It's like he was regurgitating the white house talking points and trying to take them a step further.
The last time I heard him he said that conservatives who are pro choice are cowards that don't stand for anything... And that the only people that believe in man made global warming or that man can make the earth uninhabitable don't believe in God like he does. If you believe in God and love the Earth he created, you would know it's impossible for man to destroy it. Then he said something about the Green New Deal boiling down to taxing cow farts and I had to turn it off.
I hope he fully recovers, but I hope he retires because there are too many boomers that truly believe what he says.
You're right. You shouldn't have been blown away by that.
Limbaugh is Exhibit A of an idiot whose political views are functionally no different than what football team you like. He made his entire career being a jingoistic shock jock and based on the very few soundbites I suffered (and articles I read), the tenor of his show changes massively when either Congress and/or the Executive crosses party lines. He's a boot-lacer when the DNC is in charge and a bootlicker when the GOP is in charge. It's like watching professional wrestling with the babyface/heel commentators...except it's just him.
What's particularly shocking, however, is the following he's been able to accumulate over the years in spite of the fact that he doesn't really know anything. There's a reason that he and people like him don't participate in public debates with respectable figures: they know full well that they'd wind up like the Fred March character near the end of Inherit The Wind: a pathetic, defeated man with egg on his face and his tail between his legs. That's also why he does his show just by himself: he can only survive on one-way conversations. He'd get regularly pummeled in two-way formats against anyone even moderately informed, and for the same reason I just said: he is so wildly uninformed about actual political issues and can only offer bumper sticker slogans.
-
3
-
-
On 2/5/2020 at 10:30 AM, Bevo VIII said:
Please name a rule change in the past 5-10-15-20-25 years that have benefited defenses before giving me this “oh poor offenses” shit.
I don't say "poor offenses." What I said is "poor defenses" is a myth, and it is. You knew that already, but to answer your challenge, I can name at least four:
https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2016/3/23/11288894/nfl-rules-changes-chop-blocks-cut-blocks-legal-illegal-explanation
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2019/03/26/nfl-blindside-blocks-outlawed-banned-rules/3278646002/
https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2008/4/2/16112/65451
-Prior to 1999, clipping was actually legal if it was done around the LOS. It's now illegal everywhere. This isn't the same as the newer chop block rules as clipping is a 1-on-1 block where as chops are combo blocks.I suppose you could argue "player safety" in defense of the enactments of some of those rules, but you'd have to do that for these rules that you complain "favor offenses," and then what are you left with?
-
4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:
You sound like you’re glad Trump is still our president
I just told you that there were better charges to stick him with. You need to pump the brakes on that. In fact I’ve got archived Facebook Live videos (weekly thing I do) on which I’ve categorically stated Trump should be tried for war crimes, convicted, and executed, so I’m certain that I’ve been a far harsher critic of his than you have.
Quoteblame the dems for everything
Such as?
QuoteGary Johnson voter?
Gary Johnson is a moron.
I voted Bernie in the primary of 2016, plan to do it again in a few weeks, and voted Hillary in the general.
Was there anything else?
-
6 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:
Romney voting to convict has significance because he is in fact actually fucking right.
So is a broken watch twice a day.
QuoteIt robs trump of his partisan bullshit argument
You’re mistaken if you think that either Trump won’t peddle it all the same, that his minions in the GOP and on Fox News won’t peddle them all the same, and/or that it’ll have any meaningful effect this coming November. As others have said, so many voters will forget the whole thing when that comes around. In fact, Romney himself will undo his vote by endorsing Trump. He might do it very quietly, or maybe he’ll even take the “brave” step of not endorsing anyone, but he sure as shit isn’t endorsing the DNC nominee.
Quoteit takes away the corrupt GOP of their cover
Whose mind did he change?
Quoteand it gives cover to the vulnerable dems who voted to do that right thing. What is your deal here minimizing this?
I’m not minimizing. You’re maximizing. Hell if it were up to me and I had to impeach trump, I wouldn’t have even wasted my time with this Ukraine business. There were other avenues that they could have pursued and the Democrats chose not to. I wonder why.
-
5 minutes ago, formermav43 said:
But no Democrat voted to convict. It’s imprecisely stated, but that’s what he was driving at.
And it’s still not much of an accomplishment. A single GOP senator voting to convict is kinda like someone in Hawaii voting for David Duke as president. Yeah they could do it, but let’s not pretend it’s of any significance.
1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:You don’t caucus with a party that kicked you out. C’mon.
You assume he has principles. He doesn’t.
-
1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:
hypothetically couldn't romney just become an independent? he might want to do that anyway. further erode Moscow Mitch's razor thin majoirty
Even if he did, he’d be an independent that caucused with them...kinda like Bernie and Angus with the DNC
-
-
3 minutes ago, formermav43 said:
As a start. I mean, you’re being facetious, but at minimum, he’ll make his life as unpleasant as he possibly can. I think that’s a tangible consequence.
Again, what exactly can Trump/the GOP actually do?
Romney is a multi-millionaire senator who presides over a seat that hasn’t belonged to a democrat since January of 1977.
Trump, as well as the GOP, literally has nothing to threaten him with. He’s rich and the Mormons fucking love him. This is a guy who carried Utah in the 2012 election with a percentage that rivaled Reagan’s in 1984.
In the Senate midterm election, facing the so called Blue Wave, he still managed to capture nearly 2/3rds of the vote. The only way that Mitt Romney loses that seat is if he retires or dies. He’s not getting voted out and he won’t face expulsion either. And even if they could manage to get him out, he’s not going to be suffering. Again, the guy’s net worth is somewhere in the $200 million range, and he cares about that more than he does being a senator.
3 minutes ago, formermav43 said:You could just as easily turn it around anyway: what happens if Trump is removed? There is still a Republican President. In your alternate reality, there’s a Democratic supermajority, so the President isn’t accomplishing anything anyway. So why would he act differently?
The only thing rich fucks like that care about is their legacy since there’s nothing else to really worry about. He wouldn’t want to be known as the deciding vote, and in that alternate reality, he would be.
I appreciate your willingness to concede the pettiness and vindictiveness of that party, but let’s not kid ourselves into believing that this was some brave act of heroism. It wasn’t. If he was as principled as you’re making him out to be, he would announce today that he’s switching parties. Watch him do exactly not that. Watch him, instead, take to Twitter how fucking great he thinks Rush Limbaugh is...oh wait, he already did that.
-
5 minutes ago, formermav43 said:
I’m not seeing the logic here. Knowing how vindictive Trump is, it seems every bit as dangerous-arguably more dangerous-to vote for his conviction knowing that he will still be in power.
What’s Trump going to do to him? Call him a bad name? Ridicule his magic underpants religion?
-
48 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:
I will raise a glass to Mitt Romney tonight.
I won’t.
Mitt is a coward and always has been. The only reason he voted to acquit on the abuse charge is because the outcome was already secured. If the balance of the Senate was Bernie, King plus 64 Democrats and 34 Republicans, there’s no fucking way in hell Mitt Romney votes guilty on either charge today.
-
22 minutes ago, Brothahorn said:
Of course there is no such interaction without the human element. But when you can move/isolate the worst of the human elements, it runs as planned.
Not me.
Agree as well. I'm sure the original ideals never meant for the estimated millions of deaths that it caused. But then some asshole came along and manipulated the system to fit his greed.
The original ideals meant specifically for the state to be dismantled. Kinda missed the mark on day one...and that’s granting the generous assumption that they weren’t just whoring a word for selfish political benefit (kinda like when republicans yell about fiscal responsibility, capitalism, freedom and conservatism).
-
Yeah, you're looking at one particular rule, which btw is kind of pathetic because the very article you're quoting is about enforcing rules already in the book, not creating new ones. Regardless, I'm talking about the whole entire picture.
-Offensive players have to be perfectly still, sans one person who’s permitted to run parallel to the LOS, until the ball is snapped unless it’s an arranged shift that has to cease a full count before the snap.
-Offenses can only employ 5 eligible pass receivers.
-Offenses can only send those eligible pass receivers beyond the LOS if the pass is thrown beyond the LOS (i.e. no OL downfield).
-Offenses have to have exactly 7 players on the LOS at the timing of the snap, and they have to do so in a particular way (i.e. no “covering up”)
-Offensive players have to wear particular jersey numbers so as to explain their “eligibility” regarding pass receptions, and they also have to report said eligibility in instances where an exception is made.
These are just 5 examples, but the important thing is that there isn’t any symmetry.
-There’s no symmetry with a false start penalty. A lot of people think offsides/encroachment is, but it's really not when you think about it. A defensive player could jump damn near into the backfield and it’s ok as long as he gets back by the time the ball is snapped. False start isn’t the same. False start is “come out of your stance and the play is dead.” Yeah encroachment is an automatic dead ball foul, but it still involves a preceding act (merely crossing the LOS) in order to get to that, and that act would already be penalized if it was the offense. In other words, you don't have to look at whether or not an OL touched a DL in order to call a false start. He already moved. Contact isn't relevant there.
-Defenses aren’t limited to the number of people that can penetrate the LOS. You could rush all 11 if you wanted (you’d be a damned fool in the age of the spread, but you are allowed to do it).
-Defenses don’t have to line up in any particular fashion other than “everyone has to be behind the LOS.” They can line up with 11 men on the LOS and they can line up with 0 men on the LOS. There’s no such thing as “illegal defensive formation.”
-Defenses don't have to fucking announce who their blitzers are prior to the play. In fact, the better disguised, the better the play tends to end up for them. Can anyone imagine what would happen if the offense was allowed to tell the refs that all 5 of the OL are the eligible receivers and neither the WR's nor the backs are eligible, AND that the refs wouldn't have to tell the defense about this?
And notice, some of these rules are only applicable to the American 11-man leagues. In the Arena and Canadian leagues, for example, they’re allowed to send WR’s full speed towards the LOS and the only time they’re gonna call a foul is if they cross the LOS prior to the snap. Can you imagine if that became the law of the NCAA? The SEC’s collective head would explode and the B1G would call a press conference. In the NFL, you’d see scoring averages go up by at least 10 points per team per game.
Defenses were given a free ride in the beginning of the game, and little by little, minor chips and cuts have been made and they always react hysterically when it happens. “OMG DPI IS A SPOT FOUL IN THE NFL NOW???NOWAI!!!”
-
5 minutes ago, Bevo VIII said:
Exactly so many of the rules already favor offense
That's a myth
-
15 hours ago, Iceman said:
and if it's a 15 yarder automatically, get ready for a parade of DPI penalties. You might as well institute a "5- fouls and you are disqualified" policy.
I like the spot foul at the NFL level. It serves a purpose.
This. Defenses don't deserve to gain 25+ yards by committing PI's 40 yards beyond the LOS. If you don't want the penalty, learn how to fucking cover better. That's what the defensive-minded pansies are always saying about the QB/OL. "Well if you don't us to be awarded 2 points automatically, stop committing intentional grounding/holding penalties in your own end zone!!!"
How would Presidential protection laws work for an Ex_President in Prison?
in Cloak Room
Posted
You thought you did well. lol