Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3454
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. 2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    That's real peace there. All of Gaza is on the sea, but gets no port. Borders with Egypt and Jordan are fully controlled by Israel. And the remaining West Bank is a complete clusterfuck with random "borders" throughout. You'd have to go through like 8 checkpoints to go from the north of the west bank to the south. Which is only about 60 miles. 

    I'm sure all the god-fearing American people would be just fine with that level of sovereignty occurring somewhere like Alabama. Those Alabamans would peacefully accept a deal where Mobile is not allowed a port and also has to go through two checkpoints to send goods to Birmingham while also having Birmingham subdivided into a shitload of security zones. Yep, no Alabaman would ever pick up a gun or a rocket again if they got that deal. 

    Oh great you just inspired another insipid round of “Hamas Charter, PLO Covenant, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, From Time Immemorial, The Case for Israel, blah blah blah.” 

    • Like 1
  2. 4 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

    So he has lightened up and gave some ground to marijuana, and you say as much. Here he even says that it has good medical benefits, so he's giving more ground to it.

    You can believe that he's only citing the worst of the worst cites, but he has changed his stance since the Joe show.

    This all started with someone saying that Joe always agree with his guest, I showed that it's not always the case. We weren't discussing his identity politics.

    No, this started with you asking where he was wrong. And by the way, his full-of-shittery isn't confined to arguments he had with Joe Rogan about marijuana. Pick your issue and you'll see the same problems.

    And even this video isn't really helping you because he still doesn't retreat from his bottom line position. "Lightening up and giving ground" means less than a drop of batshit if your bottom line position remains. At which point in this video, or any others, does he unambiguously state that he's now in favor of marijuana legalization? And at what point did he stop invoking strawman arguments against those who favor legalization?

  3. 14 hours ago, workswithseed said:

    You said that Crowder was being dishonest, I showed you that he noticed he was wrong and he says so in the next video.

    He did no such thing. I didn’t say he was just being dishonest about the one small issue he somewhat corrected himself on, which was the traffic fatalities. I said his position on marijuana in general is dishonest, and that part he did not walk back and he specifically said he wouldn’t in that video you posted.

    Steven Crowder’s position on marijuana is that it should be illegal. He has yet to make a single, coherent, fact-based argument independent of logical fallacies and/or lies in support of this view. All he’s ever done is flail around parroting bullshit. 

    Again, he’s lazy. He takes that position because that’s the position of so-called “conservatives” and when it comes to identity politics, people like him are the absolute worst. 

    • Like 3
  4. 21 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

    Oh, so you believe that there is only one side of opinion, but in the end doesn't care if someone does it anyways?

    The marijuana issue isn’t about opinions, it’s about facts. People like Crowder are not willing to acknowledge those, which is why he offers insipid outs like “I don’t care” as a means to hedge his bet. 

    Everything he said about marijuana was absolutely wrong. He tried to defend it with these ridiculous points about the 7 chemical compounds, but he refused to address Rogan’s central point, which was that the pharmaceutical lobby absolutely has an interest in keep marijuana illegal.

    He cites the magic “7 chemical compounds and which were patented,” and that does nothing whatsoever to undercut Rogan’s point that you cannot patent weed itself. And he’s right; that’s never going to fly in a patent court. Crowder is using a red herring to justify his position, which again he conveniently offers the out that “I don’t care.”

    He says what really grinds his gears about the issue is the lying in favor of legalization. First of all, as far as mainstream discourse, that’s complete crap. Second, the lying that’s been done on marijuana (and drugs in general) has been overwhelmingly made by the Prohibitionist side, it’s not even close, and Crowder can’t be bothered to care. That’s selective outrage in defense of his identity politics. He wants so badly to associate with the right/conservatives/republicans that’s he’s willing to knowingly lie in defense of his lazy-assed rubber stamp “opinions,” which really are just a reflection of his “this is the view of the mainstream of the GOP, therefore it’s my view by default.”

    You can tell that he’s even aware of his own dishonesty. When they get to that spot about how impaired driving accidents “spiked” in states that went the route of legalization, he asserts his view strongly, Rogan tells his boy to pull up the Google and Crowder again interrupts with his insipid out that “he doesn’t care.” That’s just him hedging his bet. If the stats turned out to be correct, he gets to say “see, I told you!” And it the stats didn’t support his view, he gets to say “I don’t care.” There’s nothing wise or honorable about that. That’s just chickenshit hackery.

    He then tries to raise the argument that “well it’s not as beneficial as turmeric or reduced sugar.” That’s a non sequitur. He’s essentially arguing that “it’s not the best method to treat cancer, therefore it’s bad.” That’s irresponsible, and he knows it.

    That entire segment was like watching a root canal. I appreciate your commitment to confusing the issue, though.

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 7
  5. 4 minutes ago, Lobo said:

    I somehow can't help but think this is revenge legislation for so many states having to finally give up allowing gay conversion academies to exist.  

    Well religion has always been about ‘round the clock, 24/7/365 con-jobbing...so yeah that’s probably right. 

    “They won’t let us run con-job F? Fine, we’ll show them!!! We’re gonna run con-job G instead!!!”

  6. 11 hours ago, triplehorn said:

    I'll never forget Sam Alito's reaction here, wincing and mouthing 'that's not true'. 

    we got sold.

    What else would you expect? Alito is a thug.

    10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    It's interesting how pretty evenly divided the donations are between parties.

    Why is it interesting? One party is a haven for, as Bill Maher phrased it, "hedge fund managers, credit card companies, banks, defense contractors, big agriculture, and the pharmaceutical lobby."

    The other party is the Republicans.

    • Like 4
  7. 2 hours ago, heso said:

    And don’t quite get Mitch being so outspoken about coordinating with the White House. 

    what is he gaining by so publicly claiming that he’s creating a sham trial?

    The White House already knew this would be the case, so why announce it to the world?

    He wants to assure Trump that his brunchhole is more inviting than Lindsey Graham's

  8. 3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    where's @TahoeHorn? Remember how terrified you were by these guys?

     

    What's your take on (illegally) masked armed men demonstrating their weapons in the capital of the confederacy on the day we honor the central figure of the black civil rights movement?

    You know full well that he either won’t be anywhere to be found or he’ll gin up some sort of woe-is-us hysteria to miraculously justify it by showing us that this is “totally different.”

  9. 3 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

    I can easily see a close KC win where the Titan defense plays great but the KC offense does just enough.  The Titans blowout is hard to see with the way they play.  

    Yeah the only way that could happen is if KC makes a shitload of turnovers

  10. 9 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

    This isn’t about vengeance or bloodlust no matter how many times HP writes an emotional novel about it. 

    1). You're projecting. Everything that you have posted has been 100% rooted in emotion and emotionalism. If you took out the emotionalism of your posts, you'd wind up with a white screen.

    2). What I've said about it hasn't a drop of influence over what TwiceHorn, hobbes, or anyone else has said to you about this feeble nonsense that you've spewed onto this discussion. They knew it was verbal effluvia before I had word one to say about it.

    3). Yes, it absolutely is about bloodlust and I haven't given a single "emotional novel" on that topic. What I've given is reason and fact-based: you have not defended your claims a single iota about this not being based on a lust for blood. You have danced around this topic since you started, and all you've done in "defense" of your claim is simply to restate it without giving specifics as to how to overcome the very obvious problems of implementing such an abhorrent policy. You've literally been absolutely wrong about absolutely everything you've said regarding this topic, and my emotional temperature has had jack shit to do with it. You knew better than to puke out such garbled drivel. You aren't advancing a serious policy proposal, you aren't advocating a pathway of how to arrive at same, you aren't engaging in a serious dialogue, you are not defending what you say with research and analysis supported by peer review; you are just hooting.

    If you were as certain as you pretend to be that what you "propose" would pan out the way you say it will, and that it would serve as a societal good, you would illustrate the why's and how's, and you'd do so with evidence. You don't do any of that. And if you're going to come back at that comment with "I said it was a fantasy," then leave it there because such an admission is also a confession to its pointlessness and uselessness.

    • Like 1
  11. 3 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

    It’s not blood lust

    The fact that you repeat this lie over and over does nothing to mitigate the claim. This is a label that a DP advocate will never be able to shake: their position is entirely predicated on a  lust for blood. I've seen it done so many times by so many of them, and they have been absolutely wrong about absolutely everything they've said regarding the topic from start to finish. 

    3 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

     It would not be policy based on emotion.

    It's based entirely on emotion. Thus far, you've given no objectively verifiable criteria to serve as a guide to separate the "clear cut" cases from the not-so-obvious. All you've given are vague, empty platitudes. 

    3 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

    my plan

    What you're proposing isn't a plan; it's a wish upon a star. And that's not just rhetoric, either.

    A plan involves an actual plan. A plan includes within it a tangible, feasible, and above all, realistic road map to start where we are end where you, in this case, want to be. You have not done so. Calling what you're talking about a "plan" is as responsible as calling "let's have peace, justice, and equality" a "plan." 

     

×
×
  • Create New...